Andrea Mitchell: Let’s face it, Dianne Feinstein pwn3d Ted Cruz in that exchange on the Second Amendment

posted at 6:48 pm on March 14, 2013 by Allahpundit

A little red meat to cleanse the palate via Mediaite. Given the network she’s on, there’s no other line Mitchell realistically could have taken on this. But even so, does it matter not at all that Feinstein couldn’t answer a very basic question about the Second Amendment on the constitutional merits? Go watch her response again. How many decades does she need as a “thought leader” in the Senate on gun control to be able to explain in a pinch why it’s not an infringement on the right to bear arms to ban certain types of weapons? The closest she gets to a legal point is mentioning the Heller decision in passing; the rest of it is all variations on “don’t you know who I am?”, from her tenure in Congress to the gun violence she’s seen with her own eyes. Only after Cruz follows up does one of her colleagues help her out by feeding her a constitutional counterargument. Question: If this is all about reacting to carnage, what to make of the fact that many U.S. military vets who’ve seen worse than what Feinstein’s seen oppose the assault-weapons ban? And what about the moderate Dems like Mark Begich and Mark Pryor who plan to vote no? Is their problem the fact that they just haven’t looked at enough bodies yet? (Answer from Michael Moore: Yes.)

This clip ends up being a useful microcosm of how constitutional concerns are typically dismissed, and not just on this issue. Feinstein’s passionate; she’s an authority figure, as she’s quick to remind you; she’s convinced the country’s facing a crisis and that the only moral response is to Do Something. What kind of bloodless pedant would ask a question about civil liberties under those circumstances, when the bloody shirt has been raised? Bonus points to Mitchell for holding up a physical copy of the Constitution while she’s busy adopting that “reasoning.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Like, all this “protect our families” stuff is the male version of maudlin emotionality, its about fantasies of heroism and domination.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:23 PM

You’re hilariously stupid.

1. You think it’s “maudlin” to want to protect a family?

2. Tell me again what your argument is against “protect from tyranny” – which was the exact purpose of the 2nd?

3. Yes, our rights to bear arms are already infringed. That doesn’t mean that more infringement is constitutional. Current infringement is already unconstitutional.

blink on March 15, 2013 at 10:27 AM

I’ve already provided him a few cases where – in the real world – a gun stopped a crime in progress. That removes completely his ‘fantasy’ argument. If it happens, it’s not fantasy.

As to your second question – libfree doesn’t believe government is capable of tyranny. I’m not being snarky at all. He honestly believes if the government does it, it must be for the greater good.

Washington Nearsider on March 15, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Washington Nearsider on March 15, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Mildly terrifying, isn’t it, that a man or woman professing a readiness to protect their families from danger would garner insults from the lefties. I wouldn’t have much respect for anyone who wouldn’t be willing to do that.

Bishop on March 15, 2013 at 10:36 AM

The Constitution says “arms,” You can own a cruise missile?

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

No. The Constitution uses the word “arms”, which had and still has, a very specific meaning. Arms refers to weapons capable of being loaded, fired and handled by one person, while being held by that person’s upper extremities, and in common use. In other words, weaponry commonly found amongst militia-men. It did not and does not mean, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc. Did you know that it is legal to own a bazooka, for instance? You have to have permission from the Treasure Department to buy it. Same thing for a grenade launcher. How many people do you think own those things? They are not in common use and are regulated. Heard anyone complaining about that lately? Pistols, rifles (of varying types) and shotguns are in common use and meet the definition of arms as intended by the framers. Enough with the slippery slope strawmen. In more than 240 years we haven’t had a problem with people suddenly buying up supplies of tanks, ground to air missiles and the like, because they don’t fit the definition of arms. It’s not likely to start now.

totherightofthem on March 15, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Washington Nearsider on March 15, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Mildly terrifying, isn’t it, that a man or woman professing a readiness to protect their families from danger would garner insults from the lefties. I wouldn’t have much respect for anyone who wouldn’t be willing to do that.

Bishop on March 15, 2013 at 10:36 AM

I also asked how many lives he’s be willing to sacrifice – through rape and murder – to implement his ‘no guns’ plan. After all, Ayers stated that he would need to eliminate 25,000,000 Americans in order to implement his liberal Utopia.

No response.

I would still disagree, but I’d respect liberals like libfree so much more if they’d simply be HONEST about their intentions. Own it. Say it out loud. “I don’t believe guns have a place in America today.”

