That United States Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is virulently anti-gun (except for her guns) is of course no surprise, and with her confiscatory gun ban bill, she clearly intends to double down on her hostility to armed American citizens. She has managed, though, to come up with a rather surprising justification for oppressive new gun laws: other countries will think more highly of us. From the Washington Times:
But Ms. Feinstein is arguing that her bill will do more than just prevent future gun deaths. She and others believe that lax firearms control has harmed the reputation of the U.S. among its international peers, many of which impose much harsher limits on who can own guns and what types are sold.
“America has to bite the bullet of what these incidents mean to our people, to our nation and our nation’s standing in the world,” she said.
We have to "bite the bullet," Senator? Those of us disinclined to buy the "all the cool kids are doing it" argument for surrendering Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights are undoubtedly tempted to tell anyone urging us to do so, in order to appease countries that violate those rights, that they, perhaps, should do some biting of their own.
Feinstein does undoubtedly have a point. As we discussed less than two weeks ago, such paragons of human rights as Iran and China have recently claimed that the right to keep and bear arms violates human rights. National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea notes that Germany has just made its already draconian gun laws still more restrictive, quoting a Deutsche Welle ("German Wave") article that went to the unlikely stretch of conflating the new German law with outrage over the Sandy Hook Elementary School atrocity.
Great Britain, or at least some of its inhabitants, has its own reason to wish for more draconian gun regulation in the U.S., and in this case it is difficult not to have some sympathy for their position. "Upper Class Twit of the Year" Piers Morgan is "threatening" to leave the U.S. if our gun laws don't become sufficiently restrictive (and he has made clear that nothing short of a total gun ban is "sufficient" in his view). The British who (quite understandably) have no interest in seeing Morgan's return would thus be grateful if we made him happy.
While that is a view with which one can sympathize, he's their problem, not ours (although the counter-argument is not without merit).
- China condemns U.S. gun ownership as human rights violation
- Piers Morgan tweets Second Amendment technology ignorance
- China, Iran join America's domestic enemies in calling for citizen disarmament
- German gun registry ensures only law-abiding will be caught in net
- Hands off Piers Morgan! (He's too useful an idiot to send back to England.)
- Why don't you threaten us with something we're scared of? Piers Morgan: So cartoonishly anti-American that if he didn't already exist, we'd have to invent him.