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

Dimwit thinks speech necessarily engages others. This is truly laughable.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 8:07 PM

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

You want to talk about trust?

Well, how about this nugget:

I don’t trust our overspending, budget-less, bloated government, with its army of worthless, incompetent bureaucrats, to decide who should and should not be trusted with a firearm.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Bonus points to Mitchell for holding up a physical copy of the Constitution while she’s busy adopting that “reasoning.”

That was, uh, awkward. About as useful as holding up an AR-15 mag.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 14, 2013 at 8:09 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

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

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

You’re right. 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

Washington Nearsider on March 14, 2013 at 8:16 PM

“No weapon is taken from anyone,” Feinstein said. “The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.

Hmmmm.

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.- Dianne Feinstein

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 8:17 PM

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

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

If you knew your history you’d already know the answer. Apples and oranges by any constitutional reading. Another logical fallacy…hmmm.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Libfree, why don’t we apply the same logic to automobiles?

After all, there’s no Constitutional right to own a car. Millions of lives are lost every year in automobile accidents. Shouldn’t most people have cars that are equipped with a kill-switch when an unsafe speed is reached? People who need to go faster for the economy to run smoothly (like truckers hauling freight) can be specially licensed to own vehicles without a kill-switch.

Come on, libfree. Get on board the cause. It’s for the children!

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:19 PM

A word is a constituent of “speech,” but a word can never be banned.
libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:49 PM

A gun is a constituent of Arms. A gun can never be banned.

It is not the gun (or word or sets of words or speech), it is its uses. You don’t ban the gun, you outlaw the actions related to the use of a gun in a crime.

Banning a gun is dumbing down our rights to the specific conditions of abuse. This can be applied across the board to the detriment of all freedoms and choices. You don’t ban a brand of Vodka or Vodka generally because a drunk driver misused Vodka and killed another motorist. You punish the driver.

rrpjr on March 14, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Anyone notice that Libree ignores all the smackdowns. The idiot didn’t even know that crime is down since the AW ban ended.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 8:21 PM

I wonder if F-Einstein ever saw a corpse killed by one of the guns she will exempt?

Bishop on March 14, 2013 at 8:22 PM

When will people accept that if you are going to have liberty it is possible that bad things can happen! If there is no risk, then there is no freedom. If we are to have the liberty to hear arms then there will always be the chance some nut head will kill some people.

Why is it liberals accept that risk virtually every day but can’t bring themselves to accept it with firearms? Many people will die if we permit millions to drive at high speeds on the highway. People will drown if they have the freedom to build swimming pools in their back yard. Children are going to be maimed if allowed to skateboard.

Liberals want to control lives and make themselves feel good for protecting us from ourselves.

artman1746 on March 14, 2013 at 8:23 PM

You’re right. 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.

And now we’ve come full circle. Feinstein started this by her maudlin appeal “for the children.” And you are here with an equally maudlin appeal to “protecting our families from the faceless thugs.” I grew up in a house with a mother and father in some pretty dangerous urban areas, we never owned a gun and I was never mugged or attacked once. Like, all this “protect our families” stuff is the male version of maudlin emotionality, its about fantasies of heroism and domination. Its your right. But please don’t pretend its a rational argument against regulation, or that its less emotional than Feinstein.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:23 PM

I should be able to possess any weapon my government would use against me or mine.

Bishop on March 14, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Like, all this “protect our families” stuff is the male version of maudlin emotionality, its about fantasies of heroism and domination. Its your right. But please don’t pretend its a rational argument against regulation, or that its less emotional than Feinstein.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:23 PM

What happens more often, Newtown-style massacres or home invasions?

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Like, all this “protect our families” stuff is the male version of maudlin emotionality, its about fantasies of heroism and domination. Its your right. But please don’t pretend its a rational argument against regulation, or that its less emotional than Feinstein.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Except for my parents, who have had their house broken into twice. My father defended my mother with a weapon. That’s not a ‘maudlin fantasy’. It’s empirical. So is the fact that just yesterday, a woman was SAVED by a stranger with a gun.

Answer this question – how many lives would you sacrifice through rape and murder if it meant you could ban guns?

Washington Nearsider on March 14, 2013 at 8:27 PM

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:23 PM

You pretend to be data-centric, but your rebuttal is entirely anecdotal.

