Video: Dianne Feinstein not happy with Ted Cruz’s question on the Second Amendment

posted at 1:21 pm on March 14, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via the Weekly Standard, this is worth watching less for the nuts and bolts of the constitutional dialogue than as evidence of how far Cruz has already gotten under Senate Democrats’ skin. Doesn’t take much here for Feinstein to get awfully defensive about how long she’s been in the Senate, how many bodies she’s seen, how she respects the Constitution but etc etc etc. You’d think that, as an anti-gun warrior of long standing, she’d be armed by now with rote rebuttals to the sort of basic Second Amendment question that Cruz is posing. Nope: She falls back on prudential arguments about how she’s only banning a few types of weapons, how Americans don’t need bazookas, and so forth. Finally Leahy and Durbin back her up with the obvious reply, that the First Amendment isn’t absolute (defamation, incitements to riot, and child porn can all be regulated), in which case why should the Second Amendment be? They might also have noted that the text of the Second Amendment, unlike the First or Fourth, begins with a caveat that specifically imagines some sort of regulation. And Cruz, as a former state solicitor general, was surely expecting all that. I wonder where he was headed with this line of questioning if it hadn’t been cut off. Either he was just trying to put Feinstein on the spot or, maybe, he was angling to get one of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to defend their position with an attack-ad-worthy soundbite about how there are limits to constitutional rights. It’s Durbin, I believe, who finally obliges him.

Feinstein’s assault-weapons ban passed the Committee 10-8 today on a party-line vote, but don’t get caught up in that. Reid will be lucky to break 50 votes for cloture in the full Senate. The bill to worry about if you’re a supporter of gun rights is Schumer’s new bill, which purports merely to expand background checks to private sales but actually ends up doing much more. Read Charles Cooke’s summary of it at NRO. Criminal “transfer” of a weapon doesn’t just mean transferring title, via a sale; it also apparently means transferring possession, even for a brief amount of time.

Update: Some commenters are grumbling that I’ve misunderstood what “well-regulated” means in the Second Amendment. I’m not giving you my understanding, though; I’m telling you how Democrats might have responded to Cruz. They’re not originalists. They might seize on the word “regulated” and use that as a pretext for legislation. Although, in fairness to them, their anti-2A arguments typically focus more on the meaning of the word “militia” than on “regulated.”


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 4

I just love our Sen. Cruz. Keep up your good work Cruz making the d’s bent out of shape!
L

letget on March 14, 2013 at 1:23 PM

They might also have noted that the text of the Second Amendment, unlike the First or Fourth, begins with a caveat that specifically imagines some sort of regulation

What kind of regulation is that, AP?

Bc “well regulated” in the context of the writing means well-practiced or well-drilled, not “well-managed-by-an-intrusive-government-into-oblivion.”

JohnTant on March 14, 2013 at 1:25 PM

These Senators took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and are openly breaking it with gusto and impunity. Why are we not hanging them, again?

Archivarix on March 14, 2013 at 1:26 PM

There is no difference between arbitrarily defined ‘assault weapons’ and the arms protected by the Constitution, clearly this is just a gun grab by another name.

Galt2009 on March 14, 2013 at 1:27 PM

It’s always entertaining, listening to a dinosaur Bolshevik vomit up her allegations of respect for the Constitution.

I think that her birth certificate says:

Born – Mesozoic Era.

Terms in Senate – Paleozoic on.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 14, 2013 at 1:27 PM

They might also have noted that the text of the Second Amendment, unlike the First or Fourth, begins with a caveat that specifically imagines some sort of regulation.

Doesn’t the word “regulated” mean something different in 18th century English? I believe in that context “well regulated” meant “well trained” or “organized,” not “saddled with onerous rules and regulations.”

CurtZHP on March 14, 2013 at 1:28 PM

DiFi: Mr. Cruz, perhaps you don’t know how old and crazy I am…

d1carter on March 14, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Yeah, Schumer’s bill is a death ray for gun owners.

a capella on March 14, 2013 at 1:28 PM

That’s Senator Sixth-Grader to you.

No wait, that was the other one wasn’t it?

forest on March 14, 2013 at 1:28 PM

John beat me to it.

