Credit: Washington Post
On January 24, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) trotted out her latest anti-freedom dog and pony show:
“Hoping to clearly demonstrate the exact types of weapons they’re seeking to ban, congressional Democrats displayed 10 military-style assault weapons Thursday at one of the most elaborately-staged news events in recent Capitol Hill history.
But considering the District of Columbia’s ban on assault weapons, where did they get the guns and how did they get them in the building? It’s an especially pertinent question considering the recent controversy involving NBC’s “Meet the Press,” which displayed a large ammunition magazine in its District studio during a recent episode without the consent of the D.C. Police Department. The incident prompted an investigation, but no charges were filed.”
As the Washington Post reported, Sen. Feinstein’s office enlisted the help of the D.C. Police to provide weapons they could display. Feinstein also released a list of some 150 specific firearms she wants banned (courtesy of the Daily Caller). However, from the photos of the weapons displayed, it would appear that Feinstein was continuing the long gun-banner tradition–a tradition of which she has always been an enthusiastic cheerleader–of misleading the public.
Feinstein wants to ban common and innocuous firearms, of course, and those she displayed were among the most common and least used in crime. They were obviously carefully chosen to be scary to those who don’t know better, and also to give the impression they were fully automatic weapons. To many, an “Uzi,” an “AR-15” or an “AK-47” are machineguns and there is no difference between them and their semiautomatic versions. There were:
(1) Three AR-15 carbines, two with attached slings and what appear to be standard 30 round magazines, and one with what appears to be a mounted holosight and two 30 round magazines taped together to make them appear to be much longer.
(2) One AR-15 rifle, also with an attached sling and a 30 round magazine.
(3) A Hi-Point carbine, caliber unknown (these are pistol caliber carbines), also apparently with a sling.
(4) An AK-47 clone of some kind.
(5) What appears to be a Beretta Storm carbine–pistol caliber–with a red dot sight of some kind and a fore grip, as well as what appear to be some other accessories of some kind attached to the fore end of the weapon.
(6) What appears to be a Tec-9 type pistol, a crude, inaccurate, unwieldy pistol styled to look like a sort of submachine gun (oddly, there was no visible magazine).
(7) An Uzi Carbine with a 16-inch barrel, betraying its semiautomatic action. These haven’t been available since George H.W. Bush made a ban on their importation permanent in 1989.
(8) What appears to be an unconventional shotgun of some kind with what appears to be a large drum magazine attached to its left side. Available photos of the weapon are not sufficiently clear to identify it more precisely, but it was obviously included for its large magazine.
Only 2.6% of all murders are committed with any type of rifle, and rifles similar to those displayed by Sen. Feinstein are used in less than 1% of all shootings. One might be tempted, in the cause of scrupulous fairness, to give Sen. Feinstein the benefit of the doubt in her choice of weaponry–surely these were merely random firearms taken from the DC Police Evidence lockers?–but she and her allies have far too long and despicable a record of misleading the public on this issue. The message she and her colleagues obviously intended to send is “Oh no! Look at all the evil and deadly machine gun/assault weapons!”
In reality, every weapon displayed (I’m not sure about the odd looking shotgun-type thing) was either a pistol caliber carbine (in the case of the Tech 9, that’s sort of in a class by itself) or among the most common and widely owned intermediate caliber carbines on the market, and almost certainly, all semiautomatic, not fully automatic. Failing to disclose that fact alone illustrates Feinstein’s lack of honesty and her ill intent.
This is just one more reason to remember that gun banners never rest and can never be satisfied. Despite suggestions that the current anti-gun legislation might not be able to pass the current Congress, it would be wise for those who wish to preserve liberty not to lower their guard and to redouble their efforts. The actions of the D.C. Police indicate clearly that those who would ignore or destroy the Constitution will always have willing, even eager, allies among the nation’s police forces.
Oh yes, government officials like Feinstein and her allies will be exempt from the gun ban she hopes to impose on the common denizens of flyover country. This must be more of the kind of “equality” Sen. Feinstein and her ilk are constantly trying to force upon Americans.