“Oh, *I* was in a bad neighborhood (by the way, I thought you lived with the lily white upper crust in the Tejas suburbs? Not exactly Detroit or Newark) and we didn’t need a gun so obviously that’s a specious argument.”

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:28 PM

How bout this you reprobate sodomite?

Molon Labe.

tom daschle concerned on March 14, 2013 at 8:28 PM

A gun is a constituent of Arms.

Yes.

A gun can never be banned.

No. I hope you didn’t confuse the phrase “constituent of” as having the ability to repair the conceptual gulf between a word, like Fire” from a material object “gun.” It doesn’t. A gun is a type of “arm” and there are many types of guns and the state has the right to regulate or restrict the types of arms or guns that can be sold legally. A word, as a conceptual entity can not be banned because it exists within the mind. Speech, which exists in the public can be regulated. Its not hard.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Senator Dianne Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes”, February 5, 1995

The goal is very clear.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:23 PM

You pretend to be data-centric, but your rebuttal is entirely anecdotal.
…..

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:28 PM

As is the usual.

Hmmm I noticed the thread about the marine who saved that woman was libfree-free. Hmmm.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 8:32 PM

No. I hope you didn’t confuse the phrase “constituent of” as having the ability to repair the conceptual gulf between a word, like Fire” from a material object “gun.” It doesn’t. A gun is a type of “arm” and there are many types of guns and the state has the right to regulate or restrict the types of arms or guns that can be sold legally. A word, as a conceptual entity can not be banned because it exists within the mind. Speech, which exists in the public can be regulated. Its not hard.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:29 PM

A word can’t be banned, but it can be stigmatized into disuse.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Speech, which exists in the public can be regulated. Its not hard.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Said the idiot who thinks people are necessarily engaged by speech. This one only thinks he is bright.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 8:33 PM

What happens more often, Newtown-style massacres or home invasions?

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Waiting for an answer on this one, libfree.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:34 PM

It isn’t the words that are idiotic in themselves, it is the way that they are strung together in idiotic sentences by Feinstein and Mitchell.

And then there is Mitchell waving a copy of the Constitution, which in her mind somehow validates Feinstein’s claim of moral supremacy because she saw dead bodies after a shooting. Don’t these people ever try an actual substantive logical argument out, just to see what it might be like?

drunyan8315 on March 14, 2013 at 8:36 PM

What happens more often, Newtown-style massacres or home invasions?

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Waiting for an answer on this one, libfree.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Heh. Dummy doesn’t know.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 8:38 PM

I should be able to possess any weapon my government would use against me or mine.

Bishop on March 14, 2013 at 8:25 PM

I agree, and I think that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

But, by the time the Confederacy came along, it looks like the Federal government had already evolved into an animal that only seeks to preserve itself at all costs.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 14, 2013 at 8:39 PM

What happens more often, Newtown-style massacres or home invasions?

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Waiting for an answer on this one, libfree.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Heh. Dummy doesn’t know.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Yes. He does.

Washington Nearsider on March 14, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Bonus points to Mitchell for holding up a physical copy of the Constitution while she’s busy adopting that “reasoning.”

Good catch, AP; Chavistas often brandish a copy of their Constitution as they trample it.

Jorge Bonilla on March 14, 2013 at 8:42 PM

A word, as a conceptual entity can not be banned because it exists within the mind. Speech, which exists in the public can be regulated. Its not hard.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Semiotic abstractions. Words ARE banned. Tyrannies have been doing so for millenia. And “conceptual entities” can be driven underground for all practical purposes. Read 1984. I’m always surprised by how limited “liberals” are in their imagination of how freedom is lost, as freedom is the Greek root of “liberal.”

Every “liberal” should be on the front lines of defending the 2nd Amendment defense. They once were. All our rights are bound together. You cannot capriciously circumscribe some out of an emotional need to “feel safer” without imperiling the entire skein.

And speech is not regulated under the First Amendment except under the most extreme circumstances. Libel is nearly impossible to prove under the First Amendment, as it should be.

What you miss

rrpjr on March 14, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Heh. Dummy doesn’t know.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Sure he does. Everyone who isn’t a mental patient knows the answer.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Yes. He does.

Washington Nearsider on March 14, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Not sure. Again he only thinks he is bright. He uses a lot of words to say what the average guy can say using 1/10th the words.

