It took an anti-gun veteran like Diane Feinstein almost no time to run off a bill to outlaw bump fire stocks and introduce it in the Senate. Her staff probably has draft Word docs of everything from magazine limit bills to outright Australian-style gun confiscation laws in a handy-dandy folder, right there on there laptops. Never let a crisis go to waste, and all that.

So imagine the surprise and disappointment among members of the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex when all House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi could manage in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre was to babble something about saving lives via universal background checks. That simply won’t satisfy a dedicated gun-grabber like our pal Ladd Everitt.

The One Pulse for America director doesn’t have time for geriatric pablum. As someone who has no problem with violence in pursuit of his anti-Second Amendment agenda, he wants to see another federal assault weapons ban enacted. Pronto.

So we decided to point out the fact that a political creature like San Fran Nan knows good and well that an assault weapons bill proposed in a Republican-controlled Congress — with a Republican president in the White House, no less — has about as much chance of passing as Jimmy Kimmel has of being funny.

Isn’t that precious. Ladd thinks that even if Pelosi or some other congresscritter introduces an assault weapons ban bill — and that seems a sure thing — that it would actually get as far as a floor vote. Bless his heart.

You keep plugging away, Ladd.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

55 COMMENTS

  1. So now universal [federal record keeping on private firearm transfers] is “tepid” rather than “common sense?” Thanks, got it.

      • The Liberal goal posts have never moved for those of us that have been watching. They are way the fock past the goal line, just outside the stadium. You know, right past the showers for Conservatives. The ones that pump cyanide gas.

  2. I guess that he and I agree on something – that Pelosi and Feinstein are soulless monsters.

    Yay! We found some common ground!

  3. We expect further tyranny to follow any ban. What can be expected to follow after that is some vicious anything-goes.

    Gird your loins.

  4. Like I said in the “How do you defend slidefire stocks” comment section, the elements that are used in every “assault weapon ban” test make the firearm safer, since they allow the wielder to maintain situational awareness (flash hider), find an ergonomically secure position in which to hold it (adjustable stock, pistol grip, vertical foregrip), and maintain control of successive shots (muzzle brake).

    I don’t think that any gun owner would be in favor of an AWB, since they are nonsensical.

    • I have NO use for that gimmick, that toy, that look at me pile of junk. As much as I hate to say it, a restriction/ban maybe in order. However, my fear of the unintended consequences and the opening of a door that will surly lead to even more crap from the gray suited idiots that have rule over us is nothing less than DANGEROUS.

      • They are a gimmicky toy, and they’re not a practical replacement for select fire under any circumstances. But you know what else they are? A rifle part. Making them subject to the protections of the 2A. “Shall not be infringed.” Not “only arms and parts thereof with a practical purpose shall be allowed,” not even “congress shall pass no law abridging,” but “shall not be infringed” full stop.

        Now, if you want to talk real compromise, instead of just another “just one common sense law to ban [the next] evil part of evil guns that we don’t like [i.e. all of them],” sure. Put them on the NFA as machine guns if it’s on the same bill that makes the Hughes Amendment go away. Ban them (so long as existing units are grandfathered) if it’s on a bill that deregulates suppressors and takes SBRs/SBSes off the NFA (or was that the GCA? Either way they’re “NFA items” and shouldn’t be.) Compromise would be accepting an unconditional infringement on the right to keep and bear arms in exchange for the repeal of two other unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. Just banning them though? That’s just another Democrat “compromise” wherein the gun grabbers get to piss on the Constitution some more, and they compromise by letting you watch and say nothing. We’ve had 80 years of that kind of compromise and never once was it enough. No matter what you ban they always come back for more, so there’s no point in banning these either even were it constitutional to do so.

      • Slippery slope indeed. I say let the market take care of it. According to this site, they’ve already been pulled from the market. What more does anyone need?

  5. Pelosi has gun owners ready to herd evil (D) Libs/Progs/Socialists/Communists/globalists/climatists/and rinos through a wood chipper.

    There fixed ya (well, fixed your broken ass statement, stupid).

