Feinstein ... again :(

[GreyGeek]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-common-use/

A number of Democrats are well aware that if an assault-weapons-ban case is heard by the Supreme Court, then the “common use for lawful purpose” standard is likely going to dictate the case. If it does, most assault-weapons bans will likely fall. After all, the AR-15 and its variants are the most popular rifles in America today, owned by millions of Americans yet rarely used in crime (it’s more common for criminals to kill with fists or knives than with rifles of all types.)

So, how does Feinstein attempt to deal with this fact? By arguing that common possession does not equal common use. No, really. She says, “You’re saying the numbers determine common use? Common use is an activity. It’s not common storage or possession, it’s use. So what you said is that these weapons are commonly used. They’re not.”

TWIST the meaning of words.  It is what the Marxist do best.    Her interpretation of "use" is strange, to say the least.  Every time I leave home I carry my concealed weapon. It is being used.   Police use their weapons too, and after years on the force many of them have never discharged their weapon while on duty.  A fire extinguisher by being on the wall is "in use", ready for action.   To remove it from the wall for service is to take it "out of use".

[eelstrebor1]

I hate the use of the term "common use". What does that have to do with the 2A? If they had applied that reasoning immediately after the 2A went into effect we'd all be carrying muskets and single shot pistols around today instead of AR-15's and semi-auto pistols or instead of revolvers. It's obvious from reading the Federalist papers that the 2A was intended to give us access to military weaponry but thanks to the "progressives" and some RINO's and even the NRA the 2A has been skewed to get around that intent.

[GreyGeek]

I hate the use of the term "common use". What does that have to do with the 2A? If they had applied that reasoning immediately after the 2A went into effect we'd all be carrying muskets and single shot pistols around today instead of AR-15's and semi-auto pistols or instead of revolvers. It's obvious from reading the Federalist papers that the 2A was intended to give us access to military weaponry but thanks to the "progressives" and some RINO's and even the NRA the 2A has been skewed to get around that intent.

The landmark SCOTUS decision in Heller vs DC ruled that semi-automatic weapons, rifles or pistols, are in common use and justified by the 2A.  The DEMs new talking point is to criticize "common use" even though that term was a critical element in the SCOTUS decision.  It gives you a clue as to how they plan to defeat Heller v DC if they ever gain a majority and nominate another Marxist judge.   And, have no doubt about it.   The DEMs have made it quite clear in the present political climate that it is a two-sided battle:  Marxists against those who want rule of law under the Constitution.