search
top

Getting It Right

I opted not to live blog the Dianne Feinstein hearing on her gun ban today. There just wasn’t enough coffee in the world to tackle that this morning.

However, NRA did have someone watching and live tweeting responses to the various claims by anti-gun advocates both at the witness table and behind the Senate microphones. The immediate responses – and the sheer quality of them – was fantastic. Honestly, they didn’t just “do” social media today, they really got it right.

For example, when Philly Mayor Michael Nutter claimed that it was “absurd” that anyone could ever use an AR-15 for self-defense, he added that so-called “assault rifles” are only used to go on the offense against victims. Quickly, this was the NRA’s tweet:

As anti-gunners consistently tried to claim that these semi-automatic firearms aren’t in common use:

When Sen. Feinstein tried to act like the last gun ban was no big deal, and that her new proposal is just a continuation of it:

When Feinstein complained that manufacturers were trying to skirt her ban back during the 90s, NRA pointed out that she now considers a loophole an action that was simply complying with the law:

There were so many more highlights, but you can just check out the Twitter feed to see it. They really did a great job today.

12 Responses to “Getting It Right”

  1. Knoxville says:

    The last one is the one that always makes me laugh. In ’94 DiFi writes a bill banning guns with more than 2 cosmetic features, so manufacturers start building guns that comply, and that is somehow a “loophole”. I guess its kind of like how driving at or below the speed limit is a “loophole” to avoid paying a traffic fine.

    • Bitter says:

      I saw a tweet directed to Magpul when the first talk of “exemptions” started up in Colorado so that they could stay and produce magazines. It was something like, “Today’s exemption is next year’s loophole.”

    • TS says:

      I’d say this is not a bad use of the word “loophole”. Loophole means the intent of the law was skirted due to the actual language of the law. I believe Fiendstein intended for Americans to not be able to buy AR-15s at all, but the manufactures said, ok we’ll remove the bayonet mount. This loophole simply confirms the arbitrary and capriciousness of their agenda, and downright stupidity. We told you these features don’t matter, now you prove our point by complaining about the guns that don’t have the features.

      • NotClauswitz says:

        It wasn’t just bayonet mounts and other ridiculous scary features, it was the language of HER law itself – a simpleton’s shopping-list of forbidden names.
        You have to understand that these are inbred CA Democrat legislators who live in a protected Gerrymander bubble, hot-house flowers who haven’t had an original, non-linear, non-Marxist thought in decades or ever been seriously challenged in any way except for adherence to party Dogma and various Democrat ritual election-flagellation like the Circular Firing Squad method they use to choose/baptize their next delegate.
        As AR popularity swelled many new manufacturers came on board producing receivers that were not on the banned *list* and completely eligible for purchase. The same thing will happen nationally or some new and superior method of projectile-launching will develop.

  2. Mollbot says:

    I’m all for going back to classic projectile-throwing methods. California Democrat. Trebuchet. Some assembly required.

    • askeptic says:

      An excellent choice for use against thick-walled targets such as municipal buildings.

  3. So that our liberal friends don’t get confused, maybe we need a Constitutional Amendment that says that the right to have and carry weapons can’t be interfered with. I guess I’m not picky about the exact wording. Just a thought.

    • Alan says:

      Good luck with that. The Colorado Constitution says that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms in defense if themselves and the state *shall not be called into question*.

      Fat lot of good it’s done. The Courts simply re-interpreted it as needed to get the result they want, and not a single gun law has even been found to be in violation of the state constitution.

  4. submandave says:

    Every time a gun-ban advocate asserts that the AR-15 or other “assault weapons” aren’t good for defense, someone needs to ask them about LA in 1992, when a minority community in fear was told by the LAPD “we’re not coming; it’s too dangerous and we’ll just make it worse.” The Korean shop owners used their own weapons (including “assault weapons”) to protect their homes and businesses and the lives of their families against an angry mob bent on burning and killing.

  5. Daniel in Brookline says:

    I was explaining to someone just yesterday that a top-quality handgun, the Israeli Jericho 941, is forbidden for sale here in Massachusetts. Why? Because Feinstein’s assault-weapons ban, a version of which was enacted here in 2004 when the Federal one expired, lists really bad scary weapons by name. One of the scary names is “Uzi”… and unfortunately, Magnum Research Inc. though it was cute to relabel the Jericho “Baby Uzi” when they imported it.

    In 1994, of course, other weapons banned by name were simply relabeled by the manufacturers. (What did she expect would happen?)

  6. jim says:

    Daniel’s comment above reminds me of the careless Illinois law (what is it about Blue states?) that forbids “Ninja throwing stars.” Yes, the law actually uses the word Ninja.

    So of course all Shuriken were just rebranded as, well, Shuriken. Not a lot of street crime committed with those, anyway.

top