Mike,
The intent is obvious to most thinking US citizens and a whole lot of people out side of the United States. The intent is to create a populous which can’t defend against any military. The real give-away is the exemption of government officials from this ban. I think the next meme will be that any citizen who wants to own these “scary guns” is actually fostering revolution.
They really do fear us, don’t they?
Joel,
Which government officials would be exempt? I assume military and police. Is that stated in the legislation?
Dear Carol:
Good to see you back, as always. The law apparently reads: “…any weapons used by government officials and law enforcement…” In other words, virtually any “government official,” which would surely mean our congressional masters, and apparently, all state and local officials as well. This appears to be a means of arming government while disarming the populace. What a surprise.
Great, insightful piece, Mike. Joel’s correct: The real intent is to neutralize the populace and ensure submission to the U.N. “bans” on weapons, clearing the way for unopposed transference of wealth to more “worthy” nations, and the subjugation of Americans. Only when we are truly reduced to what the elites believe is “our proper place” will they be satisfied. It’s tyrants versus liberty. Again.
Truthfully, I don’t see this legislation going anywhere. Our government can’t even control drugs in this country (& I don’t think they should) so they certainly will never be able to control gun ownership. One only has to look at the billions that our government has wasted trying to control drugs and 40 years later drugs are cheaper and more plentiful than ever. Should the government try to control guns we will see an ever worse result. Every time there is a mass shooting, gun and ammunition sales skyrocket. Even ‘talk’ of legislation to control gun purchases sends the sales up.
Prohibition, War on Drugs and now War on Guns. As with Prohibition, the American people will not tolerate these infringements on their rights. Prohibition was repealed, the War on Drugs is a total failure and will eventually end up in the dust bin of history, and the 2nd Amendment will always withstand the battering of the ignorant.
“the American people will not tolerate these infringements on their rights.”
“and the 2nd Amendment will always withstand the battering of the ignorant.”
Really, Carol?
Tell me, do you travel using commercial airlines?
Retire 2005,
I absolutely DO use commercial airlines, but I do so by choice. No law requires me to fly. Yes, there is legislation that gives broad powers to Homeland Security to regulate what items may be taken on commercial flights. However, the regulations are fluid (no pun intended!). When we elect a new President, resignations are submitted by department heads and all ‘political’ appointments can be removed easily. Thus, when voters place a new President in office, he in turn fills the cabinet with his choices. At will, a new Head of Homeland Security can change the ‘rules’.
My 15 oz. bottle of shampoo can suddenly be acceptable. No legislation is required to do that.
I sincerely believe that Congress will not pass a law that would ban weapons in this country. That said, I agree with Mike that it is vital that individuals speak out and keep the pressure on their representatives in Congress so that ‘the people’ are heard. I think that Mike’s description (below) is an excellent example of what I was trying to say when I stated, “…and the 2nd Amendment will always withstand the battering of the ignorant.” It withstands the battering because of individual citizens who work so very hard to preserve the integrity of all our Amendments.
Dear Carol:
I hope you’re right, but I suspect we’ll keep our liberties only if a sufficient number of us are always on guard, realizing that there are always enemies of liberty hard at work, in the population and in the Congress. We did lose Second Amendment freedoms for a decade and were able to beat back those who would steal freedom and frighten them for a time when that infringement was not renewed, but they are back again, as they always will be.
I’m inherently optimistic, but when fundamental freedoms are at stake, less so.
Dear Mike,
First of all, thank you for the quote from the legislation. You are certainly correct that the intent is to disarm all but government ‘officials’. That, of course, has been a dream of the far left from day one!
You are absolutely correct when you say, “…I suspect we’ll keep our liberties only if a sufficient number of us are always on guard,…”. The need for individuals to keep pressure on the Congress is the only way in which we will save all of our freedoms. My fear is that as our population becomes less and less educated, we simply are not producing individuals who understand our Constitution, nor are they willing to fight for our rights as citizens. It is, indeed, up to individuals like you, to make sure the voices of freedom are heard. I pray that the next generation will do the same, but “my” inherent optimism is fading.
Dear Carol:
Thanks for your faith in me, but it’s up to folks like you too. Good to be in brave company.