Libfree is as dishonest as anyone gets. He tried to make the issue of self-defense ,especially in regards to women, about only rape-another logical fallacy -suprise! . He knows women are harmed in so many other ways and in the name of power has no problem taking away their ability to defend themselves. The guys is such a tool

CW on March 14, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Everyone who isn’t a mental patient knows the answer.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Hmmm. I think you’re on to something.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 8:46 PM

A gun is a type of “arm” and there are many types of guns and the state has the right to regulate or restrict the types of arms or guns that can be sold legally..

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:29 PM

So the State should regulate slings, slingshots, and mailed gauntlets?

Bishop on March 14, 2013 at 8:48 PM

CW on March 14, 2013 at 8:45 PM

I provided a real world example of a person using a firearm to defend his family (my father).

I asked him to quantify how many lives he’s willing to sacrifice through rape and murder in order to ban guns.

Nothing.

Washington Nearsider on March 14, 2013 at 8:49 PM

I asked him to quantify how many lives he’s willing to sacrifice through rape and murder in order to ban guns.

Nothing.

Washington Nearsider on March 14, 2013 at 8:49 PM

He’s not a “liberal.” I doubt he really knows that the word means.

rrpjr on March 14, 2013 at 8:53 PM

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

Of course you don’t mean “protect our families” from government, as government is only a force of good, and since violent crime has gone down to practically zero under the leadership and unifying principles of President Barack Hussein Obama, I don’t understand who you think folks might think they need protecting from?

And what about the fantasies of the Leftists and their Utopian visions of infinite equality and free stuff each according to his needs, sending bankers and other Nonbelievers/Social Infidels to re-education camps and hanging the neo-Hitlerites who can never be re-programmed?

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 14, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Nothing.

Washington Nearsider on March 14, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Of course, as this is about power. He doesn’t really care about people.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 8:56 PM

It puts the lotion on its skin.

Aloe lotion…with extra aloe.

Bishop on March 14, 2013 at 8:57 PM

Except for my parents, who have had their house broken into twice. My father defended my mother with a weapon. That’s not a ‘maudlin fantasy’. It’s empirical. So is the fact that just yesterday, a woman was SAVED by a stranger with a gun.

Two examples in a population as large as the U.S. is “empirical” in your mind? I don’t think you quite understand what empirical evidence of an argument is.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Apparently the woman saved from brain damage or death yesterday is a necessary statistic.

And here I thought it was all about saving just one life.

Bishop on March 14, 2013 at 9:01 PM

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

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

“Bear arms” had a specific meaning in English common law before the founding of the United States and the drafting/ratification of the Bill of Rights, namely, it referred to a firearm that could be carried easily by one individual. So, no one, except those lacking historical knowledge of the term and the reasons the Second Amendment was drafted, would conceivably argue, however implausibly, that private citizens or organisations have an unqualified right to own tanks, cannons, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons. We recognise that, like the First Amendment (human sacrifice, snuff films, incitement to riot, defamation, obscene materials, threats, etc), the Second Amendment can reasonably be read not to confer the “right to bear” an armed drone or weaponised botulinum toxin.

Resist We Much on March 14, 2013 at 9:06 PM

And what about the fantasies of the Leftists and their Utopian visions of infinite equality and free stuff each according to his needs, sending bankers and other Nonbelievers/Social Infidels to re-education camps and hanging the neo-Hitlerites who can never be re-programmed?

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 14, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Bill Ayers said the left would have to eliminate 25 million Americans to implement Utopia.

Washington Nearsider on March 14, 2013 at 9:07 PM

I’m just glad Dane Hall wasn’t armed.

tom daschle concerned on March 14, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Two examples in a population as large as the U.S. is “empirical” in your mind? I don’t think you quite understand what empirical evidence of an argument is.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:59 PM

From the DoJ:

An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization (figure 1).

3.7 million per year from 2003 to 2007 is 18.5 million. That’s 5.18 million cases where a household member was present, and ~1.3 million cases where a household member was a victim of some act of violence.

In that five year period, home many large-scale gun massacres occurred?

Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 9:13 PM

No fair! Mitchell is an idiot. But then, so is Lady Di.

GarandFan on March 14, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Two examples in a population as large as the U.S. is “empirical” in your mind? I don’t think you quite understand what empirical evidence of an argument is.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:59 PM

So how many lives are saved by guns?