CurtZHP on March 14, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Bc “well regulated” in the context of the writing means well-practiced or well-drilled, not “well-managed-by-an-intrusive-government-into-oblivion.”

JohnTant on March 14, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Yes, government regulation of it’s own restraints would not make any sense.

If the government can seize control of it’s limitations then it will be limited no more.

Galt2009 on March 14, 2013 at 1:30 PM

“Dear Ms. Feinstein: FACE!!!!

williamg on March 14, 2013 at 1:33 PM

At what point in time have we been able to go down to our local Outdoor America, and buy a bazooka?

Do the Outdoor America’s in Freakland have more variety than in Oklahoma?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 14, 2013 at 1:34 PM

CurtZHP on March 14, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Great minds. :)

There’s also a 10A dimension to the argument, inasmuch as the prohibition is against the right itself being infringed, not against Congress infringing upon the right. That says (to me, anyway) that infringement upon the RKBA is something prohibited by the Constitution, whether by the Federal Government or by State Governments.

Of course, the idea that states can infringe where the Feds cannot is also rebutted by the SCOTUS incorporating the 2A via McDonald.

Main thing…RKBA is a very broad right, and conservatives give up a lot of rhetorical ground when they start accepting the premises upon which, say, “expanded background checks” are based.

JohnTant on March 14, 2013 at 1:34 PM

did you notice how dick jumped in at the end to try and save feinsteins bacon.

where’s the rest of the clip. i suspect Cruz was about to rip them a new one.

this clip should be played over and over. the constitution means nothing. elect corrupt officials and judges and it game over for liberty.

renalin on March 14, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Even if we use the modern definition of “regulated” it still applies to the militia. The right to keep and bear arms, however, shall not be infringed. In other words, regulation is explicitly forbidden.

SAZMD on March 14, 2013 at 1:35 PM

If you listen very closely to the video you can hear what appears to be two, golf-ball sized, brass spheres knocking together anytime Cruz shifts in his seat.

aquaviva on March 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM

What kind of regulation is that, AP?

Bc “well regulated” in the context of the writing means well-practiced or well-drilled, not “well-managed-by-an-intrusive-government-into-oblivion.”

JohnTant on March 14, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Correct. And the words “A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state…” was added in the context of restraining the federal government as to the states’ right to form their own militias. Those words aren’t a qualification, but one of many reasons. And the words “…the people’s right to keep and bear arms” is a statement that guarantees a pre-existing individual right. It doesn’t say ‘shall’ or ‘will’ have the right, it just ‘the right.’

RadClown on March 14, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Once again: since when do you have to prove you “need” something before you’re allowed to own it?

Bat Chain Puller on March 14, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Bc “well regulated” in the context of the writing means well-practiced or well-drilled, not “well-managed-by-an-intrusive-government-into-oblivion.”

Yes, but why would you expect Democrats to argue that way? They’re going to use any textual foothold they can find. They’re not originalists.

Allahpundit on March 14, 2013 at 1:38 PM

What bothers Fienstein and her ilk about Cruz is that in the good ole days, the Republicans would accept the premise that the Dem’s were “good intentioned but just doing it wrong”.

Cruz comes along and say “This is BS and there is nothing good intentioned about it”. He’s challanging them and they’ve never had to make a logical or well thought out justification before.

It leaves them flustered.

WisRich on March 14, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Details of Schumer’s Mandatory Background Check Bill (S. 374)
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/foghorn/breaking-details-of-shumers-mandatory-background-check-bill-s-374/

The main provision of the bill is that any transfer of a firearm, no matter how fleeting, needs to go through an FFL and the transferee needs to have a background check performed through the NICS system. There are some exceptions, but they aren’t very good ones.

There’s also a poorly worded exception for hunting and “sporting purposes,” as well as gifts to family members. What that means is if you go on a trip for more than 7 days and leave your guns at home unattended with a roommate, its now a felony under this law.
I quote from the bill the definition of “transfer” includes:

shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition

In addition to the transfer requirements, it also makes it a federal felony to fail to report a lost or stolen firearm. If the gun isn’t reported to the authorities within 24 hours, that’s a 5-year stretch in a federal pokey you just earned yourself.

