Last month still another bill proposing to ban certain types of rifles and magazines was introduced in congress. According to the NRA, last month 124 Democrats “introduced HR 4269, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, a bill virtually identical to S 150, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in the Senate in 2013”.  That legislation didn’t pass and there’s little likelihood the new bill will either. But it does explain why I’m suddenly getting emails quoting and referring to Diane Feinstein - now - even though the quotes are almost two years old.

One email I received attributes a quote to Feinstein to the effect that all Veterans are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms. Naturally taken aback, I decided to do some research and it turns out that isn’t what she said. But what she did say was wasn’t good either.

According to FactCheck, “This claim — which has gone viral — grossly distorts what Feinstein actually said at a March 7 Senate hearing on her legislation…” Snopes, another site claiming to be an arbiter of truth, said that the claim is “false”, but that, “Nonetheless, what Senator Feinstein actually did say was the subject of some harsh criticism.”

Indeed. According to FactCheck, what she DID say was that “veterans should not be exempt from her proposed assault weapons ban, citing post-traumatic stress disorder as a concern”, FactCheck added, “She did not say all veterans suffer from PTSD or that all veterans should not own guns”. Got that? FactCheck astoundingly missed the implications of what Feinstein actually said. So let’s parse it out. What Feinstein is saying is that because some veterans are mentally ill, no veterans should be exempted from her legislation. This is a key insight into the progressive mindset. The law of the lowest common denominator if you will. Implicit in her line of reasoning: “Because there are people that are mentally ill, everyone should be treated as if they were mentally ill”.

This is how progressives rationalize the taking away of individual rights and freedom. Social justice and “democracy” trumps individual rights. Might equals right. Then there are the unintended consequences. If I were in the mental health field I would be concerned. Associating mental health with loss of individual rights might not be a good thing. With apologies to Yogi Berra, if that were the case, nobody in their right mind would go a health care practitioner.

In addition to working tirelessly to infringe upon our constitutional rights, Feinstein also has time to help protect large corporations from competition from tiny home based cottage businesses. According to Michael Strickland, writing for progressivestoday.org, “If you’ve ever been on such sites as Etsy or Soaptopia, you’ve probably noticed the hundreds of independent soap makers, many of which make their products in their own home. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the large, corporate soap manufacturers, Feinstein and Collins have introduced and sponsored S.1014, the Personal Care Products Safety Act”. The bill amends the federal food, drug and cosmetic act and would give the Food and Drug Administration sweeping new powers.

Jeffrey Tucker of the Foundation for Economic Education adds, “And guess who is supporting it? Their backers call them ‘stakeholders.’ That’s another way of saying the dominant industrial groups: Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Estee Lauder, L’Oréal and Revlon”. He continues that under the guise of consumer protection, “If they can raise the costs of doing business, driving the small businesses that sell on Etsy out of business, they have a firmer hold on their market share”.

So, aren’t progressives supposed to be against the big corporations and for the little guy? Aren’t regulations and regulators supposed to protect the consumer? In theory yes. However, in practice it may be that regulators might actually provide protection for large corporations against smaller competitors - therefore actually working against the consumer. According to Investopedia, the term “economic moat, coined and popularized by Warren Buffett”, (that progressive billionaire), “refers to a business’ ability to maintain competitive advantages over its competitors in order to protect its long-term profits and market share from competing firms”. Often that economic moat is provided by regulatory agencies. And progressives are at the forefront of helping regulators provide these economic moats to their favored big corporations.

One of the more entertaining ideas I’ve come across recently is the idea that politicians dress like NASCAR drivers and where the logos of the corporations and industries they represent. For Senator Feinstein, pick the logos of cosmetic or consumer staple companies.

For progressive Senator Dick Durbin, I would suggest choosing from the pharmaceutical industry. According to Life Extension Magazine, “Richard ‘Dick’ Durbin, the senior US senator from Illinois…recently said on National Public Radio that all he wants is for supplements to be safe and effective…but behind the soothing and frankly deceptive words, he actually wants to treat supplements like drugs. Drug companies may spend up to an average of $5.8 billion per drug to win FDA approval. Drug companies can pay these enormous sums because their products are synthetic and therefore patentable”. The article continues, “Food and supplements are typically safer than drugs” and “the bottom line is clear to Durbin: require that billions be spent on each supplement for approval, and presto, no more supplements”. Considering that these companies pay these billions to the FDA in form of “user fees”…

For New York Senator Charles Schumer, you might pick a Wall Street bank - or two. According to CNN last March, “Chuck Schumer is set to get a big promotion – and that’s welcome news to Wall Street. The veteran Democratic senator from New York is widely expected to take Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s job when he retires at the end of 2016”.

By the way, besides being dedicated to the corporate interests they serve, against the little guy, Schumer and Durbin both aspire to leadership positions in congress. They also have something in common with Feinstein - they are both strong supporters of infringing on our constitutional right to bear arms. So with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, if you are a progressive and support gun control, then you too might be a corporatist.