CW on March 14, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Upwards of 2.5 million crimes are stopped due to guns. Eat it.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Two examples in a population as large as the U.S. is “empirical” in your mind? I don’t think you quite understand what empirical evidence of an argument is.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Oh. You’re right. Let’s do what the Lancet did with Iraqi civilian casualties and extrapolate it out from that sample. I know of a dozen or so people who have used weapons to defend themselves or another in the civilian world over the past year or so.

That works out to about 20,000,000 defensive uses in the US.

Washington Nearsider on March 14, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Although the Second Amendment may seem to be the one amendment that specifically envisions some sort of regulation on its face, it is actually the opposite.

While common law has long maintained the position that “punctuation is no part of statute,” Hammock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co, 105 U.S. 77, (1881), citing references from the late 18th and early 19th century), it does help us in two ways: 1) It helps divine intent; and 2) it shows how those with agendas are willing to even change the actual punctuation of the Constitution to further their agenda. It is important to pay attention to punctuation because the version that was ratified was not actually the version frequently quoted today.

The Second Amendment, as oft-stated today:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This formulation makes it appear that only those people in a “well-regulated” Militia (you’ll also notice that milita is capitalised meaning that it must be a state-sponsored “Militia” like the National Guard) have the right to keep and bear arms – a right, which shall not be infringed. With regard to “the people,” “shall not be infringed” almost becomes an afterthought in this version. But, about whom are we talking? Who would infringe upon the “right” of the people in the “Militia”?

Since it would be state-sponsored, that would have to be the Federal government. Yet, such an answer only raises another question. Why would the Framers have given the states a specific right in the Second when they intended that the states have all “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States…reserved…by the people”? Nowhere in the Bill of Rights are the states given specific rights. Indeed, states are given no rights in the first nine whatsoever. In the first nine amendments to the Constitution- even if we ignore the Second for the sake of argument – the rights recognised belong not to a government, but to citizens or people.

Apart from being grammatically incorrect, this version simply doesn’t make any sense. Either people have a right, which shall not be infringed, or they do not.

According to both the Library of Congress and the Government Printing Office, the Second Amendment, as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, only had one comma and reads as follows:

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear “shall not be infringed.”

“Well-regulated” modifies the word “militia.” It doesn’t apply to arms. The “right” of people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

The Framers were giving a reason why people should have a right to bear arms, i.e., the security of a free state relied on a “well-regulated militia.” If they had wanted to do so – and, perhaps, they should have – they could have easily have dropped the modifying clause “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” Now, I do understand why the states or even corporate (not necessarily in the way that the word is defined today) entities may have wanted a defined right to bear arms and have a well-regulated – meaning well-equipped, well-disciplined, well-organised – militia considering the recent history at the time of the Second Amendment’s drafting. So, the incorporation of the “well-regulated militia” clause in the amendment certainly has a solid legal and historical basis, but it has no bearing on the right of people, as individuals, to bear arms. The Tenth Amendment could certainly have protected the states’ rights to have “well-regulated militias” and the Second Amendment would have still protected the rights of “corporate entities” to bear arms, along with the assemblage protection of the First. Nevertheless, the intent of the Founders was clear, if one reads the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the correspondence and other writings of the Framers. They intended for a free people’s natural right to bear arms to not be infringed upon by government.

Resist We Much on March 14, 2013 at 9:27 PM

From my point of view the shriveled old beatch needed a couple of old men to come in and try to bail her ass out.

Tater Salad on March 14, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Two examples in a population as large as the U.S. is “empirical” in your mind? I don’t think you quite understand what empirical evidence of an argument is.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Empirical, adjective, meaning ‘based on experience or observation’.

Note he did not say ‘empirical data’, which apparently implies to you (which it should not) that it is statistically significant, or that the dataset is sufficiently large to perform meaningful statistical analysis on it.

Ignoring all of that, though, you yourself cited a single anecdote. Anything asserted by a single anecdote can be dismissed by an opposite anecdote.