Then we could begin to have an honest discussion. Instead, conservatives believe (rightly) that every step is just another incremental move toward the un-stated goal.

Washington Nearsider on March 15, 2013 at 10:43 AM

This clip ends up being a useful microcosm of how constitutional concerns are typically dismissed, and not just on this issue.

“Are you serious? Are you serious??” – Nazi Pelousi on the Constitutionality of BarkyCare (LOL)

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 15, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Trying to explain the Constitution to a liberal is like trying to explain color to a person who has been blind from birth.

There’s simply no reference point.

Washington Nearsider on March 15, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Blink shows off Bishop.

Bishop Blinks.

carry on

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 15, 2013 at 10:50 AM

I wants a Cruz missile.

davidk on March 15, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Like, all this “protect our families” stuff is the male version of maudlin emotionality, its about fantasies of heroism and domination.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:23 PM

You’re hilariously stupid.

1. You think it’s “maudlin” to want to protect a family?

blink on March 15, 2013 at 10:27 AM

You found that amusing too? Like the ability to protect my family is just some sick Freudian extention of my pen1s. Note to the troll: your comrade, lostmotherland, tried the whole “shame and embarrassment” schtick for months. It didn’t work. Casting aspersions on our manhood doesn’t either.

Using this dolt’s same twisted logic, a woman who stays home to raise more than the ecologically sound 1.8 children must have “maudlin” fantasies about being the next Michelle Duggar. It couldn’t possibly be because she’s more capable of raising her brood than the state.

That’s the heart of the matter for these marxists. We all need to depend entirely on the state for everything. Anyone exhibiting examples of self-sufficiency is a pariah. The idea of someone being better able than they are to protect himself scares the daylights out of them.

CurtZHP on March 15, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I would still disagree, but I’d respect liberals like libfree so much more if they’d simply be HONEST about their intentions. Own it. Say it out loud. “I don’t believe guns have a place in America today.”

Then we could begin to have an honest discussion.

Never gonna happen. An honest discussion is the last thing they want, precisely because they know we’ll never go along with their real intentions. No more do they want our respect, which has a place only in the civilized society we conservatives imagine still exists.

mrsknightley on March 15, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Ah…for the record, DiFi… bullets don’t implode. Good lord, the stupid is strong with this one.

jcmorris on March 15, 2013 at 10:57 AM

The Constitution says “arms,” You can own a cruise missile?

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Probably not. Too bad — my take is “if you can afford it, go for it…”

affenhauer on March 15, 2013 at 11:11 AM

It must be hard to read the Bill of Rights when you’re waving the bloody shirt…or even a bloody kid’s t-shirt in the case of this shameless woman.

jangle12 on March 15, 2013 at 11:16 AM

The Constitution says “arms,” You can own a cruise missile?

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Probably not. Too bad — my take is “if you can afford it, go for it…”

affenhauer on March 15, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Dang liberal. Don’t try and tell me that I can’t own a cruise missile and gal help me from firing a RPG at your socialist a$$. Arms is arms, read the 2nd amendment.

bayam on March 15, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Point proven.

CurtZHP on March 15, 2013 at 11:20 AM

blink on March 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM

I was only half-joking: if I actually had $6M to throw around on fun stuff, an Abrams tank would probably be kinda cool. Not that I could do a lot with it — I’m one of those ‘responsible’ weapons-owners that keeps getting his rights infringed upon… ;-)

affenhauer on March 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Dang liberal. Don’t try and tell me that I can’t own a cruise missile and gal help me from firing a RPG at your socialist a$$. Arms is arms, read the 2nd amendment.

bayam on March 15, 2013 at 11:17 AM

C’mon! Is that the strawman the best strategy you Proppressives have developed?

I see that lame strawman all over the place, it that in some memo put out by ThinkOppression somewhere?

BTW, you petty tyrants have lost your claim on the word ‘Liberal’ – do you think you’re fooling anyone anymore with that load of barrack?

You Leftist control freaks want to run everyone’s life – everything from the size of our toilet tank to how we can defend ourselves – you are far removed from someone with even a passing interest in the concept of liberty.

Galt2009 on March 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM

I wants a Cruz missile.

davidk on March 15, 2013 at 10:51 AM

I’m a Texan. I already have one.

