Ted Cruz as a way ahead?
A follow-up for Dianne Feinstein might be this: can’t every gun, at its most basic level, be used as an “assault weapon”? (Or is being classified as a hunting or target gun magically place the weapon into the non-assault column?)
If ordinary citizens “don’t need” certain weapons or large-capacity magazines, why should SWAT-teams—remember, the police were once known as officers of the peace—have them, especially given their record?
(On the other hand, I suppose the ruling class could also ask the same question about why a Big Gulp needs to be big, why a case of Mountain Dew needs to have 24 cans, or why anyone should be allowed to smoke… except the President, or not follow the Michelle Obama food pyramid… except Michelle Obama and her select.)
The differentiating factor regarding guns and weapons (and even non-weapons) of all sorts is this: what does the person with the gun/weapon intend to do? Ability (having a gun or weapon or even a non-traditional weapon like a hammer) without the intent to maliciously use it means nothing. That’s why we don’t worry about the nuclear weapons and delivery systems the British and French possess.
Feinstein has no interest in writing Constitutionally compliant law just as Harry Reid had no interest in performing the essential Congressional function of drafting a federal budget (until forced to). Her strategy is either that of political theater, or more likely, political control. A political control hypothesis would be that her preferred gun control laws might be upheld by the courts, thereby justifying it. Hey, let’s throw a bunch of legislative stuff at the wall and see if any of it sticks!
The lesson here: don’t bring a low-capacity magazine (that is, a Dianne Feinstein) to a high-capacity (that is, a Ted Cruz) intellectual firefight.