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

Mitchell is delusional at best.

Ellis on March 14, 2013 at 5:58 PM

The cow who sleeps with a cadaver is always…a cow.

I sincerely apologize to the mil-producing dumb critters.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Imagine that her cadaver was once an Ayn Rand pupil – just think of that.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 6:51 PM

And this is the way the electorate will see it.

happytobehere on March 14, 2013 at 6:51 PM

milk-producing

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Perry just rocked the house at CPAC, serving it to both sides.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Andrea Mitchell: Let’s face it

…Let’s face it!…Andrea Mitchell is a cumb dunt!

KOOLAID2 on March 14, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Sen. Feinstein apparently is a big fan of Henry Cabot Lodge.

To quote the great man:

“Isn’t there something we can appear to be doing?”

IndieDogg on March 14, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Krauthammer just said pretty much the same thing as Mrs. Greenspan.

steebo77 on March 14, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Perry just rocked the house at CPAC, serving it to both sides.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 6:53 PM

why,did he say i get to keep my property if he decides to build a highway through it?

renalin on March 14, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Cruz rattled her chain but good. She literally clutched the pearls. LOL!

RedRedRice on March 14, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Ted Cruz has the media worried. They should be.

tru2tx on March 14, 2013 at 6:57 PM

What a loathsome creature DiFi is.

rbj on March 14, 2013 at 6:58 PM

“We’ve done it in the past” is apparently now proof that it’s constitutional.
Let’s ban abortion.

FlareCorran on March 14, 2013 at 6:58 PM

OT, this is cool.

It will annoy A. Mitchell.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 6:59 PM

the libs have no coherent argument. they immediatley pull out the emotion card and start waving the corpses of the sandy hook victims. what pieces of crap they really are.

thank you Senator Cruz. I heard your argument. feinstein didn’t care even a little about the bill of rights or constitution.

we are in deep trouble if we all don’t stand alongside this great senator.

renalin on March 14, 2013 at 6:59 PM

There’s no difference between the Taliban and our liberals, they demand complete and unequivocal control, they mutilate and kill children and after they’re pounded into the dirt, they claim victory.

Speakup on March 14, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Andrea Bitchell – every bit as ugly on the inside as the outside. I am just happy she was too old to have children when she married Alan Greenspan. Imagine what they would have looked like.

bw222 on March 14, 2013 at 6:59 PM

And this was in Greenspan’s ear…every…freakin….day. No wonder he eventually went batshit incompetent towards the end.

Sugar Land on March 14, 2013 at 7:00 PM

OT, but will annoy Andrea Mitchell.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 7:01 PM

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?

What question??? Wolf had Feinstein on CNN an hour ago and they cut the question part out of the video they played.

Somebody should ask her if the weapon that Dan White used will still be legal if her legislation passes.

rw on March 14, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Perry just rocked the house at CPAC, serving it to both sides.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Now that will be my dessert right after dinner, nope, gonna watch it now!!

fourdeucer on March 14, 2013 at 7:03 PM

My gosh, Allen West just ‘killed’ Andrea Mitchell and her plankton kin.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Now that will be my dessert right after dinner, nope, gonna watch it now!!

fourdeucer on March 14, 2013 at 7:03 PM

…the full link.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Why am I not suprised at anything that comes out of Andrea Mitchell’s mouth??!!??..:)

Dire Straits on March 14, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Does Mitchell still pretend to be objective?

changer1701 on March 14, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Alternate reality, bizzaro world…mirror mirror…

cozmo on March 14, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Cruz/West or

West/Cruz — 2016

Or Perry and any of the two, in any order…

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Fineswine is not deserving of the respect she demands from Ted Cruz.

When you act like a 6th grader, you get treated like one. In Fineswines case, over the years she has taken the child-like methodology in attempts to restrict personal freedom.