It allows the government to regulate the price of background checks, enacting a mandatory fee (read tax) to be paid every time you want to exercise a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and lets the government set the fee at whatever level they choose with no recourse. It also creates de facto registration through the NICS checks as well as the paperwork preservation requirements already in place.

Colbyjack on March 14, 2013 at 1:38 PM

SHE doesn’t think you should have these weapons…

Hat Trick on March 14, 2013 at 1:39 PM

These Senators took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and are openly breaking it with gusto and impunity. Why are we not hanging them, again?

Archivarix on March 14, 2013 at 1:26 PM

That’s a States’-rights issue: only Californians can do that without violating etiquette. Of course, they’re Californians, so…

affenhauer on March 14, 2013 at 1:40 PM

In the immortal words of Sam Donaldson – There’s no such thing as a stupid question.

Ed’s Corollary – Of course, the recipient has to be intelligent and honest enough to understand and formulate a response, but their failure to do so is not the questioner’s fault.

EdmundBurke247 on March 14, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Once again: since when do you have to prove you “need” something before you’re allowed to own it?

Bat Chain Puller on March 14, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Yep….it’s not a Bill of Needs…it’s a Bill of Rights. Need is irrelevant.

Hat Trick on March 14, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Yes, but why would you expect Democrats to argue that way? They’re going to use any textual foothold they can find. They’re not originalists.

Allahpundit on March 14, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Then if I owe you an apology for misreading you, I apologize. I read your statement as standalone, not as a Democrat rhetorical gambit.

JohnTant on March 14, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Fenstein’s answer is “I’ve been in congress for a long time”.

What a dim bulb.

portlandon on March 14, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Doesn’t the word “regulated” mean something different in 18th century English? I believe in that context “well regulated” meant “well trained” or “organized,” not “saddled with onerous rules and regulations.”

CurtZHP on March 14, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Not really, although the definition is sliding somewhat, words do have multiple meanings. We’ve become so accustomed to regulations promulgated by bureaucrats having the force of law that that seems to be the dominant meaning today. But the underlying meaning is really just the procedures you must follow to do something correctly. In the 18th century that involved drill in loading muskets and marching, today that might mean safety rules and cleaning the darn thing (the most unfun part). Any shooting range will have regulations you must follow to use them.

Fenris on March 14, 2013 at 1:42 PM

They might also have noted that the text of the Second Amendment, unlike the First or Fourth, begins with a caveat that specifically imagines some sort of regulation.

Sorry. That’s just not true. The “well regulated militia” that is “necessary to the security of a free State” is not a description of govenrrment regulation. It fails on two accounts:

First, the “well regulated militia” is only given as one justification of the need for the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms exists independent of a well regulated militia or a free State. But …. we prefer a free State :)

Secondly, the “regulation” in the “well regulated militia” is not government regulation but military order.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 14, 2013 at 1:42 PM

The senate has been hit with a Cruz missile. Our local daily Comical already got one of their affiliated San Fran reporters to weigh in on this with all the snark she could muster. She also got to bring in Larry Craig into the conversation just to make it pretty.

DanMan on March 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Watching that video it was striking how calm Cruz was while all the Dems were, if not histrionic, at least agitated. Well played!

Rufus on March 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Allahpundit on March 14, 2013 at 1:38 PM

i read as you playing devil’s advocate,

chasdal on March 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Di-Fi…the low information Senator.

elowe on March 14, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Tea Party 2.0. Let’s get ready for 3.0 in 2014.

Oil Can on March 14, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Aren’t the terms “well regulated” (lib interpretation) and “shall not be infringed” contradictory..?

affenhauer on March 14, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Yep, the gun ban stuff and the magazine limits for that matter are all theater.

The Dems know they can’t get it passed.

So they’re going for the more “reasonable” background check angle.

THAT is the real goal hear. They go go after guns later. First they need a registry, they need the data.

Everything else will fall after that.

catmman on March 14, 2013 at 1:46 PM

I usually skip the long videos, this one was fun. Feinstein shows herself to be as uneducated as she accuses others of being.

cozmo on March 14, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Concerning Patrick Leahy: Dick Cheney had it right.

Mallard T. Drake on March 14, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Dear Hot Air Owners/Operators,

Better get on the Ted Cruz train, it is leaving the station and all you got is a “path to citizenship” ticket to another stalled out train.

yours

true Texas conservative

ps
Get a copy of the book “Apache” by Will Levingon Comfort, read it, fast forward to now, compare and contrast.

