Feinstein's defense of her 'assault weapon' ban: I feel, therefore I legislate

The exchange between Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) about the constitutionality of her proposed ban on "assault weapons" at yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee meeting nicely illustrated a familiar pattern in which people who favor new gun restrictions respond to challenges with emotion-laden non sequiturs. Feinstein, who admonished Cruz for treating her like "a sixth-grader," later told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "I just felt patronized. I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it." If you watch the video at the end of this post, you can judge for yourself whether Cruz seemed patronizing or arrogant. But the question he posed was perfectly fair: Given that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms, just as the First Amendment protects an individual right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, isn't telling people they may not possess certain guns analogous to telling them they may not possess certain books? In both cases, people retain most of the right guaranteed by the Constitution, but in the First Amendment context that has never been deemed enough for a restriction to pass muster. Feinstein proudly cites the list of more than 2,000 gun models specifically exempted from her ban as evidence that it does not violate the Second Amendment, which Cruz suggested is rather like publishing a list of officially permitted titles as evidence that a book ban does not not violate the First Amendment.

Read more at: Reason

They don't see it.  It's not analogous to them, because they are blind to it.  No amount of logic or reason or gentle persuasion will penetrate their belief that this is the right course of action.  They made their minds up years ago -- Feinstein even admitted it.

Thankfully, they don't have a supermajority, so they won't be ramming anything through Congress like they did in NY and CO: ears plugged, eyes closed, and shouting.

The "2,2xx" firearms on the exempt list is a bit misleading as well.  To exempt something implies that it is in danger of being banned.  A large majority of those firearms listed in her bill don't fall under the bills definition of an "assault weapon" to begin with!  They are lever action, pump, bolt-action rifles.  Something to keep in mind when someone debates with you and pulls up that point.