Scott H on March 14, 2013 at 9:40 PM

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

The only things the Left traffics in are emotionality and fantasy, and you drag out this tired trope from the campus 70s? This entire gun control debate has been driven by “maudlin emotionality” (via the MSM’s instantaneous and unconscionable exploitation of dead children to seize more control over individual rights) and the fantasy of a gun-stripped populace and a world in which only the state imperium is permitted arms. There isn’t a single material fact or statistic which supports any of these measures. In fact, there is more proof that the ABSENCE of well-armed citizens within the populace establishes the ideal conditions for dead innocents.

rrpjr on March 14, 2013 at 9:51 PM

Senator Feinstein’s inability to answer such a simple question leads me to believe that she may indeed be a sixth grader — unable to provide a simple answer to a question. She’s been drinking out of the gin control kool-aid for decades, only now it’s at fire hose strength and the poor old dame just can’t handle the pressure… so what does she do? She provides an inane response.

Oh, and for her acolytes out there, Durbin’s point on the 1st Amendment is poor comparison — apples and oranges. If you follow that reasoning, you would assume that an AR-15 inflicts harm, but a pistol does not. Lame… try harder next time.

dpduq on March 14, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Hey libfree, quit killing babies in your state run abortuaries and I will consider giving up my guns…..hypocrite..

crosshugger on March 14, 2013 at 10:07 PM

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

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

The Constitution says “right”. That means you don’t decide what I need.

And you are here with an equally maudlin appeal to “protecting our families from the faceless thugs.”

It’s not “maudlin”, defense of self and property is a basic human right. The “thugs” don’t have to be “scary” or “faceless”, nor does one need to have a “family”. A person has a right to defend himself and what’s his, and a right means he decides, not you.

But please don’t pretend its a rational argument against regulation, or that its less emotional than Feinstein.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:23 PM

You just like to believe it’s emotional because you don’t understand the difference between a contrived rationale to constrain the innocent, and a basic reason that a right is universal and not derived from the mercies of another person or party.

Two examples in a population as large as the U.S. is “empirical” in your mind? I don’t think you quite understand what empirical evidence of an argument is.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Says the guy who used a personal anecdote as evidence that people without guns won’t get attacked.

I am glad your family chose not to arm themselves, and I am glad they did not suffer any negative consequences from that decision. But the point way, THEY CHOSE. It was NOT someone else’s decision what was appropriate for their home.

The Schaef on March 14, 2013 at 10:16 PM

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.

When the Bill of Rights was ratified, it was widely accepted that some restrictions on the scope of federal authority (e.g., the prohibition against double jeopardy, the protection of the individual against self-incrimination) would cause the government to operate less efficiently, even to the point of making society less secure.

Later this point was expanded with the ratification of the 14th Amendment and Due Process. “Better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man.”

Still later, court decisions like Miranda and the imposition of the Exclusionary Rule made it harder to incarcerate known dangerous criminals, some of whom went on to commit subsequent crimes after their release.

Rich H on March 14, 2013 at 10:38 PM

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

So, you’re saying that you’d like to see a re-introduction of the “Jim Crow” laws which denied firearms to black people? Right?
After all, the evidence offered by the example of Chicago would argue in favor of that. Of all the shootings/murders in Chicago, how many of the shooters were white…and how many were black?
Why deny a Constitutional right to a group that doesn’t commit the crimes? Simply penalize those who are responsible for most of the “gun crimes”.

Why don’t we give that a try, liveasaslaveanddie?

Solaratov on March 14, 2013 at 10:45 PM

When she asked if he wanted a bazooka, he should have said yes. Back during the revolutionary war, the British had muskets, we had muskets. The British had cannons, we had cannons. So whatever the government has, we should be able to have the same.

Mirimichi on March 14, 2013 at 11:07 PM

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.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Right you are, libfree. Which is why I’m sure you’ll join me in supporting measures that will reduce further incidents like Newtown through modest restrictions on our rights and freedoms. Results from the investigation into Adam Lanza are starting to emerge which show that he was motivated by press reports of other mass-murderers and the notoriety they gained through them. That’s why I propose that we make it a federal felony for anyone to publish, broadcast, post on-line, or otherwise publicize these types of shootings outside of the community effected. Anybody who is convicted of violating this law faces time in jail and looses their 1st Amendment rights for the rest of their life, just as violent felons loose their 2nd Amendment rights.

I’m sure that you’ll agree this is a reasonable compromise between the Constitution and public safety because: 1) the 1st Amendment, as we all agree, is not an absolute right, 2) it seems logically consistent to use “security” to rationalize some restrictions on the 1st Amendment, just like we claim security exceptions for search and seizure, and 3) nobody NEEDS to read stories about these events, we can all be perfectly well informed about the economic and political issues the 1st Amendment was written to protect without them.