:)

stvnscott on March 15, 2013 at 11:35 AM

I guess libfree missed the 1946 Battle of Athens in TN where vets had to take up arms to protect their rights from county government. Or the 80 years of Jim Crow where government and racist organizations harassed, denies them constitutional rigthts and killed African Americans with no consequences. Or maybe Wounded Knee where the 7th Calvary confiscated Native American weapons and then massacred 297 men, women and children. Tyranny is not restricted to any one race or culture. The most educated citizenry in the world allowed the Nazi horrors, security over freedom prevailed.

amr on March 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM

It’s interesting that Feinstein touts her experience in the Harvey Milk shooting to support the case for her bill. In fact, that experience undermines the foundation of her bill, namely that large-capacity magazines make mass shootings possible, and banning them will make them impractical. The Milk shooting was not done with a semi-auto firearm with a 20-round magazine, or even a semi-auto pistol with a 15-round magazine, but with a 6-shot revolver which Dan White reloaded during his killing spree. And White was not going up against little kids who would have been at a disadvantage relative to the two grown men he killed. How well did limiting magazine size work out then, Senator?

Socratease on March 15, 2013 at 11:53 AM

The Constitution says “arms,” You can own a cruise missile?

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

I don’t think anyone truly disputes that gov’t can enforce reasonable regulations on firearms. There are two problems with this though.

1. Liberals and conservatives disagree as to what is “reasonable”; and

2. as with almost any issue, we do not trust liberals. We believe that liberals end goal is to take away all guns and/or regulate it to the point where most people cannot access guns. Thus, we believe we cannot cede one inch because history tells us that liberals/gov’t will turn that inch into a mile.

This same thing holds true on any “balance approach” to the deficit/debt – we don’t believe liberals will ever cut spending or reform entitlements and therefore can’t agree to some deal that claims it will both raise taxes in exchange and cut spending. Again, history taught us we can’t trust liberals on this issue.

This holds true for immigration. We can’t agree to a “comprehensive reform” because we believe that once legal status is given to illegals, no reform of border security, immigration law enforcement, etc. will ever occur. Again, history taught us this. On this one, history taught us not to trust republicans or democrats.

When you do not trust the other side to act in good faith, keep promises, etc., it is very difficult to agree to anything.

My guess is that most conservatives would agree to some reasonable regulations on firearms if we trusted liberals to leave it at that and to enforce those regulations in good faith – not in an effort to get rid of guns altogether. Unfortunately, because we don’t trust liberals, we cannot agree to anything.

A way out of this for liberals is to agree to do things in reverse order to how they want them done. Agree to enhanced border enforcement, enforcement of immigration laws, etc. first and then after some period of time, have a system for providing legal status to some of the illegals.

Agree to spending cuts and entitlement reform now and enact it, and then raise taxes to help deal with the deficit/debt.

Monkeytoe on March 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM

bayam on March 15, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Do you know or socialize with a single conservative?

Any honest liberal who associated with conservatives wouldn’t peddle in these absurd caricatures, and would have a natural feel for the freedom-based arguments around the 2nd Amendment. It is a deeply sad statement of the Leftist corruption of the liberal ideal and of progressive education that we come to this divide.

rrpjr on March 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM

TED CRUZ is now the new RICK LAZIO.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/924235.stm

Hillary attacked in TV debate

But for the most part she maintained her poise, even when her opponent pulled a contract out of his pocket and asked her to sign an agreement not to accept so-called soft money or unregulated campaign contributions.

PappyD61 on March 15, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Dang liberal. Don’t try and tell me that I can’t own a cruise missile and gal help me from firing a RPG at your socialist a$$. Arms is arms, read the 2nd amendment.

bayam on March 15, 2013 at 11:17 AM

I can’t help but notice that there is zero separation in the mind of the poster, between possessing a firearm and its unprovoked use against another citizen. It’s almost as if it is impossible to own such a thing without committing a crime with it, notwithstanding that the number of crimes divided among the number of guns in the US is within three decimal points of absolute zero.

The Schaef on March 15, 2013 at 12:46 PM

I can’t help but notice that there is zero separation in the mind of the poster, between possessing a firearm and its unprovoked use against another citizen. It’s almost as if it is impossible to own such a thing without committing a crime with it, notwithstanding that the number of crimes divided among the number of guns in the US is within three decimal points of absolute zero.

The Schaef on March 15, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Well spotted. That’s pretty much how they see everything. There’s no daylight between saying you don’t want to pay for someone’s birth control and saying you think they should be barefoot and pregnant. You believe in abstinence? You must be an uptight prude who’s never had a romantic thought in your life, and your honeymoon is sure to be frought with disaster. You want to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico or ANWR? You obviously have no problem with millions of gallons of crude oil choking every vestige of wildlife out of existence and having every faucet in America flow with hot and cold running e. coli.

CurtZHP on March 15, 2013 at 1:02 PM

See how Yahoo News portrays this issue……

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and gun control advocate, had a fierce clash with newcomer Ted Cruz, a freshman senator from Texas. The two had a tense debate that caught the interest of the Web.

The tea party partisan wanted to know from the senior senator if she would “deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights” to apply the same guidelines of banning weapons in the Second Amendment to the banning of books in the First Amendment?

Directing his question at Feinstein, he asked, “Would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?”

Feinstein, a Stanford graduate, appeared visibly annoyed and responded, “I’m not a sixth grader. Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years.” She described herself as “reasonably well educated,” adding, “I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years, I’ve been up close and personal with the Constitution. I have great respect for it. … So, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time.”

Behold the threatening male……….TED CRUZ.

PappyD61 on March 15, 2013 at 1:05 PM

“…but after 20 years, I’ve been up close and personal with the Constitution. I have great respect for it…
 
PappyD61 on March 15, 2013 at 1:05 PM

 
She keeps her copy under her Bible.
 
Seriously, though:
 

“Congress is in the business of making law. The Supreme Court interprets the law,” she said.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/assault-weapons-ban-passes-senate-committee/

 
I’d imagine she’s been told what the Constitution says for her entire life. I’d be truly surprised if she has read it in its entirety even once.

rogerb on March 15, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Ok, now let us move to the insidious destruction wrought by the media to pass bans on the horrors of NBC-style defamation and incitement.

IlikedAUH2O on March 15, 2013 at 1:53 PM

The Constitution says “arms,” You can own a cruise missile?
 
libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Dang liberal. Don’t try and tell me that I can’t own a cruise missile and gal help me from firing a RPG at your socialist a$$. Arms is arms, read the 2nd amendment.

bayam on March 15, 2013 at 11:17 AM

 
By the way, dear readers, we rarely get a thread that manages to sum up the differences in how the two sides think of you (not the general “you”, but you specifically as an individual) any better than this one has.
 
People believe other people are like themselves.
 
A cruise missile, if I could afford one, would be no more dangerous in my hands than the paring knife in my kitchen drawer. I don’t lose my temper easily, and I have no desire to harm other people when I do. I assume you, like me, are moral, considerate, level-headed, and have an overwhelming aversion to violence, and I have no reason to believe it would be inherently dangerous in your possession, either.
 
In other words, I think you’re basically just like me until you show me otherwise.
 
Our progressives believe (and have usefully inferred above) that you obviously have a tendency to violence and lack the desire or self control to keep yourself from inflicting knee-jerk harm on others to get what you want, and, in order to keep you from being a danger to yourself or others, people who are smarter than you should be allowed to decide what is best for you.
 
In other words, they think you’re basically just like them until you show them otherwise.

rogerb on March 15, 2013 at 2:09 PM

In other words, they think you’re basically just like them until you show them otherwise.

rogerb on March 15, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Right. Except not “until.” You can never show them otherwise. We’re talking about immovable poles in a moral universe — their enlightened righteousness, your ignorant and unholy will.

rrpjr on March 15, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Andrea Mitchell: Let’s face it, Dianne Feinstein pwn3d Ted Cruz in that exchange on the Second Amendment

In the alternate “reality” Andrea Mitchell lives in, I’m sure she thought Ted Cruz was pwn3d. I’m sure she has many other thoughts in that world she lives in that are absolutely frightening.

olesparkie on March 15, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Wait a minute MSNBC played her resume reading dodge to make the point that DF pwned? Lacking any life life… DF was smoked.

RalphyBoy on March 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Cruz’s basic argument was never countered. Would Feinstein be in favor of taking away rights in the 1st and 4th Amendment areas? If not, why the difference? Particularly in 4th Amendment cases, you’re still dealing with issues of safety and the public good.

Sadly, I think Feinstein is just, um, Fine with encroaching on 4th Amendment rights, too.

hawksruleva on March 15, 2013 at 2:55 PM

The Constitution says “arms,” You can own a cruise missile?

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Cruise missiles can carry nuclear warheads. And they’re a scarce commodity with components that many countries can’t manufacture. For both reasons, controlling them is a matter of national security. But otherwise, yes, we should be able to own one. They’re terrible for defending yourself, though.

A tank, for example, seems to me an excellent personal defense weapon. Now, I couldn’t drive my tank on most streets, and if I damaged anything with my tank I’d be liable for it. But the Constitution is certainly in favor of citizens owning the tools necessary to tear down a corrupt government.

hawksruleva on March 15, 2013 at 3:00 PM

I was only half-joking: if I actually had $6M to throw around on fun stuff, an Abrams tank would probably be kinda cool. Not that I could do a lot with it — I’m one of those ‘responsible’ weapons-owners that keeps getting his rights infringed upon… ;-)

affenhauer on March 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Some handy uses for an Abrams:
pulling up stumps
tornado shelter
Fourth of July decoration (and fireworks dispenser)
Jungle gym
Home security sign (who’s going to break into a house with a tank in the front yard?)
with a breather kit, they’re handy during floods
phone re-charger

hawksruleva on March 15, 2013 at 3:08 PM

hawksruleva on March 15, 2013 at 3:08 PM

All good points — especially the home-security sign. I know the homeowners’ association would be a bit unhappy about it; I wonder if they’d have what it takes to cite me for it…

affenhauer on March 15, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Myself, I kind of wonder how Diane Feinstein became a multi millionare when she worked for the San Francisco district attorney’s office, from there to city supervisor, then the Mayor’s office, then finally the US Senate.

She never held a job outside of government and yet “earned” a hundred million dollars.

Let’s say she came across this embarassment of riches honestly (highly doubtful), that means we are paying government workers way, way, way, more then they could ever be worth.

But that’s not the truth. The truth is Feinstein is a souless self serving grifter, profiting on the misery of the public which she has had a hand in the authoring of.

papertiger on March 15, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Tell us, bayam, how much unconstitutional infringement do you support with respect to bearing arms?

blink on March 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM

When the constitution explicitly cites ‘regulated’ in a clause, then I don’t perceive regulation as infringement.
When a weapon is developed that enables a shooter to fire 300 rounds a second and features an attached propelled grenade launcher, I don’t see why it can’t be regulated under the second amendment.

This is largely a cultural issue with both sides talking past each other. The number of people who want to “take your guns away” is in reality quite small compared to those with the more grounded goal of removing the most dangerous weapons from wide circulation, weapons that can do the most damage in the hands of criminals and the criminally insane.

bayam on March 15, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Once again the trolls tell you what they really are afraid of. Regular folks being armed well enough to take care of themselves, with no help from the state and in spite of the state.

“Oh, we don’t mind you owning a gun, just as long as it’s a small caliber, limited capacity weapon that couldn’t do much damage. I mean, it’s not like you really need a machine gun, do you?”

I’m not asking for a machine gun. I’m asking to be left alone.

Our progressives believe (and have usefully inferred above) that you obviously have a tendency to violence and lack the desire or self control to keep yourself from inflicting knee-jerk harm on others to get what you want, and, in order to keep you from being a danger to yourself or others, people who are smarter than you should be allowed to decide what is best for you.

In other words, they think you’re basically just like them until you show them otherwise.

rogerb on March 15, 2013 at 2:09 PM

This.

CurtZHP on March 15, 2013 at 4:01 PM

…the more grounded goal of removing the most dangerous weapons from wide circulation, weapons that can do the most damage in the hands of criminals and the criminally insane.
 
bayam on March 15, 2013 at 3:40 PM

 
Which specific “most dangerous weapons” are those, bayam?
 
Since you chose to use the plural, the top three is fine.

rogerb on March 15, 2013 at 4:30 PM

I have seen my share of corpses, too, Senator.

Cruz should have asked whether the photos and films of dismembered fetuses had any impact on her pro abortion record.

These guys should have me sitting next to them.

IlikedAUH2O on March 15, 2013 at 4:35 PM

“When the constitution explicitly cites ‘regulated’ in a clause, then I don’t perceive regulation as infringement.”

It says that with regard to the militia, not with regard to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, nor the arms themselves.

Even allowing for so vapid an argument, saying a person is forbidden to purchase a particular weapon or type of weapon is not merely a “regulation” of weapons; it is an explicit infringement.

This is largely a cultural issue with both sides talking past each other.

What a surprise to learn that someone who says you don’t care about dead children, have a inclination towards violence that renders you a ticking time bomb, have a lust for guns, is anti-intellectual, and on and on and on, to say nothing of the oh-so-clever sexually explicit terms of “endearment”, for saying that there is a right inherent to a free people against the power of the government, might be talking past you.

This is not a “cultural issue”. This is a basic issue of the rights of a free people. The entire point of a right is that I decide, not you, and certainly not the government. It is turned INTO a cultural issue by people who want to argue from emotion rather than reason. This is why left-favored sites are so swift to keep “death tolls” to highlight every instance of gun violence they can find documented in the media, with no distinction between those that were committed with “okay” weapons and those with so-called “most dangerous” weapons. Similarly, Feinstein invokes the memories of Moscone and Milk, neither of whom were killed with a “most dangerous weapon”.

They claim the target is only “most dangerous weapons” and “criminals” but they bemoan gun violence with no such subtlety, and target their laws with no regard for the status of law-abiding citizen.

The Schaef on March 15, 2013 at 5:14 PM

If you think DiFi won that exchange, you just might be a moonbat (like Trandrea).

Chickyraptor on March 15, 2013 at 5:17 PM

When a weapon is developed that enables a shooter to fire 300 rounds a second and features an attached propelled grenade launcher, I don’t see why it can’t be regulated under the second amendment.

bayam is an imbecilic retarted fool.

attached propelled grenade launcher.

lmfao.

tom daschle concerned on March 15, 2013 at 5:33 PM

blink on March 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM

.
This is largely a cultural issue with both sides talking past each other. The number of people who want to “take your guns away” is in reality quite small compared to those with the more grounded goal of removing the most dangerous weapons from wide circulation, weapons that can do the most damage in the hands of criminals and the criminally insane.

bayam on March 15, 2013 at 3:40 PM

.
The “weapons that can do the most damage in the hands of criminals and the criminally insane” are exactly the ones that are best suited “for facing down” any government agency that is attempting to enforce tyranny.

ALL American legal-adult citizens should be capable of stopping the next Adam Lanzaa, or James Holmes, or Nidal Hassan.

That includes the adults working with children IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

listens2glenn on March 15, 2013 at 6:32 PM

bayam on March 15, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!!

AP just proven correct in his precognition of definition-bending MORONS on the Left!

PJ Emeritus on March 15, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Here’s a clue, you moronic TWITS on the left. Making the owning of such weapons (fully automatic) has YET to keep them out of the hands of criminals.

You see, genius, they are CRIMINALS. They care NOT what ELSE you make a crime. They will STILL own the weapons, but you will make sure the law-abiding have no way of leveling the playing field.

But you know EVERYTHING and are so intellectually and morally superior.

Except you are DEMONSTRABLY complete BUFFOONS!!

PJ Emeritus on March 15, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Feinstein was referring to ex-SF supervisor Dan White’s assassination of SF Mayor Moscone and gay supervisor Harvey Milk.

Where Cruz should have pwned Feinstein is that White used a revolver, not a semi-automatic rifle. As a fireman/supervisor he also had the same sort of police connections that DiFi used to get and hold a CCW at the time. He could have gotten a permit under any of the proposed California gun ban schemes of the last 35 years.

kd6rxl on March 15, 2013 at 6:43 PM

The Heller decision said that “dangerous and unusual weapons which are not in the common usage” can be regulated or banned by the government. It said that there was an individual right to bear arms; the Second Amendment “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” (p 8); the handgun bans “amounted to a prohibition of an ENTIRE CLASS OF ‘ARMS’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.”

Dangerous:

The AR-15 is the #1 rifle sold in the United States. It is no more dangerous than handguns. In fact, it kills FAR less. In 2011, 72.5% of all gun-related homicides were committed using handguns. In 2011, 3.8% (323) of ALL gun-related homicides in 2011 committed with rifles of ALL KINDS, INCLUDING “ASSAULT RIFLES” LIKE AR-15s.

Unusual:

There is NOTHING unusual about AR-15-style rifles…unless one is afraid of black, skeery, plastic thingies.

Don’t believe me? Then, look at the pictures of these two guns and ask yourself, “Does one really look that much more ‘dangerous, unusual and uncommon’ than the other?”

http://tinyurl.com/ctyyo2u

Uncommon:

Really? AR-15s are uncommon? Since when?

In 2009, it was estimated that there were 3,261,725 of AR-15s – alone, not just AR-15-style – in the United States…and the homicide rate was 5.0.

In contrast, in 1994 when the original Assault Weapons Ban went into effect, there were approximately 1.5 million AR-15s in the United States and the homicide rate was 9.0.

Feinstein, Mitchell, and Scarborough should really go back and read the Heller decision. Cruz knows it…since he was one of the attorneys that won it before the Supreme Court.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2013 at 7:05 PM

The “weapons that can do the most damage in the hands of criminals and the criminally insane” are exactly the ones that are best suited “for facing down” any government agency that is attempting to enforce tyranny.

True, a handgun won’t take down a black helicopter unless you’re a great shot but a shotgun… might.

bayam on March 15, 2013 at 7:48 PM

True, a handgun won’t take down a black helicopter unless you’re a great shot but a shotgun… might.

bayam on March 15, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Twin-barrel breakaway, slug rounds, aim for the cockpit or engine intake. Then get your rump roast right back behind solid cover and MOVE.

MelonCollie on March 15, 2013 at 8:24 PM

True, a handgun won’t take down a black helicopter unless you’re a great shot but a shotgun… might.

bayam on March 15, 2013 at 7:48 PM

You really know absolutely nothing about guns. You should stop before you make yourself look any more ridiculous.

stvnscott on March 15, 2013 at 9:05 PM

…the more grounded goal of removing the most dangerous weapons from wide circulation, weapons that can do the most damage in the hands of criminals and the criminally insane.
 
bayam on March 15, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Which specific “most dangerous weapons” are those, bayam?
 
Since you chose to use the plural, the top three is fine.
 
rogerb on March 15, 2013 at 4:30 PM

 
bayam, when you complained about
 

This is largely a cultural issue with both sides talking past each other.

 
Your posts are what you were lamenting, right?
 
You introduce a statement with a buzzword (grounded) solely in hopes of childishly focusing opinions regarding other views as the opposite (not grounded). Then I ask a question regarding the claim you introduced
 

Which specific “most dangerous weapons” are those, bayam?
 
rogerb on March 15, 2013 at 4:30 PM

 
And you ignore it
 

…talking past each other.

 
because you don’t really understand the topic and simply make things up as-needed to support what amounts to faith-based political positions, and instead you go on to post some distracting nonsense about shotguns and black helicopters before fleeing the thread.
 
You make
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/24/federal-govt-hey-green-jobs-didnt-work-out-but-maybe-green-education-will/comment-page-2/#comment-5772869

 
a bit
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/08/onward-obamacare/comment-page-5/#comment-6493691

 
of a habit
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/28/video-rare-american-who-can-afford-to-buy-chevy-volt-vows-to-buy-one/comment-page-2/#comment-5546327

 
of that technique, don’t you?
 
You’re not doing that great of a job of dispelling the low-info Obama voter joke that has, for some unknown reason, gained traction. I’m sure it’s all coincidental, though.
 
As I’ve told you before, there’s no substance or depth to the debate because you (again) choose ignorance, bayam.

rogerb on March 15, 2013 at 10:22 PM

In a moment of stunning brilliance, Rogerb sez…

People believe other people are like themselves.

A cruise missile, if I could afford one, would be no more dangerous in my hands than the paring knife in my kitchen drawer. I don’t lose my temper easily, and I have no desire to harm other people when I do. I assume you, like me, are moral, considerate, level-headed, and have an overwhelming aversion to violence, and I have no reason to believe it would be inherently dangerous in your possession, either.

In other words, I think you’re basically just like me until you show me otherwise.

Our progressives believe (and have usefully inferred above) that you obviously have a tendency to violence and lack the desire or self control to keep yourself from inflicting knee-jerk harm on others to get what you want, and, in order to keep you from being a danger to yourself or others, people who are smarter than you should be allowed to decide what is best for you.