  6. Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger:

    “The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest frauds on the American people by a special interest group ever. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies — the militia — would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.” (I’m sorry this was such a long quote, Gun Reich supporters. With your short attention spans and lack of education, I know that reading too much gives you a headache.)

    Gun Control works in Australia where there are 15 guns per 100 people versus 89 per 100 people in the USA. The Murder Rate is FIFTY SEVEN TIMES LESS “Down Under” than here in good ol’ Murica’

    • Yea, I’ve waited for one of you to bring that Burger quote up. Two things to note about that quote:

      1. Burger waited until he was off the SCOTUS to say that. You’ll notice that the SCOTUS never granted cert to a RKBA case to come before the court whilst Burger was Chief Justice.

      2. A few years after Burger said that, Heller was heard, and the Second Amendment was found to protect an individual right by all nine justices on the SCOTUS, even tho they dissented from the bottom line finding of Heller.

      I know this is all too much for you, since you anti-rights people have such short attention spans, and you prefer to haul out non-sequitur quotes from a dead Justice that was never part of any opinion he wrote while on the bench.

      • By this logic we shouldn’t have any laws, because criminals will break them anyway.

        Actually, criminals do obey laws, for the most part, up until they commit a crime. Laws aren’t meant to -stop- people from doing things, they’re meant to expose people that do them. So, if you have more webbing that meditating criminals have to go through, the higher chance they do something high profile and get caught. If you’re an honest person, there’s nothing to worry about. Also, the argument that good people utilize the guns the best is a flawed assumption, since we just recently saw, no one who owned a gun could do a thing against the shooter, so all that extra defense was worthless in the face of a tragedy like that.

        I still don’t see Australia turning into a despotic hellhole.

        • So ONE instance of nobody (cops included) being able to shoot a active shooter 400 feet away means good guys with gun can never stop bad guys?? By that “logic”, there is no need for armed cops.

          What about the hundred of thousands of other times every year that crimes were stopped with guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens?

        • “If you’re an honest person, there’s nothing to worry about. ”

          This sentence is one of the biggest piles of smoking bullshit in existence in the English language and any person that utters it is suspect.

        • “Laws aren’t meant to -stop- people from doing things, they’re meant to expose people that do them.”

          Wow I never thought we would agree on something, laws don’t stop criminals. Now under this logic explain to me how any form of gun control is going to stop someone from a shooting spree or stop them from modifying a previously compliant firearm (see San Bernardino shooters) to use in their crime

          By your very own statement gun control doesn’t work to stop any kind of shootings or murders. Yet I assume you are promoting gun control to stop these kinds shootings, at least on the surface.

          BTW it’s worth understanding the actual definition of ‘regulated militia’ in the context of the constitution’s writing. As Inigo Montoya would say “I dont think that word means what you think it means.” It actually doesn’t refer to government regulated state armies

        • Um, you know that there is the premise that people in America are innocent until proven guilty? The idea of banning guns to protect people violates not only the notion that people have a right to keep and bear arms but that they are criminals in the making and as such they shouldn’t have guns.

        • Figured you would chime in sooner or later.
          First of all as firearm ownership is a right and not a privilege, anything and everything you say otherwise is invalid.
          Second of all just because you dont like something does not mean everyone else has to as well.
          Third have you ever had a defensive gun use? I have. So have quite a few people that write here. Guess what…. until you have something even remotely relevant to say stfu.
          All you do is say this stuff doesnt happen in other countries
          Despite strict gun control laws people still get shot in all your safe spaces. Paris saw almost 140 in one night. Not to mention what someone did with a bus. Look at some of the countries in africa.
          All your gun control bs is lies. Backround checks rarely work. Gun free zones dont work. Awb wont work.
          Bless your heart

        • The homicide rate in both Australia and the UK increased immediately following their gun control laws passing, reversing the previous downward trend in both countries. The same downward trend existed in the US uninterrupted with no effective gun control being passed.

          There is no correlation to homicide rates and gun control. Every country that has lower homicide and stricter gun control, so had lower homicide rates before the gun control, there is no evidence for a causal relationship.

          People use guns, even ar15s, more often for defense than for crime of any sort. Civilian gun ownership is a proven net benefit to society.

          Gun control at best doesn’t work and at worst gets people killed.

        • You obviously haven’t heard that the Australian Federal Government has demanded, and got, access to every states’ driver’s license photograph databases for real-time facial recognition.

          Why? To track criminals committing offenses punishable by 3 or more years in prison and to combat terrorism.

          But how do you sort the wheat from the chaff?

        • Of course they could have done something to fight back against the murderer. If they were allowed to carry RIFLES. If I can see man at 400 yards I can hit jim or at leadt make him to take cower. But not with pistol.
          It’s you and your gun grabbing posse who squeals like a pig every time you see a rifle carried by someone not wearing the right costume. Congratulations, it’s your fault!
          Btw. flights to Australia leave every day. Good riddance.

    • If you want me to give up my weapons, how about you come and get them yourself? Or are you going to do the typical “progressive” thing and send other people to do the dirty work for you so your dainty little hands can stay clean?

    • Go back a little further into history and you’ll find Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney arguing that a free negro (Dredd Scott) can’t be a citizen.

      By the way, how’s your attention span? Can you read an entire book on the Second Amendment? I recommend The Founders’ Second Amendment by Stephen Halbrook, a Constitutional scholar who has argued and won three cases before the US Supreme Court.

    • I would challenge Warren Burger, just like I have every other person who has made that insane argument to defend it with any quote to that affect from anyone involved in the passage of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. No one has met the challenge.

  7. How could “militia” mean “state armies”, when at the time that the Constitution was written “militia” meant “every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age.?”

    Berger was wrong then as Heller proved.

    • Don’t forget that “well regulated” means basically “performing as expected” not a statutory regulation or oversight.

      People need to take off their anachronistic glasses when evaluating the subject.

      Ok not just this subject but pretty much anything that has been a topic of discussion that is older than one has been alive.

    • That’s one of the biggest roadblocks that anti-gunners run into when they try to reinterpret the second amendment.

      How monumentally stupid could a person be to think that the government wrote the second amendment to essentially give itself permission to bear arms?

  8. Let’s stop farting around. Go for it. I support it wholeheartedly. Full confiscation of all semi-automatic rifles, all of them from everyone. Mr. and Mrs. American turn them all in. We need to go full Australia and then some. And that would be the final straw. Then we can finally rid this country of these traitors once and for all.

    • I wish the gun control industrial complex would just come out and say it. Quite insulting our intelligence. You can’t cite Australia as an paragon of modernity and then claim that confiscation is off the table.Federally its not likely to happen but I think folks in California, Massachusetts and New York have some critical political battles ahead.

    • Sigh. Oh Gman. And what you will get is more the madness, blood and mass death of the French Revolution rather than our relatively sane and civilized American revolution, at least in the aftermath of our defeat of the British Monarchy. You blame the symptom; Progressive/ Communists and republican Rinos working tirelessly to have total control of our freedoms and our souls, instead of the cause.

      The Progressives/republican statists and their perverted and degenerate agenda is directly related to our turning away from the Christ and his teachings. Until we admit to our sickness of our souls in this basic truth, and return voluntarily to his only Son and following G-ds laws, a hot civil war against their evil plans would be for naught except to promote further tyranny and death. At least, that is my opinion.

  10. Statist gun control mouthpiece: “Pelosi has gun owners ready to support an assault weapons ban…”
    Actual Americans: “No she doesn’t.”

  11. Oh, I just had a thought. Do we have to wait for the NRA to mention what Pelosi and Fienstein are doing before we can say they’re fear-mongering to sell more guns? Or are the Dems now working with the NRA to sell more guns through fear-mongering? Who’s mongering all the fear? One things for certain, the Dems attempts to ban a thing certainly isnt mongering any fear.

  13. Old Nancy P. has LESS on the ball the Maxine Waters. Or the evil Feinstein…no agreement with satan😫

  15. Pelosi has to be looking back at 1994, remembering how the DNC got wiped out the last time they grabbed hold of this issue, and thinking “If we let the far-left loons get hold of this issue, we’ll be the rare opposition party that loses seats in a midterm election…”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here