Socratease on March 15, 2013 at 12:03 AM

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.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Right, the rights inherent to us as citizens and free men, does not apply when exercising them infringes on the rights of others. Slander is forbidden by law because it damages another person, but it also requires such damage be proven in court.

So naturally, the Constitutionally sanctioned limits on our right to arm ourselves should be at the point where they are harmful to others. So, we should make laws that you cannot shoot other people with your guns, in order to be consistent.

The Schaef on March 15, 2013 at 1:29 AM

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.

This is also incorrect on its face. This is the progressive view of regulation. The conservative view is that citizens MUST be trusted with the well being of their fellow man, because the government should not.

The Schaef on March 15, 2013 at 1:31 AM

Progressive solution to an argument; respond with melodramatic histrionics and heart-wrenching diatribes. Satan loves emotion; it trumps logic in the weak-minded.

LizardLips on March 15, 2013 at 4:44 AM

When she asked if he wanted a bazooka, he should have said yes. Back during the revolutionary war, the British had muskets, we had muskets. The British had cannons, we had cannons. So whatever the government has, we should be able to have the same.

Mirimichi on March 14, 2013 at 11:07 PM

This.

Whenever gun grabbers default to the argument about muskets in 1776, I point out that they are completely correct – the citizenry SHOULD have access to and the right to own the same technology owned by the military, just like in 1776.

Washington Nearsider on March 15, 2013 at 6:28 AM

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

Because idiots and children vote for them.

Cruz was impressive yesterday – talk about game face – and I was even more impressed when I read up on him, not having been familiar with his background. But calm, polite, reasoned discussion will never, ever win these arguments with the public because creepers like Bitchell (heh) will always spin the emotion as a victory for the other side.

mrsknightley on March 15, 2013 at 7:17 AM

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

Because idiots and children vote for them.

Cruz was impressive yesterday – talk about game face – and I was even more impressed when I read up on him, not having been familiar with his background. If anything, he was too polite.

I cannot fathom the arrogance of a person that imagines herself worthy of tangling with such an intelligent, well-qualified opponent.

Oh, wait – yes, I can. That’s the same arrogance that calls this a win for the other side.

mrsknightley on March 15, 2013 at 7:21 AM

Crap, I guess my first post showed up after all.

mrsknightley on March 15, 2013 at 7:49 AM

Why is it every time the left opens it’s mouth, they prove they have no connection with reality?

sadatoni on March 15, 2013 at 8:09 AM

Get back to your street corner and lamp post Angria or your territory will get pwn3d.

viking01 on March 15, 2013 at 8:28 AM

Sixth Graders Lets see now, which one in the class photo served as a law clerk to William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States, and J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Hmmm…… Oh that’s right he wasn’t even born yet.

Bmore on March 15, 2013 at 8:30 AM

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
As far as I’m concerned, the word “keep” means I can have a firearm in my home, car, etc. The word “bear” means I can carry it (open) if I choose. While working on my acreage in Mo, I often carry my Glock 19 in my holster to ward off any varmits.

CaptSteve on March 15, 2013 at 8:36 AM

Saw a meme…. “If the 2nd amendment couldn’t possibly protect modern weapons like the AR-15 because the founders couldn’t have envisioned them, then how can the 1st amendment protect speech on TV and the internet?”

JellyToast on March 15, 2013 at 8:38 AM

And you are here with an equally maudlin appeal to “protecting our families from the faceless thugs.”

I know this is news to you, but it’s the violent faceless thugs and psychopathic nobodies that are killing children. It is NOT law-abiding people with guns in their homes to protect their families.

Two examples in a population as large as the U.S. is “empirical” in your mind? I don’t think you quite understand what empirical evidence of an argument is.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:59 PM

You do realize that this is scenario far more common that you want to admit, right?

You surely then realize that school shootings are a statistical anomaly, right? And that defense using a firearm is far more common than a school shooting is, right?

QED

Good Lt on March 15, 2013 at 8:38 AM

Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone were killed with a .38 revolver not an assault weapon or semi-automatic.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/milk/whiteconfession.html

Did the senator mean she wants to add these to her list as well?

Rumpole of the Bailey on March 15, 2013 at 8:46 AM

“I’m all for keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals… let’s start with typewriters”

Skywise on March 15, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Liberals were just served notice: using the Constitution as a strawman or meaningless emotional diversion in their sophistic arguments just went out of vogue.

The Constitution has meaning, substance and is not subject to change based on the whimsical, false and politically convenient notions of a few oligarchs.

Mrs. Feinstein proved she knows very little about the Constitution she swore to uphold. She also very clearly displayed her proposals are not only politically convenient appeals to emotion, but lack standing when put to Constitutional scrutiny.

Andrea Mitchell displayed not only that she know less, but that someone with temerity, brilliance and articulate Constitutional grounding is substantially threatening liberals entire contra-intellectual house of cards.

Ted Cruz? He made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I always tried to imagine what the arguments during our Continental Congress or during ratification sounded like. Now I am pretty certain I know.

Marcus Traianus on March 15, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Andrea Mitchell:

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

Let’s face it Andrea…your Face looks like it has
been resting under a steaming Camel Pie for the last 3 years.

ToddPA on March 15, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Diana Feinstein is just the latest Infringer to try to disarm the American People.

Here’s a dirty little secret…….psssssstttt……if the Progressive Ruling classers can disarm us then they can do all kinds of things for us they’ve just been itching to do for decades.

Any guesses what they’d really like to do if they faced a disarmed citizenry?

PappyD61 on March 15, 2013 at 8:52 AM

As usual, the Liberal is another realm of reality. They may think that a huffy, self-important, upturned nose retort is cute and ‘winning!’ in replacing thoughtful contemplation on controversial issues, but this is nothing more than arrogance high-fiving arrogance.

What I saw, and I’ve seen the clip a couple times now, is a very visibly shaken, emotional, sneering prima donna dancing haughtily around a simple question. Feeling insulted or condescended to is not an answer–it’s an ‘elitist’ Queen complex reflex, seen most recently in Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer, who apparently feel so uncomfortable under provocative questioning, they shrivel up into a defensive posture when cornered and high-beamed. Her response is both intellectually shallow and self-conscious.

Feinstein ‘respects’ the Constitution? When a progressive says this, you can believe she’s really saying it will not be an impediment to overreaching in achieving any end.

RepubChica on March 15, 2013 at 9:12 AM

DiFi revealed herself to be a vindictive, ripe for the pasture, many old crone. Who tried and failed to arrogantly tap dance around a simply stated and defined question.

Jack Deth on March 15, 2013 at 9:21 AM

I wonder if F-Einstein ever saw a corpse killed by one of the guns she will exempt?

Bishop on March 14, 2013 at 8:22 PM

This is a questions I have wanted someone to ask Feinstein:

“According to your logic, that guns kill people…If you are o.k. with some guns, then you are o.k. with some killing?”

dirtseller on March 15, 2013 at 9:23 AM

This is part of the BULLY makeover that THE TRADITIONAL MALE Cruz is going to get!!!

PappyD61 on March 15, 2013 at 9:28 AM

It still amazes me that the libs seem to really believe that ridicule, noise and bluster win the argument. There will be a reckoning.

claudius on March 15, 2013 at 9:36 AM

This committee dispute encapsulates the whole argument: facts and knowledge versus “personal experience” and “passion”. The propaganda types will try to spin this argument, like Mitchell, but it truly was a one-sided pawning. I’m glad Cruz is on my side.

I’d love for the Democrats to propose their arguments honestly, within the context of a proposal to amend the Constitution. Own it, DiFi! The argument can be made, should be made and would get a fair hearing. Beyond that, they’ll just have to try this stuff at the state-by-state level and see how far they get.

Wonderful clip.

MTF on March 15, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Communist Party Member Feinstein caught in the BIG LIE re. the communist party agenda of confiscationg all of our guns. And we should trust these communists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=k3DKuN2ey80

they lie on March 15, 2013 at 9:41 AM

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

You are aware that we do actually have gun laws right? You are aware that criminals – those people we can’t trust with guns – are not legally allowed to own guns right? And I’m sure you’re also aware that the overwhelming number of gun deaths in this country or committed with guns obtained illegally.

gwelf on March 15, 2013 at 9:42 AM

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

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

If you knew your history you’d already know the answer. Apples and oranges by any constitutional reading. Another logical fallacy…hmmm.

