NRA fisks Feinstein’s proposed firearms ban

The NRA did a good job on this. They included some of the deliberate deception by Feinstein on her website:

On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban.  Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”

You know they know they are in the wrong when they have to lie in order to have any hope of winning.

We don’t need to lie to win. We are better than this.


One thought on “NRA fisks Feinstein’s proposed firearms ban

  1. Gun ownership has been on the rise as murder and other violent crime rates have been on the decline.


    We banned murder, remember? Murder carries a penalty greater than that of any “gun crime”, and so no gun laws can prevent murder. Not even a death penalty can prevent murder.

    Ultimately though, none of that matters at all with respect to the second amendment. A right is a right, regardless of any crime and accident data or trends.

    The left knows exactly how a right is supposed to work. They will vehemently defend a pet “right” of theirs regardless of the number of human deaths that are associated with it. For their pet “right” it is hands off– no encroachment (infringement) whatsoever, no local or state options, regardless of potential democratically expressed wishes on the part of the public. The “right” is absolute, with no option to vote on it, as far as they are concerned. A right is a right after all, and cannot be challenged, no matter what. You know of what I speak.

    So let us not become ensnared in meaningless discussions and arguments over crime and safety when the issue at hand is the protection of a human right. See above paragraph.

    I also note the underlying assumption in the quote, that it is all about government programs, regardless of which way the stats go. To them, government action is the beginning and end of everything that happens on Earth. It is God. They are insane. They have disqualified themselves, and it is generally a fool’s exercise to bandy words with the insane. At the very least it lends credibility to their false premise or the false framework of their arguments. They know better, and so do we (see two paragraphs above).

Comments are closed.