It is clearly opportunistic to propose gun control legislation so soon after the Las Vegas mass shooting. The incident did not change the conviction of the Senator, who held these views prior to it; the speed at which the proposed legislation was revealed indicates few modifications to an original text were made. Thus, it is clearly opportunism.

I do not believe it is bloodthirsty, as I have seen written, but I do believe the speedy opportunism shows some degree of callousness. And it is also clear the callousness is preferred to allowing another Senator or Representative to take the limelight.

I work in the safety field and, in particular, chemical safety. When people bypass safety features of equipment or disregard steps in a procedure dealing with high hazards, it obviously increases the risk of an incident. The reason I draw attention to this fact is not to establish the need for more safety features to be bypassed or for more stringent procedures to be written and ignored. If a person is unwilling to follow basic law in the first place, then what kind of special law would that person choose to follow? The answer is: the law which is enforced.

I am sure Mandalay Bay has some rule against storing that many guns in a hotel room, just as I am sure Nevada has a law against storing ammonium nitrate for the purpose of manufacturing explosives, etc., etc. (List your own examples.)

To expect that additional laws will protect against such an event from occurring is to fool oneself. If law enforcement cannot enforce existing laws, then what purpose do additional laws serve!? The purpose of expanding policy objectives which conform to a unified strategy derived from a specific worldview. We exist in the space between Rand and Marx. Political philosophies like Liberalism and Conservatism just seem to thrive on the chaos and ambiguity in between.

Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), and Bill Nelson (D-Florida)
all come from states that Trump won, and must run for re-election in 2018. I wish them all the bad luck they deserve.

The head of security for El-Al explained it long ago: You look for weapons, we look for terrorists.

I have a good friend who is extremely responsible and law-abiding and who has had a rifle with an external modification for automatic fire. He is not involved in law enforcement or military. I wonder if he would be expected to turn over this particular rifle if this passes. Or might he be grandfathered in?

Literally 48 hours after the attack, she has legislation to ban something.

To paraphrase the moronic senator
"We’ve now witnessed the deadliest mass killing in U.S. history"

Obviously the senator has conveniently forgotten that the leader of her precious Democratic Party intentionally ordered the killing of twice as many innocent people in Waco in 1994. No one was punished for those murders and not a peep was heard from Senator Feinstein.

Worthless looting whore.

As usual the senate believes its fine for federal law enforcement to kill using these weapons, but it should be illegal for the people to have them for defense against domestic enemies like these:
Senators Feinstein (D-CA.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Bill Nelson (D-Florida), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Madam Senator,

I am disheartened, but hardly surprised, that your senatorial E-Mail Me page at https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ... lists thirty (30) items for the Issue/Topic selection, but contains no explicit topic to address discussions about our freedom as Americans nor our American rights as recognized within the Constitution.

I have chosen the available category “Gun Safety,” because the concept of “Gun Rights” is implicitly held in disdain on the webpage. You have recently introduced legislation as the “Automatic Gun Fire Prevention Act.” It is co-sponsored by thirty-three (33) more traditionally Second Amendment decrying Democratic Senators and one (1) Marxist Socialist Senator self-identifying as an Independent, yet not a single Republican. Nothing new in that!

Your justification for the legislation explicitly states a fallacy common to Democratic conceptualization (or lack of it), “The only reason to fire so many rounds so fast is to kill large numbers of people.” If one doesn’t understand the concept of freedom, it becomes difficult to imagine the simple legitimate and moral reason to fire immense numbers of rounds in scant seconds; namely, “Because I want to.” Free persons have every right to mow down lifeless stationery (printed as targets) at a shooting range, cutting them in twain with a rapid hail of bullets. They need no moral explanation to enjoy blasting with high frequency abandon at galvanized soup cans (preferably empty, so as not to waste food) or upright pieces of wood. It has nothing to do with “hunting”, though rapid-fire hunting, too, can be moral and legitimate.

As alien in thought as it might be to some, consider the Second Amendment with the same reverence typically afforded to the First Amendment, especially in that the Second stands as the ultimate protection of the First. Most Americans speak what they wish and have no special need involved beyond their free desire to speak. They need no special reason to speak with great wisdom, hold casual conversations, [or] utter vile nonsense. It is their right. That we may hear such speech—delightful, unpleasant, or downright evil—is a cost of freedom.

We have observed the recent atrocity committed by a law breaker in Las Vegas, and we are at a loss to imagine what from our weighty existing body of law could have prevented that newly realized monster from perpetrating his carnage, without curtailing the rights of the peaceable citizenry who mourn the dreadful event. Ultimately, it comes to 58 lives lost in a day, where all reasonably expected a safe and happy musical event. Their ghastly loss came partly as a cost of freedom.

Before anyone jumps up in understandable horror at that statement, recall that millions of Americans will drive their vehicles today reasonably expecting a safe and happy arrival at their destination. Alas, half again more than the Las Vegas deaths happen on average every day in our country. More than ninety (90) traffic fatalities EVERY DAY, day after day, year after year (as recorded for the first half of this decade, with no sign of a slowdown). Did you cosponsor a “Traffic Fatalities Prevention Act” to ensure that no car’s cylinders could fire so fast that the car exceeds a walking pace? Attempting to outlaw bump stock devices would not have saved more in Las Vegas. The shooter, if he somehow decided not to build an outlawed device to embellish his murders, would have emitted fewer bullets but with better aim, producing nigh as many deaths. Outlawing cars that exceed any particular speed would not change the daily carnage on our highways. Again, freedom must prevail, though its price be indeed steep.

For another discussion comparing the First and Second Amendments comparably, I refer you to this webpage commentary: http://www.stalincare.com/home/commen...