Leading Anti-Gun Advocate Says New Laws Wouldn’t Prevent Las Vegas Shooting

Diane Feinstein is like the tippy top of the anti-gun nuts, often the loudest in the room. And even she admits that more anti-gun laws wouldn’t have done anything for the Las Vegas shooting.

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

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

As reported by Brandon Morse for Red State:

This is actually the second time she said a law wouldn’t have made a difference. Earlier that Sunday, Feinstein had said the same thing on Meet the Press when she told Chuck Todd “I’m not sure there is any set of laws that could have prevented it.”

Feinstein even praised the NRA for coming forward to review regulations about bump stocks — an accessory device for a semi-automatic rifle that allows it to fire much like a fully automatic. Feinstein did, however, say that a law pertaining to bump stocks must be passed, but that it cannot come as an order from the president.


How she couldn’t is beyond me. Whenever a shooting happens, gun sales increase due to fear of bans and/or increased regulation. With Democrats attempting to lead one thing or another to the guillotine whenever a shooting occurs, it wasn’t hard to figure out what they were going to put on the chopping block next. Feinstein’s current push to get Republicans to pass a law against them proved their fears correct.


She’s correct. No law would have stopped Paddock from obtaining his arsenal. He was, until the shooting occurred, a law-abiding citizen welcome to own as many guns and firearm accessories as he pleased, as is our right. Save for a type of gun ban or restriction on ownership numbers — a statist pipe dream in America — there are no laws we can add to our current set that would stop something like Las Vegas from occurring.