CW on March 14, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Actually, the original interpretation of it did include heavy weaponry, including privately owned cannons.

Now, things like nukes end up being a different kettle of fish, largely because even government nukes require the consent and action of multiple people to fire one off.

Anthrax and other biologicals are heavily regulated because it is so easy to accidentally release it and get a pile of people killed. Black powder is regulated to a degree that gunpowder is not, for similar reasons. (Black powder is an explosive, and *will* go off if you are not very careful with it.)

Voyager on March 15, 2013 at 9:48 AM

“According to your logic, that guns kill people…If you are o.k. with some guns, then you are o.k. with some killing?”

dirtseller on March 15, 2013 at 9:23 AM

+1000

unclesmrgol on March 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Saw a meme…. “If the 2nd amendment couldn’t possibly protect modern weapons like the AR-15 because the founders couldn’t have envisioned them, then how can the 1st amendment protect speech on TV and the internet?”

JellyToast on March 15, 2013 at 8:38 AM

+1000

unclesmrgol on March 15, 2013 at 9:50 AM

What happens more often, Newtown-style massacres or home invasions? Good Solid B-Plus on March 14, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Um, the latter?

Akzed on March 15, 2013 at 9:50 AM

The pen is mightier than the sword. A gun is also mightier than the sword.

A pen has cartridges. A gun has cartridges.

Therefore a pen is a gun.

Therefore we need to regulate pens.

Heh.

unclesmrgol on March 15, 2013 at 9:51 AM

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

No, they’re like, a million dollars.

If you don’t like the 2nd Amendment, amend the Constitution. Right now you’re just arguing against the Constitution and in favor of unconstitutional laws. Typical lib.

I was particularly amused by Feinstein’s argument that the 4th Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure has limits. Apparently, she’s ok with some unreasonable searches and seizures.

Akzed on March 15, 2013 at 10:02 AM

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Only a liberal could equate anthrax with guns. All that aside, nothing Senator Feinstein proposed, in her legislation, none of it would have prevented Sandy Hook nor will anything she’s proposed stop a similar incident.

What we do know is, if the principle of the school had come out with a firearm and shot Adam Lanza, there would have been only one death in that school, his. That may have done more to stop the next shooting than anything the Democrats, President Obama, or all the liberal gun groups together are proposing. She’s talking about restricting rights, we’re talking about expanding rights.

bflat879 on March 15, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Actually, the original interpretation of it did include heavy weaponry, including privately owned cannons.

Voyager on March 15, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Yes, PLEASE!!

“For those about to ROCK!!!”

CurtZHP on March 15, 2013 at 10:12 AM

This committee dispute encapsulates the whole argument: facts and knowledge versus “personal experience” and “passion”.

MTF on March 15, 2013 at 9:38 AM

That’s a really good point. Political reps grandstanding on corpses while emoting is not a good recipe for successful and cogent legislation, yet that’s all we seem to get from people who are wiping their armpits with the Constitution.

I don’t recall the Founders adding a clause which said the Constitution can be amended as long as you have a really good anecdote to support it.

Bishop on March 15, 2013 at 10:13 AM

. . . . . . 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.

libfreeordie on March 14, 2013 at 7:58 PM

.
That’s the fault of the Counter-Culture Revolution of the 1960s, which led to the unbridled hedonism of the 1970s.

It’s way past time to over-throw it all back. Today’s spoiled Americans can be taught to responsibly possess firearms, including the dreaded AR-15.

BTW, no one’s trying to promote private ownership of chemical and biological weapons.

listens2glenn on March 15, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Political reps grandstanding on corpses while emoting is not a good recipe for successful and cogent legislation… Bishop on March 15, 2013 at 10:13 AM

But it is a good way to whip up a mob.

Akzed on March 15, 2013 at 10:20 AM

I’m so indescribably tired of liberals finding hidding rights in the Constitution which must be defended and expanded while rejecting out of hand those rights which are explicitly laid out.

Yes. I know it’s been said a million times, but it really spins me up.

Washington Nearsider on March 15, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Feinstein and Bpxer, two of a kind from the same state, no less! In watching the exchange, it’s apparent that Cruz is the better point maker, and Feinstein had to resort to a Boxer-like attempt at a smackdown. She looked the fool against a calm, knowledgable protaganist with a courteous demeanor.

tomshup on March 15, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3