You will feel the hot iron near your feet if you have brains.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 14, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Is part of the sequester the turning off half the lights in the committee room?

Mallard T. Drake on March 14, 2013 at 1:49 PM

We need more people like Cruz in the senate and house!

Jack_Burton on March 14, 2013 at 1:49 PM

I agree with some of the other posters, I have never read “regulated” in the Second Amendment to have anything to do with government regulation.

toby11 on March 14, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Bc “well regulated” in the context of the writing means well-practiced or well-drilled, not “well-managed-by-an-intrusive-government-into-oblivion.”

JohnTant on March 14, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Allah has taken quite a liking to the leftist tactic of BSing the meaning of words lately.

besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 1:49 PM

From now on, Ted Cruz is officially in charge of stomping on Feinstein’s colostomy bag.

Pork-Chop on March 14, 2013 at 1:49 PM

“I’m not a 6th grader. … I’ve seen the bullets that IMPLODE. I’m an idiot.”

I’ve got to look into these imploding bullets … though I’m not sure what they would be good for.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 14, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Allah has taken quite a liking to the leftist tactic of BSing the meaning of words lately.

besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Have I? When?

Not sure why you guys are stamping your feet at me here. I’m telling you how Democrats might argue in response to Cruz, not how an originalist would.

Allahpundit on March 14, 2013 at 1:51 PM

The Bill of Rights is and has always been an indivisible package of plenary natural rights essential to the defense of Liberty, without which there would be no Constitution. It is non-negotiable and not an ala carte, pick-and-choose menu. Many in government across the country are in open revolt against the Bill of Rights. A perfect example is Feinstein, Bloomberg, etc. Not only do they fail to embrace and support the Bill of Rights, all of it, but they are openly and arrogantly disdainful of the Bill of Rights and attempting to dilute, water down, or otherwise render all or part of it inoperative. The First Amendment should not legally extend to speech that is disdainful of the Second Amendment, and so on. To be an American Patriot is to support and defend the Bill of Rights, all of it. Ted Cruz is an American Patriot.

Tripwhipper on March 14, 2013 at 1:51 PM

“I’ve seen the bullets that implode.”

Really Diane? You’re a complete moron.

“So I come from a different place than you do.”

Yes, indeed you do, you evil, power-hungry, fascist wench.

Don’t even get me started on Tricky Dick Turban.

Polish Rifle on March 14, 2013 at 1:51 PM

At what point in time have we been able to go down to our local Outdoor America, and buy a bazooka?

Do the Outdoor America’s in Freakland have more variety than in Oklahoma?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 14, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Well they do turn in those fake, inoperable, planted rocket launchers in those LA gun buybacks.

msupertas on March 14, 2013 at 1:51 PM

It’s Durbin, I believe, who finally obliges him.

Yes he does. According to Durbin, none of the rights in the first ten amendments to the Constitution are absolute. News to me, but I’m certain that the average low-information voter wouldn’t have any problem with Durbin’s analysis.

That’s where we are, sad to say.

Curtiss on March 14, 2013 at 1:51 PM

From now on, Ted Cruz is officially in charge of stomping on Feinstein’s colostomy bag.

Pork-Chop on March 14, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Hope he’s got some hip-waders: that thing is so damn full it’s probably already busting at the seams…

affenhauer on March 14, 2013 at 1:52 PM

The only gun control that has my full support is the disarmament of Leftists.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 14, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Allahpundit: “They might also have noted that the text of the Second Amendment, unlike the First or Fourth, begins with a caveat that specifically imagines some sort of regulation.”

I’m not clear on what you mean, but had they noted such they would have been wrong. The clause, “a well regulated militia” has nothing to do with some ‘imagined regulation’ of the people’s right to keep and and bear arms.

Rather the clause “well regulated militia” is a term of art (as Cruz noted about ‘the right of the people’), that when understood in the founder’s context, asserts that government-controlled militia must be well-regulated so as not to threaten “the security of a free state”.

The founders and their fellow Americans were heavily oppressed by the British and the tools of that oppression were government-controlled militia. Hence the founders understood that while a nation must have militia for self-defense, that militia, if not “well regulated” by a well-armed populace, could and eventually would be used by the government against the people.

James Madison, Federalist Paper #46:
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

“The total population of the US must outnumber the standing army by a ratio of 100:1, or, the armed citizens must outnumber the standing army by 25:1. The reason; so that we, the people (are the government), and remain as a deterrent to a corrupt or tyrannical elected government.”

DrDeano on March 14, 2013 at 1:53 PM

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright 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.”
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D/CA) speaking of her authorship of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban on “60 Minutes” 2/5/95

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe.” – Dianne Feinstein, Associated Press, 11/18/93

RadClown on March 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM

True, I don’t ‘need’ a certain type of firearm.

John Travolta doesn’t need that Boeing 707 he owns.

No one needs a Corvette with all that horsepower.

DiFi doesn’t need a $173K annual salary (the Constitution allows recompense to legislators but no particular amount or percentage. She could be paid $10 a year and the provision is met)

Hollywoodies don’t need their huge mansions, plus summer homes, plus whatever else.

Etc, etc.

What America truly doesn’t need is a bunch of politicians trying to steal our liberty.

Liam on March 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM

I’m telling you how Democrats might argue in response to Cruz, not how an originalist would.

Allahpundit on March 14, 2013 at 1:51 PM

In that case you could have made the point that dems are more likely to argue against the necessity of a “free State”.

“Government knows what’s best for everyone.”

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM

I am so tired of hearing DiFi drone on and on about finding Mayor Moscone shot thirty five years ago. Yeah, it was a tragedy. Yeah, she got blood all over her favorite blouse. Get over it.

Dan White shot Mayor Moscone with a .38 caliber revolver. Not a .38 Special, mind you, but a .38 S&W. What does that peashooter have to do with the so-called Assault Weapons that Dianne Feinstien wants to ban? How many more powerful guns would have to be on her list before she could ban the gun that shot Mayor Moscone, which is her stated reason for all of her gun control initiatives?

The answer is: Pretty much all of them. OK, maybe .22 LR revolvers would be still be permitted. But everything else would be off the table.

Haiku Guy on March 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Bullets implode?

Look at Chuck Schumers sh!t eating grin when FrakenFeinstein brings up kiddy porn. These dinosaurs need to be removed from office.

jawkneemusic on March 14, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Allahpundit on March 14, 2013 at 1:38 PM

i read as you playing devil’s advocate,

chasdal on March 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM

I didn’t, but it’s possible, I guess. If so, it is certainly unclear from the text.

They might also have noted that the text of the Second Amendment, unlike the First or Fourth, begins with a caveat that specifically imagines some sort of regulation.

It depends on whose term “noted” is – is it the Democrat’s or the narrator’s (AP’s)? Unclear.

besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Allahpundit on March 14, 2013 at 1:51 PM

You know darn good and well tweaking some of those who don’t pay attention here are apt to pounce on any excuse to blame somebody else, for everything.

cozmo on March 14, 2013 at 1:57 PM

The one argument I never hear out side make is this:

Why would civilians ever need a military style weapon? Ask the people of Syria. With nothing more than a scattered few, old AK-47′s (then later some RPG’s and morters) they have nearly toppled their tyrant. This against a government with tanks, jet fighters and bombers and artillery. How much faster would this have happened and how many more lives would have been saved if the Syrian people had the 2nd amendment? Indeed, would the Syrian government ever had gotten as bad as they did if those people had the right to be armed?

Put that to a gun grabber and tell them “riddle me this Batman”.

Boogeyman on March 14, 2013 at 1:58 PM

I’ve always wondered what happened to the creature in the black lagoon suit.

acyl72 on March 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM

The Texas Cruz Missile strikes again.

WestTexasBirdDog on March 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM

These Senators took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and are openly breaking it with gusto and impunity. Why are we not hanging them, again?

Because the murdering of Senators is illegal. I’m working on having someone chat with you about this.

planecrashlaw on March 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Via the Weekly Standard

or as Limited Government Conservatives know it…

The NEOCON RINO McCain Webblog.

PappyD61 on March 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM

I’m telling you how Democrats might argue in response to Cruz, not how an originalist would.

