Well, get a load of this. On Sunday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein appeared on Fox News to discuss last week’s attack in Boston and terrorism in general, and Chris Wallace wondered whether the people in locked-down Boston last week, with concerns that “this fellow might be on the loose, might break into their house, might take hostages — would people like to have had guns?” “Oh, some may have, yes,” replied Feinstein.

If you were in that situation, would you want a gun at your side?

Most American voters say yes, according to a new Fox News poll.

Sixty-nine percent say if they were in a situation similar to Bostonians, they would want a gun in their house.

That includes a large 88-percent majority of those in gun-owner households, as well as 50 percent of those in non-gun homes. …

In general, more voters think protecting the constitutional right to own a gun is a higher priority than protecting citizens from gun violence (53-42 percent).  That’s mostly unchanged since January, when it was 51-40 percent.

But Feinstein went on: “Oh, some may have, yes, but if where you’re going is, do they need an assault weapon, I don’t think so. … You can use a 12-gauge shotgun and have a good defensive effect, and there’s the element of surprise. Now you’ve got police all over the place in Watertown, so, I don’t really think that this is applicable. I think, there are people that want to make this argument, but a 12-guage shotgun, there are many weapons… that are available to people for choice without an assault weapon.”

…Wow. Firstly, I’m not sure what that non sequitur about “the element of surprise” was about, since you can have an element of surprise with an AR-15 just as well as a shotgun, and secondly, the police can’t be everywhere at once, and I’m sure many of them would appreciate a responsible and armed citizenry that effectively expands the reach of their apprehending capabilities. I still can’t wrap my head around where she’s getting this completely arbitrary “assault weapon” definition, since guns that can be used for effective self-defense can be just as effective at violently “assaulting” people, and vice versa — and enough with this brazen nonsense that an AR-15 isn’t an excellent, manageable choice for self-defense. As Katie Pavlich pointed out last night, it absolutely and demonstrably is:

Jasper Brisbon, 32, wandered up to a couple late Friday at the Lynnewood Apartments as the pair spoke outside their unit. Brisbon, they told police, appeared to be on drugs. He stared at the pair for several minutes before the couple decided to go into their apartment, police said.

But as they entered their home Brisbon jumped between them, forcing his way in.

The male of the couple ran to get a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle and insisted Brisbon leave. Brisbon refused. Instead, as the man yelled “Stop! Stop Stop!” Brisbon moved menacingly toward the man, police said.

The man fired a shot striking Brisbon in the torso and immediately called 911, police said.