Dear Senator Feinstein……

Posted on March 21, 2013. Filed under: Gun Control, Politics | Tags: , , , |

To many people, I am going to sound very cold right now.

Details about the Sandy Hook Massacre are starting to emerge after a few months of investigation.

The Rachel Maddow Show (TV series)

Rachel Maddow (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Apparently, the shooter got in by shooting through the door, which was locked, where he promptly killed two people who came out of the office to investigate the ruckus.

In all, he fired a total of 152 rounds: 150 rounds in five 30 round clips, err, magazines, one in the chamber, and one in his pistol which he used to kill himself.

Investigators also said that he had researched mass murderers on the internet.

Rachel Maddow said on her show that it has emerged that all 152 rounds were fired in less than five minutes.

Here’s where I am going to sound cold. People are lucky that he fired that many rounds in that short a time. He wasn’t very accurate. The body count could have been much worse than it was.

I sympathize with the families. We all do. No one should have to endure the horrors that they have had to.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that he had 10 round magazines instead of 30. He would have had to carry 15 magazines rather than 5. Still possible to carry 150 rounds.

The logic is that if he were forced to reload more, the gun might have jammed, or he wouldn’t have gotten as many shots off.

Anyone who is practiced with reloading weapons knows that it only takes a few seconds to reload.  Could the weapon have jammed? Possibly, but a well maintained and properly cleaned weapon tends not to jam, except with extended use.

Forcing him to carry 15 magazines instead of five would have increased the time it took him to shoot people to what, seven minutes? Eight? I think he could have still got off that many rounds before the police were ready to storm the building.

Maddow proceeds to show a clip of an exchange between Senators Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein, in which Cruz asks her a question, but instead of answering the question, Feinstein launches into a tirade, thanking Senator Cruz for the “lecture” (a theme that Maddow picks up), even though there was no lecture. Both (Feinstein and Maddow) point out that Feinstein became Mayor of San Francisco after a gunman assassinated San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and City Supervisor Harvey Milk.

Both neglect to mention they were killed by a revolver, but you don’t hear an outcry to ban revolvers.

We know that the Sandy Hook gunman planned out this massacre. He researched mass murders on the internet. His victims were located in a “gun-free” zone, just like the victims in Aurora, or at Virginia Tech. Or possibly coming to a Colorado University near you. It amazes me that the left doesn’t see the irony in that.

The plea is always an emotional one.

Feinstein asks, at one point if someone should be allowed to own a bazooka.

I’ve argued before that the Constitution implies that we can, under the Letters of Marque and Reprisal clause in Article I (Section 8, Clause 11). If we can own a warship, it isn’t a warship without cannons. If we can own cannons, we can own bazookas.

Of course, Cruz, asking a question of the Constitution, mangled one of his quotes of the Constitution. I’ll let the readers figure out where.

Feinstein argues that even though we have the right of free speech, we still regulate it. We can’t incite panic or a riot. We can’t defame someone by making statements that are patently false.

That’s all true enough.

But consider this:

Congress shall make no law

No means no, not maybe. It is not depending on what the meaning of is is.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There is no ambiguity there.

It doesn’t matter how many weapons your bill exempted, Mrs. Feinstein, if it was 2 or 2000. The Second Amendment does not say

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but you shall be limited in ammunition, limited in the number of arms you have to choose from, limit one per person or household. 

If you truly studied the Constitution, as you claim you do, looking to understand it rather than looking for loopholes, the understanding of this amendment is not difficult to perceive.

We need to get these people help, which in the cases of Newtown and Aurora, these were people who were mentally disturbed. Instead, you attempt to punish the majority of legal gun owners by restricting their rights. You go down the easier path than the right, and truly moral path.

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

2 Responses to “Dear Senator Feinstein……”

RSS Feed for The Observation Post Comments RSS Feed

Reblogged this on Reality Check and commented:
Yeah, Wicked Witch, look out for the bucket of water!

I have also argued many times that Americans don’t have nearly the access to weapons we should have. If an American wants to own a fighter jet that is their biz. Think of what you would have to do to own a private armed f-16. Millions for the plane, millions to arm it, millions to practice with it, probably a million to store it+ plus fuel+ re-arming. I doubt somebody would go through all of that to blow up a school. I would trust private citizens with a fighter jet. Maybe that is because I thought it through.

Where's The Comment Form?

  • Recent Posts

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta

  • Blog Stats

    • 14,728 hits

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: