The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: txradioguy on September 06, 2018, 01:16:44 PM
-
In trying and failing to corner Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on guns, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., ended up confirming what Second Amendment advocates believe about “assault weapon” bans: They’re usually based on flawed talking points and written by and for people who either don’t understand or choose to ignore the facts about guns and the Second Amendment.
Feinstein’s foible came during the same line of questioning on Tuesday in which she got caught fudging the facts about school shootings.
It all has to do with the understanding of “dangerous and unusual” firearms versus those in “common use” that Justice Antonin Scalia wrote about in the landmark D.C. v. Heller case in 2008.
Basically, Feinstein went after Kavanaugh’s dissent from a ruling that upheld D.C.’s so-called “assault weapons” ban that outlawed semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. Kavanaugh said that these firearms should be protected under the Heller precedent. “Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses.”
Feinstein tried to argue that the AR-15 (the most popular rifle in the country) isn’t in common use because of how she thinks people use it.
As David French explains in greater detail at National Review, there is a difference between the active and passive use of firearms, but both count toward “common use.” The simple act of having a gun in the home for self-defense is indeed a passive use of that firearm. Just because I’m not taking a particular firearm hunting or to the shooting range on a regular basis doesn’t mean I’m not using it.
Under Feinstein’s logic, the only guns that would be protected would therefore be those that we actively use for hunting or recreational shooting on a regular basis. However, the Framers’ right to keep and bear arms, set forth in the Second Amendment, wasn’t informed by their run-ins with white-tailed deer, clay pigeons, or paper targets.
In short, if you actually understand the issues behind gun laws and guns themselves, the exchange was a train wreck.
But given Feinstein’s line of questioning, there are three options here: Either she’s intentionally gaslighting the American people about firearms, this is what she legitimately believes, or it’s some combination of the two.
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/dianne-feinstein-proves-what-2nd-amendment-supporters-have-long-known-about-gun-control-laws/
-
Feinstein is an 80+-year-old career politician who is desperately trying to stay relevant.
And utterly fails at everything she sets out to do.
Which is, I believe, why her own party has abandoned her -- ostensibly because she isn't liberal enough, but I'd suggest the real reason is she's missed the boat so often that she doesn't even buy a ticket anymore. Therefore, her constituency has locked up the cash box and closed the ticket window.
Dianne -- go home, you're drunk.