The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Reason Not the Need

California’s senior nanny, Dianne Feinstein, and her Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee have approved a bill that would prohibit “assault rifles,” largely on the basis that law-abiding Americans don’t “need” them. Citizens of the land of the free don’t need magazines that hold more than 10 rounds either, so say the wise ones.

Where is it written that Americans should be denied whatever these presumptuous wing-nuts have decided we don’t need? In a weapons-grade non-sequitur, Feinstein defended her pointless attack on the freedom of Americans by saying that her bill “exempts 2,271 weapons. Is that not enough for the people of the United States? Do they need a bazooka,” she whined?

“Oh — reason not the need,” Lear said when his greedy and ungrateful daughters deprived him of his hundred knights. Looking around my office as I write this, I can see countless items that I don’t need, but if I were deprived of which Americans wouldn’t be a bit safer? We certainly won’t be any safer if law-abiding Americans are denied access to the weapons Feinstein and Co. wish to make verboten.

What America really doesn’t need are elected officials who have such a poor understanding of both pubic safety and freedom as Dianne Feinstein and her fellow deniers demonstrate daily.

View all comments (6) |

Lloyd| 3.14.13 @ 9:31PM

Americans do not "need" 60 liberal senators like Dianne Feinstein. We should have the laws changed so that we don't have more such senators than we need. If more than that get elected, the excess should be sent to a Senator buy-back program and disposed of by the authorities.

mike 3/505| 3.14.13 @ 9:43PM

Simple retort to Ms Feinstein: It's a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.

RJ| 3.15.13 @ 1:36AM

The Press is smearing Ted Cruz for asking Dianne Feinstein whether the same phrase about rights used in the second, fourth and fifth amendments should be construed differently for the second amendment (more restricted) than the fourth and fifth amendments. Senator Feinstein was unable to answer and objected to being lectured. What was most interesting to me is that the Democrats had Dick Durbin by the mike, ready to defend her. He made a snarky comment about Cruz going to law school. From what I saw, Patrick Leahy doesn't look like he has much on the ball either anymore. The liberals are hoping that the press can protect them against Cruz, because few of the Democratic Senators can stand toe-to-toe in a debate against Ted Cruz. Keep it going Senator Cruz.

Tom Kyba| 3.15.13 @ 12:05PM

Since we "need" intelligent politicians with more than half a brain, all dems should resign.

JD| 3.15.13 @ 1:23PM

Leftists don't justify bans, they ask us to justify NOT having bans.

Leftists don't justify social programs, they ask us to justify NOT having social programs.

Leftists don't justify government control, they ask us to justify NOT having government control.

And they don't ask nicely.

Occam's Tool| 3.15.13 @ 7:49PM

Liberal Retard Vermin. But I am redundant.

More Blog Posts by Larry Thornberry

http://spectator.org/blog/2013/03/14/reason-not-the-need

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara | 5.22.13

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord | 5.23.13

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple | 5.22.13

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey | 5.23.13

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr | 5.22.13

Obama's Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.23.13

ADVERTISEMENT