Dianne Feinstein Admits It: No Law Would Have Stopped Las Vegas Gunman

The best sixth man playing for the National Rifle Association is a Democratic senator from California named Dianne Feinstein. Does that surprise you? It shouldn’t.

(Despite the fact that liberals far and wide are calling for greater gun control in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting, where Stephen Paddock open fired into a crowd of thousands attending a country music concert and killed 58 individuals, injuring over 500 more.)

Indeed, Senator Dianne Feinstein shared in an interview on Sunday, October 8th that no legislation could have stopped Stephen Paddock from committing his horrific acts. She straight up admitted the truth about gun control laws. Who could have predicted that?

According to The Hill:

Feinstein spoke on CBS News’s “Face the Nation” about gun legislation in the wake of the attack launched from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel targeting a country music concert.

“Could there have been any law passed that would’ve stopped him?” Host John Dickerson asked the senator.

“No, he passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions,” Feinstein replied.

Feinstein’s remark comes as Republicans have started to express interest in a conversation about regulations for bump stock devices, which were found in the hotel room of the suspected gunman. The devices increase the possible rate of gun fire on semi-automatic weapons.

Soooo….I’m confused Feinstein.

Either legislation helps stop crime, stop tragic shootings, stop criminals, stop evil individuals like Stephen Paddock…and, hence, that is why we should pass further legislation… OR laws don’t stop anyone or anything…

And, if that is the case, we are busying ourselves to pass more legislation. Because it won’t change a darn thing.

But to say legislation doesn’t change anything and to push for legislation? That is just darn confusing, confounding, and, well, Californian.

It is like Trey Gowdy told Louder with Crowder:

We already have controls on what kind of guns you can have, where you can have them, when you can use them and what individuals can possess even a single bullet. So the question to me is whether or not current controls are adequate and there are two fundamental questions that you should put your finger on. What law had it existed at the time would have prevented this mass killing or another mass killing. What law, but for its lack of implementation could have prevented this. That’s one question. The other question is, among all the panoply of current gun laws, how are we doing enforcing them?”

Are we even enforcing the current laws? And, if we are, and that STILL isn’t doing anything…why, oh why, are we creating more laws?

We are barking up the absolute wrong tree. Liberals want to DO something. They want to respond with something.

But all they are doing is moving. They aren’t actually making any progress. They’re busying their minds, their state legislatures, the halls of the U.S. Capitol. And that makes them feel better, like they are taking some moral stand.

Like somehow movement equals progress or a solution.

But it really doesn’t, because anything they try to come up with is not going to stop these things. Attacking inanimate objects is not a legitimate solution to the problem of mass shootings.

Liberals want to frame conservative legislators lack of action as inhumane, cruel, or cold but, instead, it is simply a pragmatic talking point.

The reason why ALL legislators aren’t calling for greater gun control legislation is because it doesn’t work (not to mention that our right of self-defense is not abrogated by unlawful usage of firearms).

Period.

Feinstein even admitted as much herself.