Skip to content

Dianne Feinstein admits no gun laws would have stopped the Las Vegas shooter

October 8, 2017

  Last week I purposely stayed away from politicizing the Las Vegas shooting because I find it distasteful to say the least to use such a tragedy to promote a political ideology. I found what I saw on social media from both sides of the isle to be downright disgusting and distasteful. The one exception I made was in regards to a CBS executive who said she had no sympathy for the victims because they were most likely Republicans. That is just sick and could not be ignored…

  Naturally both sides dug in and began to use this horrible event to either defend or attack the second amendment, showing no sympathy for the victims or their families. Hillary Clinton came out almost immediately and called for a ban on “silencers” even though there is no such thing. There are noise “suppressors” but unlike the way they are portrayed in Hollywood movies they do no silence weapons. This was an emotional argue not based in fact.

  There was also a call for a ban on “bump stocks” even though most people had never heard of a bump stock before the shooting. Another emotional response, bump stocks are more of a novelty item than anything else.

  I would also say that most of the people who are calling for a ban on all semi-automatic weapons do not realize this would ban nearly every single weapon sold today, with the exception of revolvers and pump and bolt action shot guns and rifles, or maybe they do…

  I still find it distasteful to write about but now the debate is in full swing and I find it too hard to ignore at this point so here we go.

 Dianne Feinstein appeared on Face the Nation earlier today and she admitted that there were no gun control laws which could have been passed which would have stopped the Las Vegas shooter. Here is more:

“No,” Feinstein responded. “He passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions.”

  But yet she is still an advocate for gun control so one has to ask why. Is it because she feels the need to pass something, even if the something amounts to nothing so she can feel good about what she has done, or is it because the gun control debate is really about people control?

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

6 Comments leave one →
  1. Brittius permalink
    October 9, 2017 3:27 am

    Reblogged this on Brittius.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. October 9, 2017 2:17 pm

    Of course she’d say that. But take away her ‘armed security’ and see what she says! She’s part of the “Hypocrite Brigade” do on to other before they do onto you! She probably has ‘stock and dividends’ in the backscatter machines production, they’re already preparing to put into Law. The Lawless running the show… one day “naught” thought ~ Thank GOD!
    Proverbs 6:12 A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth.
    Proverbs 17:4 A wicked doer giveth heed to false lips; and a liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue.

    Liked by 1 person

    • October 9, 2017 7:02 pm

      Yeah, ask her to give up her armed guards and she will make the claim that because of her position she needs them. As if her life is any more valuable than anyone else’s.

      Liked by 1 person

    • October 9, 2017 7:06 pm

      There is no doubt that all the politicians are bought and paid for and are acting in their own interest and not the interest of the people.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: