California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, together with Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, are once again taking aim (pun intended) at the Second Amendment by pushing to ban America’s most frequently-used rifle: the AR-15.
Feinstein’s premise? That AR-15s “aren’t used for hunting” and aren’t “viable for home protection.”
No, seriously. She said that. See here:
Guns like the AR-15 aren’t used for hunting and they’re not viable for home protection. They have only one purpose: fire as many rounds as possible, as quickly as possible. 60% of Americans support outlawing these weapons. Read my op-ed with @ChrisMurphyCT. https://t.co/T2l8NeWTZX
— Sen Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) June 17, 2019
I'll take "Tweets In Which Every Word Is False" for $800, Alex. And the proof isn't hard to find.
For example, here’s a TIME article listing seven animals hunters routinely hunt with AR-15s. And here’s a good explainer as to why.
In fact, a recent survey found that more than one-in-four hunters say they’ve used an AR-15 to hunt, including 48 percent who say they’ve used an AR-15 within the past five years and nearly 60 percent who say they’ve used the popular rifle to hunt large game.
When it comes to home defense, the AR-15 is actually quite – how did Feinstein put it again? – "viable." It’s light, inexpensive, easy to fire and has little-to-no recoil, which is helpful especially for people of smaller stature like women.
Here’s a guy who used an AR-15 to shoot three intruders who broke into his dad’s Oklahoma home. Here’s another who used it to defend against a mob of masked men who broke into his trailer.
Add all this to the fact that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the United States, backed by a U.S Constitution that doesn’t require you to explain why you’ve got one, and it looks like Feinstein’s little tirade holds an awful lot of fluff, but not much water.