The assault weapons ban proposed by senator Dianne Feinstein will not be passed by the senate. That's today's news in gun control. But how can that be? I thought after the Newtown massacre that everyone in America wanted to ban assault weapons. Right? Apparently, everyone wanted to ban assault weapons, but that was only everyone in the media. Beyone that, the support was just not that great.
But it was the Republicans who were against the bill, right? The Democrats were thwarted by those evil GOP senators; we all know that. Well not really. According to the latest news, Feinstein's bill to ban assault weapons was not going to get even 40 votes in the senate. What that means is that fully one-third of the senate Democrats were against it at a minimum.
To say the least, this is the proper outcome for the emotional outburst that followed the Newtown killings. Under the latest Supreme Court decisions, the Constitution provides that Congress does not have the power to ban most of the so-called assault weapons. Further, we know that during the last assault weapons ban, there was no real decline in the number of gun related killings. The assault weapons ban is just another of those programs that progressives love but which have no positive effect on the problem at which they are directed.
Less than a week ago, senator Feinstein took umbrage at being asked by senator Cruz of Texas whether or not her proposal was constitutional. She took his view that the constitution barred her bill as some sort of "lecture" directed at her. In response, she castigated Cruz and told him that she had seen people who had been shot. It was as if Feinstein pronounced herself a nutritionist because she had seen fat people or if she had pronouced herself a doctor because she had watched her mother die from some illness. The truth is that Feinstein's bill and her position was an emotional response, not a rational one. It serves no purpose to pass a ban which would have no effect on crime and which would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Let's hope that this nonsense is done for now.
But it was the Republicans who were against the bill, right? The Democrats were thwarted by those evil GOP senators; we all know that. Well not really. According to the latest news, Feinstein's bill to ban assault weapons was not going to get even 40 votes in the senate. What that means is that fully one-third of the senate Democrats were against it at a minimum.
To say the least, this is the proper outcome for the emotional outburst that followed the Newtown killings. Under the latest Supreme Court decisions, the Constitution provides that Congress does not have the power to ban most of the so-called assault weapons. Further, we know that during the last assault weapons ban, there was no real decline in the number of gun related killings. The assault weapons ban is just another of those programs that progressives love but which have no positive effect on the problem at which they are directed.
Less than a week ago, senator Feinstein took umbrage at being asked by senator Cruz of Texas whether or not her proposal was constitutional. She took his view that the constitution barred her bill as some sort of "lecture" directed at her. In response, she castigated Cruz and told him that she had seen people who had been shot. It was as if Feinstein pronounced herself a nutritionist because she had seen fat people or if she had pronouced herself a doctor because she had watched her mother die from some illness. The truth is that Feinstein's bill and her position was an emotional response, not a rational one. It serves no purpose to pass a ban which would have no effect on crime and which would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Let's hope that this nonsense is done for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment