Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California is a long-time gun control crusader. She has pushed for anti-gun regulations time after time ever since she first took office. So, the idea that she’s at it again shouldn’t really shock anyone.
However, Feinstein’s latest attempt to push gun control in the aftermath of a tragic shooting in her home state, while unsurprising, is equal parts tone-deaf and absurd.
The shooting in Sacramento this weekend isn’t an isolated event.
It’s the latest in an epidemic of gun violence that continues to plague our country.
Enough is enough.
Congress knows what steps must be taken to stop these mass shootings, we just have to act. pic.twitter.com/uRAbAPIzXf
— Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) April 4, 2022
In the statement included with the tweet, Feinstein acknowledged that there’s a lot we still don’t know. The investigation, as of this writing, is still ongoing.
That lack of knowledge, however, doesn’t dissuade the long-time senator from calling for universal background checks, magazine restrictions, assault weapon bans, and a ban on so-called ghost guns.
Almost all of which already exist in California… as Feinstein should be well aware. I mean, she represents the state—and has since 1992!
For all the rhetoric about how we need to “do something,” gun control advocates continue to ignore the fact that this shooting happened in the most gun-controlled state in the nation. What’s more, it’s actually the second mass shooting in Sacramento in a little more than a month.
If California’s gun control laws work so well that they should be enacted throughout the nation, then why didn’t they work either time in Sacramento? If expansive gun rights were the real problem, why didn’t this take place somewhere like Austin, Texas?
Feinstein, however, is short of answers to these basic questions. That’s not overly surprising.
In the aftermath of any mass shooting, the gun control crowd fires up the recordings calling for whatever their pet policies are. They often do so while completely ignoring the reality of the incident that just occurred. That includes inconvenient facts like how the one firearm recovered from the scene was reportedly stolen, thus skirting pesky little things like background checks or bans.
In doing so, they use the bodies of the slain as their own personal soapboxes, oblivious to anything and everything but the opportunity to advance their agenda.
Of course, I understand being emotional in the wake of a mass shooting. Especially if you’ve been touched by such violence. I lost a dear friend in the Cafe Racer shooting in Seattle back in 2012. I know better than most.
But emotion doesn’t give anyone license to their own facts—especially if they’re a senator.
The truth of the matter is that until we know more about just what happened, any policy discussion is premature. What we do know, however, suggests that Feinstein’s objectives are completely and totally off-base.