In the wake of the Connecticut shootings Democratic lawmakers are doing what they always do following a tragedy involving a firearm: demanding increased gun restrictions and resurrecting the ban on assault weapons.

Long-term gun-control advocate Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA,) creator of the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004, announced on Sunday that she would sponsor a new law to reign-in access to weapons while her liberal cohort Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL,) said lawmakers would hold hearings on gun control, and others said they would devote new attention to the long-ignored issue.

The Democrats are nothing if not opportunists; the old Liberal adage, “never let a crisis go to waste,” is especially distasteful in the aftermath of the loss of 20 children.

“I think we could be at a tipping point where we might get something done,” Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY,) said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” in reference to gun control.

When a mentally ill person uses a gun the Democrats always focus on “if only there were no guns.” It’s always the method and never the responsibility the Liberals pull out when faced with such tragedies.

We’ve heard these calls so many times before, be it Columbine, Virgina Tech, Tuscon or Aurora; if it’s not illegal guns, it’s legal guns. What will they do when some sick person kills ten people with a knife? First they’ll blame the knife, then they’ll try to restrict knives with long blades “the assault knives,” and never address the root-cause rather than the means.

Timothy McVeigh didn’t need a gun to kill 19 children.  There was no need for legal firearms to kill 168 people in Oklahoma City. Madmen don’t consider whether their weapon of choice is legal before taking lives.

It’s barely more than 48 hours since that tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut and the first matter on the minds of the Democrats is to make the greater evil the gun and not the perpetrator.

Not a single Democrat has come forward to pose that had the heroic school principal been armed with a gun that she might not have been forced to hopelessly throw herself unarmed at an weapon-carrying maniac and might have dispatched him before any lives were lost.

Congress is really good at wasting time and the Democrats are the masters of diversion. We’ve been treated to these histrionics over and over again because Democrats refuse to accept the constitutional right to bear arms. In their minds guns are evil and without guns suddenly the evil and the sick in society will somehow vanish.

Democrat Gun Control Diva Diane Feinstein

Feinstein promised that her new legislation would outlaw high-capacity magazines and military-style assault rifles. Does she really believe that mentally ill people consider the legality of their weapons? Does she really believe that laws keep weapons off the streets? If that were true Washington, DC and Chicago would be far safer than they are. Is Ms. Feinstein even aware that the magazine in a rifle or a handgun can be swapped in less than two seconds? This is just so much liberal
“let’s feel good about ourselves” garbage that never changes a thing.

A Republican lawmaker signaled ongoing opposition to gun control.

Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX,) when asked on “Fox News Sunday” why Americans would need to own semi-automatic weapons, responded ,”Well, for the reason George Washington said: a free people should be an armed people. It ensures against the tyranny of the government, if they know that the biggest army is the American people.”

Perhaps the nation’s greatest gun-control advocate, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said Obama will have to make the issue a priority to get any new laws enacted.

“It’s time for the president, I think, to stand up and lead and tell this country what we should do – not go to Congress and say, ‘What do you guys want to do?’ This should be his number one agenda,” Bloomberg said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

The governor of Connecticut, Dan Malloy, said, “These are assault weapons. You don’t hunt deer with these things. And I think that’s the question that a lot of people are going to have to resolve their own minds, where should this line get drawn?”

The “this is not a gun for hunting” argument has been used over and over but the point is nonsense. The architects of the U.S. Constitution weren’t concerned about the citizen’s right to bear arms so they could hunt. In fact the entire discussion isn’t worth wasting another word.

Wipe away your political bias; dispense with your particular views on weapons of all types, you’ll never stop them; simply consider the real questions that never get the attention they warrant: How can we become better at identifying the mentally ill and stop them before they hurt themselves or others? And how can we better secure those places where large numbers of people congregate?


Subscribe to Mr. Kaplan’s articles at
Read Mr. Kaplan’s blog at Conservatively Speaking
Email Mr. Kaplan at
Join Mr. Kaplan on Facebook at ConservativelySpeaking
Follow Mr. Kaplan’s tweets at ConsSpeaking