Democrats propose futile gestures in response to terror attack

Weekly Standard:

...
Some leading Democrats contend that the legislation would have prevented the Orlando attack, but that claim is highly dubious. As Democratic Florida senator Bill Nelson told reporters on a conference call today, the FBI twice investigated the Orlando killer, Omar Mateen, but closed both investigations because "there was no prosecutable evidence." Mateen was not on a government watch list at the time of the attack.

New York senator Chuck Schumer admitted that "we'll never know" if the bill could have kept a gun out of the killer's hands. "The language says basically ... that if the FBI believes there's a reasonable chance someone is going to use a gun in a terrorist attack, it should be able to block that sale. In other words, even if the criteria for some of the no-fly and watch lists may not be met, these criteria could prevent the sale," Schumer said during Monday's conference call. "Would they have blocked Mateen's gun? I think it's likely they would have. But we'll never know because this law was not on the books."
...

Now that we have more evidence that the enemy is using mass murderers in the homeland in an Islamic insurgency, the response of the Democrats is to disarm the innocent with gestures that would not have stopped a terrorist.  

Historically there are other examples of such gestures.  If you have ever watched a martial arts movie where the characters use several exotic weapons, you should know the origin of those weapons.  The Japanese during the time of the Samurai, outlawed anyone other than a Samurai from owning and using a Samurai sword.  Thus the weapon development began.