Their lips are moving. (Or their fingers are moving over a keyboard. Either way).
This blog has spent the better part of a decade exposing and illuminating the lies of Minnesota gun control advocates like Heather Martens, Dakota County Attorney Jim Backstrom, and former Senators Jane Ranum, Wes “Lying Sack of Filth” Skoglund, Ellen Anderson, and the like.
But I had a blast from the past over the weekend.
Senator Diane Feinstein of California appeared on the Chris Wallace show on Sunday.
Feinstein has been a kicktoy of the pro-Human-Rights movement for over twenty years – since I first got involved, really.
She’s an epic hypocrite on the issue, like so many gun control advocates. When she was mayor of San Francisco, she revoked all civilian carry permits…
…but only after she had the police issue her a special “police” permit that was exempt from her own decree. Even as she worked to disarm San Franciscans, she carried a revolver with her.
Because while the average villein’s citizen’s life was of no value and unworthy of defense, and incompetent to do it himself, Diane Feinstein was, in Diane Feinstein’s judgment, both worthy and competent. (Chuck “Chuckles” Schumer and Barbara “Stupidest Person In The Senate” Boxer are similarly hypocrites; gun banners with carry permits).
Anyway – she appeared with Wallace yesterday. She claimed that one out of five cops who are killed in the US are killed “by the same type of weapon” used in the Aurora massacre.
She’s lying, naturally.
The weapon getting all the attention in this shooting is the AR-15 – a semi-automatic civilian version of the Army’s M-16 and M-4 rifles.
(And Holmes’ AR-15 apparently jammed before an indeterminate number of shots fired, which is also similar to the military versions, which have been derided as famously jam-prone for almost as long as they’ve been in service). Holmes then apparently switched to a shotgun and one of a number of Glock pistols he had – like an amazing number of utterly law-abiding Americans).
Feinstein – called “Feinswine” by human-rights advocates who’ve been trying to draw the “media fact-checkers'” attention to her for two decades, now – is using a rhetorical dodge built into American gun laws by the 1994 Crime Bill that, theoretically, classified almost any weapon larger than a revolver as an “Assault Weapon”. The term “assault weapon” is almost entirely devoid of technical meaning; it “means” essentially any weapon that looks menacing and has a magazine (“clip” for rookies and videogamers) capacity over 10 rounds.
So during the nadir of the “Assault Weapon” ban, it’s meant large-capacity semi-authomatic pistols…:
…or my own SIG P250, with its 12 round magazine:
So this is Feinstein’s rhetorical sleight of hand; she’s using a definition of ‘Assault Weapon” that is intentionally as broad as it can be made, to rope in as many otherwise-fairly-normal firearms as possible.
Because that’s what the left wants to control and eventually ban – as many as possible now, and everything else later.