Allahpundit on March 14, 2013 at 1:51 PM

I stand corrected. And, would note that the argument is just nonsensical enough that I could imagine a Democrat making it (though – I must admit that I haven’t heard it previously).

besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 2:00 PM

The whole militia argument is moot anyway.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
.
Congree already defined the militia, “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”
Therefore every dude (except the excluded ones) should have a military style assualt weapon at home.
Ladies if you want to play ya have to join the Guard.

LincolntheHun on March 14, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Senator Cruz appears to be wasting his time; after all, most of the relics he was speaking to have not a clue in regards to logic or the Constitution. Example, their pornography comment.

DDay on March 14, 2013 at 2:01 PM

DrDeano on March 14, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Thanks for that. Well stated and informative.

Curtiss on March 14, 2013 at 2:01 PM

I stand corrected. And, would note that the argument is just nonsensical enough that I could imagine a Democrat making it (though – I must admit that I haven’t heard it previously).

besser tot als rot on March 14, 2013 at 2:00 PM

I imagine they would have–if the gun-grabbers’ old false claim that the Second pertains to a collective right (the militia) to own guns, instead of the right being an individual one, gained serious traction.

Liam on March 14, 2013 at 2:04 PM

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.

…shall not be infringed.

…shall not be infringed.

…shall not be infringed.

…shall not be infringed.

…shall not be infringed.

…shall not be infringed.

…shall not be infringed.

So Bloomberg and his Progressive $$$$$ groups are going to the STATES to get Lib leaning ones to go along with the bans INCREMENTALLY.

Like the COMMON CORE learning Curriculum that stresses the doctrine of COMMUNITARIANISM (aka Communism). The Progressives take all their victories one step at a time.

…..and one day we wake up in the train cars headed off to the camps to be “re-educated”.

PappyD61 on March 14, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Speaking of Incremental Progressive victories….

http://right-reason.com/2013/03/02/two-moms-against-common-core/

Great video about Common Core and how the states are being forced to change their curriculum, state laws, and have to agree to loss of privacy for their students. Parents must understand what Common Core is all about, and fight to keep it out of their public schools or take their children out of the public schools.

Common Core teaches the ideology of communitarianism. This is communism with a new name.

PappyD61 on March 14, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Because the murdering of Senators is illegal. I’m working on having someone chat with you about this.

planecrashlaw on March 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM

And what are they going to do – confiscate his rope..?

affenhauer on March 14, 2013 at 2:06 PM

LincolntheHun on March 14, 2013 at 2:01 PM

I suppose I should spell Congress correctly.
.
Another brilliant post destroyed by tequila spelling.

LincolntheHun on March 14, 2013 at 2:09 PM

So glad I was able to vote for Cruz and help him get into the Senate.

toby11 on March 14, 2013 at 2:10 PM

If we can ban certain guns then we should be able to ban certain religions.

TX-eye on March 14, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Ted Cruz and many of U.S. now are in the fight to the end.

If he and we should not come out winners, he and many of us will be looking in old age out of the windows of prison for the illegal use of free speech.

Ted Cruz knows this and will not back down.

The Democrat Party is the commie evil within and no amount of heads in the sand will keep that from being what it in fact is.

They have lied to themselves and now the lies are their life blood.

They lust for more tax money which is just their way of life taking.

They lust for power and will “Climate Chage/Global Warming/CO2 fraud to obtain the power. Just think of what “Richard Windsons” e-mails to Michael Mann might show.

Thinking it can not happen in the U.S.A. is a fools choice.

Stand our ground now or we will have no ground of our own.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 14, 2013 at 2:10 PM

I suppose I should spell Congress correctly.
.
Another brilliant post destroyed by tequila spelling.

LincolntheHun on March 14, 2013 at 2:09 PM

The word ‘Congress’ has many spellings. Some examples:

Idiots
Thieves
Buttnuts
Guano
Azzhats (many variations here)
Sh*theads

There are more, depending on region, if the mods aren’t looking, and how much tequila one has had. :-)

Liam on March 14, 2013 at 2:14 PM

What is the difference between those who might in rebellion attack us with arms, and those who might in rebellion attack our Bill of Rights? The result is the same, subjugation and tyranny.