TX-96 on March 14, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Does Mitchell still pretend to be objective?

changer1701 on March 14, 2013 at 7:05 PM

No, like Churchill said, or is said to have said, she’s an established harlot and only haggles over the price now.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Heh, West “when Obama goes back to Chicago”…the Obamas will never go back to Chicago. That is trash to them, where they hail from. They now belong to Hawaii, where they want to be king/queen.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Not a whole lot of talk about the Constitution from Mitchell, Murphy, or DiFi. So many fallacious arguments in that short clip. Oh and once Murphy addressed it he claimed because the ban lasted for 10 years that makes it constitutional? Hmmm I have never heard of this 10 year rule.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 7:09 PM

when asked a serious question the reprobate elected looter/whore instantly made an appeal to emotion and to authority.

tom daschle concerned on March 14, 2013 at 7:09 PM

tom daschle concerned on March 14, 2013 at 7:09 PM

She told the truth. She’s not in 6th grade; she’s in the 3rd.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Feinstein’s feigned outrage and weak “I’ve been here for a long time!!” rambling was pathetic.

Cruz brings back the constitutional question to lawmakers who need to know they need to stop making laws that contradict their sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution.

portlandon on March 14, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Cruz needs to keep asking. The Democrats’ reply looks sillier the more times they have to say it. The problem is that they’ve never had to say it before.

The only advise to Cruz is to make the questions simpler.

“Are you opposed to infringing on citizens’ right to keep and bear arms?”.

“What language in the 2nd Amendment do you think should be changed, if any?”

“Do you believe that there will never be a need for a state to use their arms against a tyrannical federal government?”

Not that Cruz’s question was bad. It was an intelligent question but you need to treat Democrats like 1st graders because they don’t lose any voters by playing dumb with college level or even junior high school level questions. Let them botch the first grade questions instead. Let them whine about being asked first grade questions and keep asking them the questions until they answer, then move onto the 2nd grade questions.

Buddahpundit on March 14, 2013 at 7:09 PM

I SWEAR that EVERY 0bamaBot posting in the Yahoo news sections has a direct connection to PMSNBC. I’m pretty sure those connections plug into the rear…

DannoJyd on March 14, 2013 at 7:12 PM

This was one of those exchanges where people will see and hear what they want to see and hear. I agree with Cruz on the substance, the talking nose named Andrea Mitchell agrees with Feinstein’s rhetoric.

One thing that can’t be denied is that Cruz got under the skin of Democrats, and if he can do this on a regular basis they will get even testier with their responses to them and that testy tone is what most Americans pay attention to, not the actual words that are said. When people get testy, they look bad.

Daemonocracy on March 14, 2013 at 7:14 PM

She told the truth. She’s not in 6th grade; she’s in the 3rd.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 7:09 PM

You can tell he got to her.

I wonder…did he call her Senator, Ma’am, Mrs. Feinstein?
/

Is Boxer her sister?

CW on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Sigh: Not Feinstein’s finest moment. There is an intellectual response to Cruz, rather than an emotional one. Namely, that the right to “speech” has a number of Constitutionally sanctioned limits, because some forms of speech are harmful. It is not within one’s free speech to threaten another person with murder or violence. It is not within one’s speech to “stalk” or “harass” another individual with a constant stream of letters, phonecalls or text messages. It is not within one’s speech rights to engage in libel, to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, to openly discuss weaponry and terrorist plots in Airports. The list goes on. The right is perfectly fine with a wide range of restrictions on Constitutional Amendments, particularly when it comes to “search and seizure” in the name of security and safety. Frankly, it seems logically consistent to also use “security” to rationalize some restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, rather than to claim security exceptions for search and seizure and to deny safety exceptions to one’s Constitutionally enumerated right to bear arms.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM

pfft … dewhurst would have done a much better job.

/ <- necessary?

Lost in Jersey on March 14, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Fineswine is not deserving of the respect she demands from Ted Cruz.

When you act like a 6th grader, you get treated like one. In Fineswines case, over the years she has taken the child-like methodology in attempts to restrict personal freedom.

TX-96 on March 14, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Her screed was reminiscent of Ma’ am Boxer’s indignation of being addressed thusly instead of “Senator”.

tru2tx on March 14, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Cuz it’s not about the Constitution, it’s about feelings.

nico on March 14, 2013 at 7:19 PM

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Is that Rand Paul fellow a D or an R?

