On Wednesday, the Washington Examiner reported that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced a bill making it illegal to sell over 200 types of semi-automatic weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and would ban devices that increase firing speed, such as bump stocks.
Feinstein used the bill’s introduction as a platform to argue that banning more weapons would do more to stop mass shootings, stating:
We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason - so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote.
Feinstein, along with almost two dozen other Democratic senators, stated that the bill would “begin removing the weapons of war on our streets.”
The Californian senator released a similar bill shortly after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012. The bill was defeated in the Senate in 2013 with a 60-40 vote.
However, it seems as though the Democratic senators have acknowledged the potential impotence of their bill, saying that the ban won't actually stop mass shooting incidents.
This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets.
Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere.
Feinstein's argument seems to follow the same thought patterns as those who once thought it well to ban all alcohol and drugs from American society. I wonder if history had anything to say about that.