Kenyatta Proposes Ban That Wouldn’t Have Stopped the Attack He’s Citing

Here’s what drives me crazy about political opportunism masquerading as public safety concern. Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, former Democratic Party Vice Chair, responded to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner attack by calling for a ban on military-grade weapons. The problem? The attacker didn’t use military-grade weapons.

Let that sink in for a second. We’re talking about a handgun and a pump-action Maverick shotgun. These are firearms you can find at practically any gun store in America. One’s a pistol, the other’s a shotgun that requires you to manually chamber each round. Neither of these weapons would meet any reasonable definition of military-grade, unless we’re suddenly pretending that deer hunters and home defenders are outfitted like Navy SEALs.

The alleged attacker, Cole Allen, purchased both firearms legally in California. You know, California. The state with some of the strictest gun control laws in the entire nation. The state that’s been held up as a model for what gun control advocates want to see nationwide. And yet here we are, with another tragedy that existing laws failed to prevent, and the immediate response is to call for more laws that wouldn’t have made a difference.

This is the maddening cycle we’re trapped in. Something terrible happens, emotions run high, and politicians rush to microphones to propose solutions that sound good but wouldn’t have actually solved the problem they’re citing. It’s legislative theater at its worst.

Look, I’m not saying we shouldn’t have conversations about public safety. But those conversations need to be grounded in reality, not political posturing. When you propose a ban on military-grade weapons in response to an attack that didn’t involve military-grade weapons, you’re not serious about solving the problem. You’re serious about advancing an agenda, and you’re willing to use tragedy as your vehicle.

The bigger question nobody wants to ask is this: if California’s extensive gun control framework couldn’t prevent this, what makes anyone think adding another layer of restrictions would? We keep piling laws on top of laws, creating a complex web of regulations that law-abiding citizens struggle to navigate while criminals simply ignore them entirely. That’s not a bug in the gun control playbook. That’s a feature.

What bothers me most is the dishonesty of it all. Kenyatta’s response came after comments about venue security, suggesting that a ballroom would be safer than a hotel. Maybe that’s true. But then pivoting to call for a weapons ban that has nothing to do with the actual weapons used? That’s either profound ignorance or calculated manipulation. Neither option inspires confidence.

This isn’t about defending every gun or every gun owner. It’s about demanding intellectual honesty from our elected officials. If you want to propose new restrictions, fine. But at least have the decency to make sure your proposal would actually address the situation you’re citing as justification. Otherwise, you’re just exploiting tragedy for political gain, and that’s beneath the office you hold.

The Second Amendment exists for a reason. Our founders understood that an armed citizenry serves as the ultimate check against tyranny. They also understood that freedom comes with risks, and that a free society will always be messier and more dangerous than a controlled one. That’s the trade-off we make for liberty.

But even setting aside constitutional concerns, this proposal fails on basic logic. You can’t claim to be responding to a specific threat when your solution wouldn’t have addressed that threat. That’s not policy. That’s performance art.

Related: Melania Trump Demands ABC Fire Jimmy Kimmel After Vile Attack on Her Family