September 8, 2012
#gunvote: The ‘Forward’ Momentum of Backward Ideas
First, the Democrats have codified a desire for an ban on modern sporting rifles in their party platform — as we noted in an earlier post. And now Sen. Dianne Feinstein has confirmed that she will lead the charge.
A news article from Southern California public radio proudly proclaims that “Dianne Feinstein announced Wednesday that she’s re-entering the battle over gun control during her keynote speech to the California delegates to the Democratic National Convention . . . She promised California delegates she’d return to Congress to reintroduce ‘an updated assault weapons bill.'”
An “updated” ban surely means an expanded ban, sweeping in millions more of commonly owned firearms, and without the pesky sunset provision that proved the undoing of the original federal ban. There is also no doubt that Feinstein will attempt to be more aggressive in banning ammunition magazines by eliminating any “grandfather” provision.
There is no daylight between Feinstein and Obama on this issue. At the delegates’ breakfast, she said that, “Weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our classrooms, in our schools or in our movie theatres.” In his most recent remarks, Obama said that semi-automatic rifles “belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.” Same rhetoric, same agenda.
And while the national media swooned over another long-winded speech performance by the former president, the rest of us remember that it was President Clinton who fought for and signed the original ban in 1994. Perhaps it is the prospect of resurrecting his signature gun ban law that turned Clinton from an aggressive opponent of Barack Obama in 2008 to a fervid supporter in 2012.
When “forward” actually means “backward,” gun owners know to turn the other direction.