In a Sunday interview on Meet the Press, Dianne Feinstein spoke on the massacre in Las Vegas and related gun-grabbing issues. She’s pitching her own piece of legislation which has 38 Democrat co-sponsors, no Republicans, that would ban bump stocks.
Feinstein says that regulations alone aren’t enough for her as they can be changed from one administration to the next. She wants a law. Asked to explain the increased sales of bump stocks following the Las Vegas shooting, Feinstein says she doesn’t know what to make of it.
Clearly those who want one sense that a ban is likely, it’s tough for Feinstein to figure out probably in large part because she’s a Democrat and she doesn’t want to.
Feinstein then goes on to name every group that she could think of as groups Paddock didn’t fit into, to illustrate the unique, hard to explain nature of this crime. She says he was “a well-to-do man, he wasn’t mentally ill, he wasn’t a criminal, he wasn’t a juvenile, he wasn’t a gang-banger.”
Was he a recent convert to Islamic terrorism, Senator or is that still on the “no-mention” list, part of the conversation safe-zone you Democrats have created for our would-be conquerors you’re importing?
Saying that this could have happened to anyone, John Dickerson asks, “Could there have been any law that would have stopped it?” Feinstein replies, “No, he passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions.”
So all of these Democrat calls for the already required background checks, in the wake of this horrific event, would have done nothing. She admits Paddock passed them. The bump stock ban is important to Dems as a next step down the slippery slope of gun bans. They hope to expand it and create momentum.
Nobody asks how much the loss of life might have been reduced if the security officers at Mandalay Bay had been armed. What if the casino staff had been able to counter the threat from within the property, if it hadn’t been converted into one big safe-zone for terrorists?
Could that meeting of force with force potentially have been a life saver, as it often is? Or were they better off to face semi-automatic rifles and bump stock conversions unarmed? Armed with pistols, there could have been the potential for a response or a fortuitous situation in which a security officer might have been able to intervene effectively.
As it was, they had no choice but to helplessly wait for help like the rest of the victims. She says she hopes this is the time that the American people say “enough is enough – Congress do something.” Even if it’s totally ineffective and only targets lawful gun owners, do something? Take that next step towards disarmament. Give the state the power to do to all Americans what this evil individual did to 58.
Thank you for reading and sharing my work – Please look for me, Rick Wells at https://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/, https://gab.ai/RickRWells, https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RickwellsUs and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US – not dot com, and also follow me on Twitter @RickRWells.