Moonbat Dianne Feinstein said Sunday what we all knew to be true. That there is no law that would’ve stopped the terrorist who opened fire on concertgoers in Las Vegas earlier this month.
“Could there have been any law passed that would’ve stopped him?” CBS News “Face the Nation” Host John Dickerson asked the California Democrat.
“No, he passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions,” Sen. Feinstein replied.
Correct. No law would’ve stopped this crazed individual. We all agree on that. So, then, why the heck is she pushing to pass more gun laws in the wake of this tragedy? Specifically, the Automatic Gun Fire Prevention Act.
Does Feinstein really believe that banning bump stocks and other accessories will prevent bad guys from procuring whatever firearm and firearm accessories they want?
The Vegas shooter reportedly had millions of dollars at his disposal. And, as she alluded to, no criminal history. He could’ve purchased any firearm he wanted — including those restricted by the National Firearms Act. He didn’t even need to go to the dark web or the black market like most criminals.
Why then does she pretend that banning bump stocks will make a difference? It won’t. Anyone with any experience shooting them will tell you that it is more of a novelty than an effective weapon.
Feinstein’s targeting bump stocks now because she sees an opening to get something, anything passed. The fact that the ban will be useless when it comes to reducing gun-related violence and preventing mass killings is irrelevant.
It’s about priming the pumps for an all-out gun grab, as another California Democrat noted recently.
“They’re going to say, ‘You give them bump stock, it’s going to be a slippery slope.’ I certainly hope so,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters.
The Automatic Gun Fire Prevention Act has garnered “Republican interest,” according to Feinstein.
“We have Republican interest. I have nobody lined up, we have 38 cosponsors, they’re all Democratic,” she explained. “We’ve had individuals that have indicated an interest and particularly for a hearing.”