In other words, they think you’re basically just like them until you show them otherwise.

rogerb on March 15, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Dude… that is conceptual bedrock… you inspired a post at my blog where I quoted you, entitled

Utter Brilliance

Consider that stolen…

Stolen, but attributed…

(please, if you know Rogerb, please direct him to this link, in case he isn’t back on this thread…)

PointnClick on March 16, 2013 at 6:57 AM

Crap… Messed up the link

PointnClick on March 16, 2013 at 6:59 AM

WRONG AND NOT RIGHT ANDREA.
The fact is that Feinstein was defensive and did not answer the question, until asked a second time.
In between and after which she was defended by her intsa-mob lackeys (Leahy & Durbin).
That in my book is not a win. Cruz took the day.

kregg on March 16, 2013 at 7:09 AM

PointnClick on March 16, 2013 at 6:57 AM

 
I’m honored.

rogerb on March 16, 2013 at 7:26 AM

And like Cruz said, she never answered the question

TexasJew on March 16, 2013 at 7:49 AM

Let’s face it, Dianne Feinstein pwn3d Ted Cruz in that exchange

That’s laughable to anyone who actually watched the exchange. Feinstein was so rattled she couldn’t even address the question. She whined and wandered until finally Durban came to her rescue.

Lefties say what they want you to think. Any relation to veracity is purely coincidental.

petefrt on March 16, 2013 at 8:54 AM

And like Cruz said, she never answered the question
 
TexasJew on March 16, 2013 at 7:49 AM

 
A bit of a habit among the breed.

rogerb on March 16, 2013 at 9:27 AM

So all done, eh bayam?
 
From last year:
 

In this country, you’re either for or against Obamacare, there’s no depth or real substance to the debate. It’s really unfortunate.
 
bayam on November 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM

 
It’s hilarious that you’ve been complaining about your own uninformed RUN AWAY!!! technique since November.
 
Seriously, great job on helping dispel the low-info Obama voter myth. Well done.
 
Speaking of the best and brightest Obama voters, our good friend and original thinker verbaluce said it best when he recently and spontaneously came up with:
 

you really suck at this
 
rogerb on March 8, 2013 at 9:32 AM

 
You’re really bad at this.
 
verbaluce on March 12, 2013 at 1:40 PM

 
I couldn’t have said it better myself.

rogerb on March 16, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Once again Chris Murphy is taking a page from his mentor Richard (Stolen Valor) Blumenthal. Never let anyone get between you and the camera.

trollope of whyte trashe on March 16, 2013 at 4:22 PM

This absolutely isn’t a fair fight.

The Democrats in the Senate had best lube up. The next few years are not going to be comfortable.

applebutter on March 16, 2013 at 5:39 PM

You know, it’s pointless to respond to LFOD.

He never answers a direct question, comes up with illogical arguments and never hangs around for discussion.

Pointless, like his talking points.

itsspideyman on March 17, 2013 at 10:01 AM

So, is that the level of unconstitutional infringement that you support?

You want to prevent ownership of 300 rounds per second?

Does that mean that you don’t want unconstitutional infringe for arms slower than that?

blink on March 17, 2013 at 4:48 PM

I’m cool with bayam’s proposed ban on “attached propelled grenade launchers”, they sound dangerous as hell..to the operator mostly.

tom daschle concerned on March 17, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Her arguement is interesting one a couple of points.

She specifies that she is not a lawyer. Sen Cruz not only is, but he was the Texas AG and is very constitutional literate.

Point two, she says she has seen lots of dead bodies. Hmmm,

Point three, she says she’s been in office a long time. Like that raises your level of competence??

Point four, she never specifically answers his question.

joelj31 on March 18, 2013 at 12:55 AM

And bayam flees another thread when he can no longer touch bottom.
 
The funny part is that he views this strategy as yielding a better overall outcome for him and his cult. Imagine that for a moment.
 

…the more grounded goal of removing the most dangerous weapons from wide circulation, weapons that can do the most damage in the hands of criminals and the criminally insane.
 
bayam on March 15, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Which specific “most dangerous weapons” are those, bayam?
 
Since you chose to use the plural, the top three is fine.
 
rogerb on March 15, 2013 at 4:30 PM

 
Thanks though, bayam. I know you believe that not addressing your topic removes “looking even more foolish and ignorant of the subject” from the table, but it simply reinforces it.
 
You’ll figure that out when you get a little older, hopefully.
 

…there’s no depth or real substance to the debate. It’s really unfortunate.
 
bayam on November 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM

 
I especially like the “it’s really unfortunate part”. That’s hilarious.
 
Regardless, thanks for your help representing the (D) side. It was certainly up to the standards we’ve come to expect.
 
Well done.

rogerb on March 18, 2013 at 7:23 AM

People representing both sides of the debate, standing on respective sides of an isle, and facing one another.

“Okay, I want to hear everybody on both sides, all together … in unison … three … two … one … ”
.
“MY SIDE WON THE DEBATE.”

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3