Your post is just like the video: Full of logical fallacies.

Say are you still advocating for sex between adults and minors and then having the cajones to criticize the Church? You’re gross.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Why does Feinstein think SHE can decide what firearms we can and cannot own?

ctmom on March 14, 2013 at 7:21 PM

I was in line at a book signing for Going Rogue when Mitchell’s handlers came over to pull people out of line for an interview. No dice. It was very satisfying for everyone who saw what went down. Those who knew who she was passed the word. No one was willing to play chump for her. They wound up ambushing people outside the store who weren’t there for the signing.

Having seen her in person, I will say that she looks better on tv. Yikes.

novaculus on March 14, 2013 at 7:21 PM

CW on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Looks like we’re on the same train.

tru2tx on March 14, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Let’s face it, we’re dealing with adults here who have never outgrown their terrible twos.

Dusty on March 14, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Mitchell is almost as ignorant as Feintein.

AZCoyote on March 14, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Perry called the release of criminal illegal aliens “a federally sponsored jail break”.

Go Perry. I love that this annoys Andrea Mitchell. I hope her teeth clapper badly.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 7:24 PM

I wonder…did he call her Senator, Ma’am, Mrs. Feinstein?
/

Is Boxer her sister?

CW on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM

He called her “the Sr. senator from Cali”.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 7:25 PM

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?

My only quibble with Cruz is why he didn’t just ask this straight up. He was too orotund.

rrpjr on March 14, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Is that Rand Paul fellow a D or an R?

He’s an R.

Your post is just like the video: Full of logical fallacies.

Please point to the logical fallacy of my post.

Say are you still advocating for sex between adults and minors and then having the cajones to criticize the Church? You’re gross.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Random CW screed is an almost surefire way to know you’ve made a point.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:26 PM

tru2tx on March 14, 2013 at 7:19 PM

You and I know if those women actually had earned respect they would have responded in such a fashion. Guess they did not get enough that-a-girls as kids. Talk about low self-esteem.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 7:27 PM

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Heh, but Schumer and Turbin “…bla, bla, bla prostitution”.

She took their stupid ‘advice’ and ran with it…heh, heh, leftists love prostitution.

It was a beauty of an exchange. I loved when Cruz retorted “yes, we allow books in Texas”. It was a beauty to behold.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Frankly, it seems logically consistent to also use “security” to rationalize some restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, rather than to claim security exceptions for search and seizure and to deny safety exceptions to one’s Constitutionally enumerated right to bear arms.

Since we are talking about an individual right, though, those exceptions have to be relevant and effective before we can even discuss whether or not it is worth diminishing the boundaries of our right in exchange for what they provide. Feinstein and the rest of the Democrats have not. They think “It’s obvious!” is a intellectually sufficient argument for passing a law that is a carbon copy of a proven failure and infringing on a Constitutional right. I think “arbitrary and capricious” fits it much better.

Socratease on March 14, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Why does Feinstein think SHE can decide what firearms we can and cannot own?

ctmom on March 14, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Because she’s a Senator. It’s called our system of government. Another word for them is “legislator.” Jesus, do people need basic civics lessons? Now, you can disagree with the efficacy or Constitutionality of a law, is one thing. To bleet about your disbelief that she has the right to pass law at all just is not a good look.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:29 PM

They clipped it prior to her being asked if she would just answer the question. Then the rest of the dems came to the rescue and cut him off.

CW20 on March 14, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Please point to the logical fallacy of my post.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:26 PM

The right is perfectly fine with a wide range of restrictions on Constitutional Amendments,

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Say are you still advocating for sex between adults and minors and then having the cajones to criticize the Church? You’re gross.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Random CW screed is an almost surefire way to know you’ve made a point.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:26 PM

You’re the one who has in the past supported such ideas. Sorry you are gross and I will remind people that you’re a pervert on a regular basis. Get used to it. I bet the Church wouldn’t take you. You’re just pissed at them…some of your friends though have taken advantage of the Church’s failures for sure. The Church turned a blind eye to homosexuals like yourself who think sex with minors is normal. Just nasty.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 7:30 PM

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM

You’re correct on the 1st Amendment restrictions — those pass judicial scrutiny — however, additional 2nd Amendment restrictions (guns are largely already heavily regulated) wouldn’t even pass intermediate scrutiny. There may be a case to be made on behalf of the government, but previous laws are proven to be ineffectual.

youknowit on March 14, 2013 at 7:31 PM

[libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM]

Speech is the use of tools called words. Words are not banned, the use of words under particular circumstances are.

“Fire!” See I can use that word here and it is neither illegal or punishable under the law. Banning the speech tool Fire would be unconstitutional.

We’ve already made the use of the tool called AR-15 illegal under some circumstances. Banning the bear arms tool AR-15 is also unconstitutional.

Dusty on March 14, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Dusty on March 14, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Cool, Dusty!!!

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Because she’s a Senator. It’s called our system of government. …

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Apparently Senators not associated with the Democrat party have no say. And all this time I though only Democrat presidents could be dictators.

Ya sure I knew that.

CW20 on March 14, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Sigh: Not Feinstein’s finest moment. There is an intellectual response to Cruz, rather than an emotional one. Namely, that the right to “speech” has a number of Constitutionally sanctioned limits, because some forms of speech are harmful.

You are so full of shit. There isn’t a single comment I’ve ever read you make about one of your loonie leftists going over the line with a divisive invective.

It is not within one’s free speech to threaten another person with murder or violence. It is not within one’s speech to “stalk” or “harass” another individual with a constant stream of letters, phonecalls or text messages. It is not within one’s speech rights to engage in libel, to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, to openly discuss weaponry and terrorist plots in Airports. The list goes on. The right is perfectly fine with a wide range of restrictions on Constitutional Amendments, particularly when it comes to “search and seizure” in the name of security and safety. Frankly, it seems logically consistent to also use “security” to rationalize some restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, rather than to claim security exceptions for search and seizure and to deny safety exceptions to one’s Constitutionally enumerated right to bear arms.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM

All of this but Crowder had it coming to him with the union. The one time you had the opportunity to say your side went far over the line, you could only manage this.

“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans such as “right to work.” It is a law to rob us our civil rights and job rights.”-Martin Luther King Jr., 1961

libfreeordie on December 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM

How about you take your hypocrisy and cram it in your frequently visited fourth point of contact?

hawkdriver on March 14, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Feinstein is too old and doddering to be in the senate. And yet she remains.

SarahW on March 14, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Sigh: Not Feinstein’s finest moment. There is an intellectual response to Cruz, rather than an emotional one. Namely, that the right to “speech” has a number of Constitutionally sanctioned limits, because some forms of speech are harmful. It is not within one’s free speech to threaten another person with murder or violence. It is not within one’s speech to “stalk” or “harass” another individual with a constant stream of letters, phonecalls or text messages. It is not within one’s speech rights to engage in libel, to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, to openly discuss weaponry and terrorist plots in Airports. The list goes on.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Ah, the tired old “fire” argument. Show me a single federal regulation outlawing the yelling of “fire” in a theater?

I content that it is perfectly legal to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

Lost in Jersey on March 14, 2013 at 7:36 PM

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Heh, but Schumer and Turbin “…bla, bla, bla prostitution”.

She took their stupid ‘advice’ and ran with it…heh, heh, leftists love prostitution.

I honestly don’t know what that means.

Since we are talking about an individual right, though, those exceptions have to be relevant and effective before we can even discuss whether or not it is worth diminishing the boundaries of our right in exchange for what they provide.

Wait what? We have to first determine how effectively a law would provide security in exchange for a restriction on a Constitutionally guaranteed right, before we can enact the law that would restrict that Constitutionally guaranteed right? Without a Tardis, how does one do that?

But even if your time paradox hypothetical were possible, you’re thinking about this in the wrong way. When we pass laws that do may restrict a Constitutional Amendment, it is not because of a guaranteed outcome. It demonstrates a cultural investment in a better society. In this case, one with vastly reduced gun violence. Now, what is also beautiful about the American system is that if a law is not proucing the desired outcome it becomes possible to repeal it amend it in some way. But law is an illustration of our values first and a guarantee of a particular outcome second.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

I honestly don’t know what that means.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Then you didn’t watch.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 7:39 PM

The lamestream media is cutting out Cruz’s questioning and all you see is Frankenfeinstein’s comments. The low information voter sees this and thinks, “yeah, that dumb Republican!”

Decoski on March 14, 2013 at 7:39 PM

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM

In every example you cite, you miss the basic difference.

In NONE of your examples do we prevent people from speaking. Do we force all movie-goers to wear a gag just in case one of them decides to scream ‘fire!’? No. We don’t.

You presume the guilt of absolutely every gun owner in America. The trouble with that is that here in America, we presume innocence.

Washington Nearsider on March 14, 2013 at 7:40 PM

one with vastly reduced gun violence. ….

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Crime has gone down after the assault weapon ban ended.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Having seen her in person, I will say that she looks better on tv. Yikes.

novaculus on March 14, 2013 at 7:21 PM

When I was younger and went to clubs and bars there was always a heavy boozer with looks like hers trolling for younger dudes.

docflash on March 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM

it is not because of a guaranteed outcome. It demonstrates a cultural investment in a better society. In this case, one with vastly reduced gun violence. Now, what is also beautiful about the American system is that if a law is not proucing the desired outcome it becomes possible to repeal it amend it in some way. But law is an illustration of our values first and a guarantee of a particular outcome second.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

And you claim to be a teacher. Look just at Chicago with it’s very restrictive gun laws and then at Arizona with its very lax gun laws and tell me which one has a better society with vastly reduced gun violence?

chemman on March 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM

You presume the guilt of absolutely every gun owner in America. The trouble with that is that here in America, we presume innocence.

Washington Nearsider on March 14, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Funny if Libfree’s type of simplistic thinking was aimed at a race…we all know what he’d be called….

CW on March 14, 2013 at 7:48 PM

one with vastly reduced gun violence. ….

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Crime has gone down after the assault weapon ban ended.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 7:43 PM

There you go, introducing facts to libfree.

As Secretary Clinton said: Crime went down AFTER the AWB expired? “What difference does it make?”

Washington Nearsider on March 14, 2013 at 7:48 PM

She needs some democrat blue Pom poms and a some good cheers to go with her newscasts.

earlgrey133 on March 14, 2013 at 7:48 PM

one with vastly reduced gun violence. …
libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Please define vastly. You’re so dishonest.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Fire!” See I can use that word here and it is neither illegal or punishable under the law. Banning the speech tool Fire would be unconstitutional.

We’ve already made the use of the tool called AR-15 illegal under some circumstances. Banning the bear arms tool AR-15 is also unconstitutional.

Dusty on March 14, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Analogy is all wrong. A word is a constituent of “speech,” but a word can never be banned. Even if uttering “fire” in every instance was illegal, the word “fire” would still exist because a “word” is nothing more than a variable that makes collective sense of the world for a significant community of people (language speakers). A word is not a part of speech, it is a part of *language* and that can never be banned (it doesn’t even require a speech act).

Speech is something different. Speech necessarily engages other humans. And rather than making meaning possible, speech contains meaning. It is the deployment of meaning. As a result there are different kinds of speech, and it is those kinds of speech that are regulated via libel law and other restrictions.

Much as kinds of firearms would be banned under an assault weapons law.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Funny if Libfree’s type of simplistic thinking was aimed at a race…we all know what he’d be called….

CW on March 14, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Here’s something libfree has never been able to explain:

Since 9/11, more Americans have been shot to death in Chicago than in Iraq. It can’t be gun trafficking, as cities of comparable size have seen their gun violence fall over the same time period. Chicago’s laws are among the most strict in the nation.

How is it possible that the body count in Chicago is higher than in Iraq?

Washington Nearsider on March 14, 2013 at 7:50 PM

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:29 PM

As Judge Napolitano pointed out, senators take an oath. Included in it is recognition of an obligation to “support and defend the Constitution”. Claims to authority absent that consideration by a lawmaker is, prima facie, a violation of that oath.

wolfsDad on March 14, 2013 at 7:50 PM

This is indeed a microcosm. I remember a reporter being asked after Obama’s SOTU a few years ago, “didn’t he misrepresent Citizens United ruling?” She could only answer by saying, “the president’s words reflected the passion he feels about this issue.” Again, “but didn’t he misrepresent the Ruling?” “You know, the president feels great passion for this issue.”

But he lied. It doesn’t matter — he’s passionate.

Emotion and passion trump or excuse any lie. Or, rather, these people aren’t capable of lying or committing sedition if they feel passionately about what they’re doing. This arises from the primordial leftist muck of street protests and community organizing, in which they used “passion” to intimidate their opponents and which won them great victories. In time, logic and facts just became either meaningless or impediments to the cause. The more passion, the sloppier and more arrogant the mind. You can see this by watching how quickly they become personal and hostile.

They’re idiots and children. Why are we losing to them?

rrpjr on March 14, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Oh for crying out loud; again with the libtard bogus ‘rights are not absolute’ argument, and even throwing in the beyond-stale ‘you can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater’ cliché. These people really are a self-parody.

Libtards take note: If someone were to shout “fire” in a crowded theater, thereby annoying the other customers, then the management of that private business can make them leave. If a stampede were to occur (unlikely) and someone was to be hurt in the stampede, the penalty imposed on the “fire” shouter, would not be a penalty based on the idea that the shouter exceeded their free-speech rights (at least for now). It would be a penalty based on criminal recklessness or the intention to do harm to others. This hypothetical example has nothing whatsoever to do with a limit to the right to free speech, yet libtards keep carting this one out. They are so corny. Such a joke. I spit on them.

And even beyond that, gun rights don’t even have anything to do with that hypothetical scenario. Simply legally owning a firearm – any firearm — annoys no one in a private business (at least no rational person, libs get their panties in a twist about it) and harms no one.

As I said in the other thread, of course rights are absolute. That’s what a ‘right’ is by definition. If a “right” isn’t absolute, then it’s not a right.

These people are a joke.

WhatSlushfund on March 14, 2013 at 7:52 PM

it is those kinds of speech that are regulated via libel law and other restrictions.

Much as kinds of firearms would be banned under an assault weapons law.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:49 PM

You still fail to address that regardless of laws and restrictions vis a vis speech, the federal government does not take from me the ability to choose to engage in prohibited speech.

You’re suggesting that because the government punishes mis-use of speech after the fact, it follows that the same government can completely ban the peaceful ownership of guns before any illegal action is taken.

Again, you’re presupposing guilt, in direct contravention of our system.

Washington Nearsider on March 14, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Speech necessarily engages other humans. ….
libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:49 PM

More dishonesty. I guarantee you this: In your class your students tune you out all the time. Speak on.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 7:54 PM

It’s true, you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater… but do we gag everyone as they enter that theater? Of course not. We have a law about it, and if you break that law then there are consequences.

We have laws that state you can’t shoot someone. Do we have to take everyone’s “assault” rifles away to make sure no one breaks those laws?

Paul the American on March 14, 2013 at 7:56 PM

As a result there are different kinds of speech, and it is those kinds of speech that are regulated via libel law and other restrictions.

Much as kinds of firearms would be banned under an assault weapons law.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:49 PM

You make about as much sense as the wind blowing through trees.
Some speech is regulated but is never banned. However you don’t seek to regulate firearms you seek to ban them.

chemman on March 14, 2013 at 7:56 PM

In NONE of your examples do we prevent people from speaking. Do we force all movie-goers to wear a gag just in case one of them decides to scream ‘fire!’? No. We don’t.

This is an intellectually dishonest argument. Should I be able to manufacture and own anthrax if I promise not to put it into the water supply? Of course not, because the regulatory structures in this country are *all* predicated on the idea that some citizens can not be trusted. Clearly the amount of gun violence in this country indicates that not all citizens can be trusted to use them responsibly. And this is where there *is* a place for Feinstein’s emotionality (though one wishes she had said this with a bit more panache). Conservatives (on lots of issues) believe in regulatory systems that assume some citizens can not be trusted with the well being of their fellow man. It just seems a bit silly on those issues where conservatives believe people can be trusted happens to be the issue which puts really deadly weapons into the hands of adults.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:58 PM

WhatSlushfund on March 14, 2013 at 7:52 PM

What is worse than the fire in a crowded theater argument is that you actually can yell “fire” in a crowded theater if there is a fire. The use of the phrase is limited to if it is malicious and then they have to prove it.

chemman on March 14, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Sigh: Not Feinstein’s finest moment. There is an intellectual response to Cruz, rather than an emotional one. Namely, that the right to “speech” has a number of Constitutionally sanctioned limits, because some forms of speech are harmful. It is not within one’s free speech to threaten another person with murder or violence. It is not within one’s speech to “stalk” or “harass” another individual with a constant stream of letters, phonecalls or text messages. It is not within one’s speech rights to engage in libel, to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, to openly discuss weaponry and terrorist plots in Airports. The list goes on. The right is perfectly fine with a wide range of restrictions on Constitutional Amendments, particularly when it comes to “search and seizure” in the name of security and safety. Frankly, it seems logically consistent to also use “security” to rationalize some restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, rather than to claim security exceptions for search and seizure and to deny safety exceptions to one’s Constitutionally enumerated right to bear arms.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Yes, and there already are restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Your side basically wants all guns banned, though; many have admitted as much.

And then what “freedom” would the 2nd Amendment provide Americans? It’d be like saying North Koreans have freedom of speech because when they whisper to each other in private, they can criticize the government without fear of retribution.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:00 PM

What video was Andrea Mitchell watching???
They are scared….

Give em hell Ted….

Launching Cruz Missile in 5….4….3…..2…..

redguy on March 14, 2013 at 8:01 PM

What a loathsome creature DiFi is.

rbj on March 14, 2013 at 6:58 PM

And to think, at one time in her career she was a staunch supporter of national security and 2nd amendment rights. Today she’s just another liberal progressive puppet with signs of dementia setting in.

Rovin on March 14, 2013 at 8:01 PM

a cultural investment in a better society… But law is an illustration of our values first and a guarantee of a particular outcome second.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Cultural investment? Law as an illustration of “our values”? ‘What do you mean “we”, kemo sabe?’ (h/t Bill Cosby)

Where do you people find this stuff? The progressive (hive) mind is a scary place.

wolfsDad on March 14, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Some speech is regulated but is never banned.

I said that speech can be regulated/banned, but that a “word” can not. A word or language is internal, an act of speech is public and therefore subject to different standards.

However you don’t seek to regulate firearms you seek to ban them.

chemman on March 14, 2013 at 7:56 PM

I seek to regulate them, i.e. restrict access to some and not others. Guess what? That is that *exact* regulatory structure we have now. The question is not that the federal government can restrict weapons, it does everyday with little complaint. The question has always been WHICH guns can be restricted and which can not.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:58 PM

If you have access to sheep, cows, deer or goats, you have access to anthrax.

As to intellectual dishonesty, you’ve won that award hands down. We DO believe that not everyone can be trusted to act within the law. That is PRECISELY the reason we believe in retaining the right to bear arms. When confronted by one who has chosen to violently violate our laws, we retain the means to protect our lives and those of our families.

That safety is something you would happily trade away in your intense need to ‘do something.’

Legislation through emotion is guaranteed to fail. The data simply do not support your conclusions in any way. Even Vice President Biden has admitted as much.

Washington Nearsider on March 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM

The definition of “stupid broad”………

ultracon on March 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Antrax is a bacteria that can be cultured from the soil and weaponized. It is not manufactured like a plane or bus or even whatever instrument you are using to connect to the web. In your case you would probably kill yourself trying mess with the bacillus.

chemman on March 14, 2013 at 8:04 PM

This is an intellectually dishonest argument.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Finally a subject in which you are a true expert.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 8:04 PM

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:03 PM

No the regulatory structure does not restrict me from owning any type of firearm I want. I may have to jump through some extra’s hoops but I can buy a fully automatic weapon if I am willing to go through the hassles and pay for it.

chemman on March 14, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3