Tripwhipper on March 14, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Theymight also have noted that the text of the Second Amendment, unlike the First or Fourth, begins with a caveat that specifically imagines some sort of regulation.

I take issue with your view AP as you expressed it in the quote.

Since in the earliest days of the confederation the central government had no military power and, with the writing of the Constitution the states went so far as to actually prohibit the Federal government from even possessing a standing army at all, for fear of intimidation of the people (the Navy being thought purely a weapon in support of foreign policy), the only armed force contemplated by the framers (or anyone else at the time) was a citizen force, being the “militia” referred to in the Bill of Rights.

If the Federal government had need of a military force, the Framers imagined the central government would have a big hurdle to overcome before it would be granted to them. War would have to be declared. The militia would then be invited, ie hopefully persuaded by the states, to form up in order to defend the newly constituted republic against foreign domination or whatever.

While each state could be asked to contribute forces, the Constitution gave the central government no compulsory power at all to form or regulate state militias. The militia being talked about, not being a creature of the central government, was therefor never imagined as regulated by that government.

The caveat to which you refer at the beginning only applies to individual state regulation prior to a request from the central government for troops, and to an expectation the central government would not be required to pay for weapons after those troops were produced. As I read the amendment, it does not specifically imagine “some sort of regulation” by the Federal government as you are saying.

MTF on March 14, 2013 at 2:15 PM

I’ve always been a WW2 history fanatic. And, I’ve had my eye on two weapons … Dianne, can you help me out? –

1. Wirbelwind

2. Quad .50

OhEssYouCowboys on March 14, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Once again: since when do you have to prove you “need” something before you’re allowed to own it?

Bat Chain Puller on March 14, 2013 at 1:37 PM

To liberals that’s the end all and be all: emotionality.

“Need” is something they can attach emotions to. You can’t have it because it makes sense, may be practical or just because you have a RIGHT to. There has to be some kind of emotional “need” to it.

Maybe if those who are interested in protecting the constitution threatened to cry and said their feelings were hurt it may actually mean something to liberals.

It’s not like logic or the words “shall not be infringed” means anything.

kim roy on March 14, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Nowhere in the first amendment does it say “This right shall not be infringed”. In other words, it could be. It’s not stated that it can not be infringed.

The second amendment on the other hand….

HotAirian on March 14, 2013 at 2:19 PM

What a miserable looking woman. She reminds me of the villain in Gremlins. I thought she was about to fall over before she opened her mouth. Typical liberal response getting all huffy. Didn’t answer the question.

RDE2010 on March 14, 2013 at 2:19 PM

I wonder where he was headed with this line of questioning if it hadn’t been cut off.

Maybe he was just trying to rattle the old bag. No shame in that.

Mr. Arkadin on March 14, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Cruz certainly knows how to ring they’re clocks. I really am impressed with this fellow. Go Cruz!!! Many many more like him please. Sarah called this one completely correct. Excellent Man to get behind. Rising star.

Bmore on March 14, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Hah, funny how the leftists are for pornography until it kicks them in the azz.

Turbin “…the senator professes to know the constitution”…what an oaf.

As for the Cow of Calif. she’s right. She’s not in the 6th grage, she’s in the 3rd.

What a shame that she has declined so much. At one point she used to have some class.

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Does anyone have a link to his speech at CPAC last night? Or is that tonight?

Schadenfreude on March 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM

One of the things that has always driven me nuts about the GOP and the Senate is that they allow the “club” rules to be used against them. They play nice with the dems while the dems stab them in the back again and again. All that clubbiness, etc. It’s time we dropped the nonsense and stopped caring if they like us. The dems get away with acting like cads and idiots all the time and we grin and bare it out of some kind of silly idea that we should abide by some stupid civility rules that the Dems never actually abide by anyway.

I want republican Senators to be calling dem senators liars on the Senate floor, not playing nice nice b/c of some outdated and useless code of conduct that only one side ever adheres to anyway.

It looks like Ted Cruz is willing to go that route to some extent. Here’s hoping that more GOP Senators realize that they’ve been played for fools for at least the last 20 years.

Call them what they are. For instance, Feinstein is arrogant, stupid and dishonest. Say it. Point out examples. Make her cry. Challenge her to answer a question with logic and facts – she can’t do it.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 2:24 PM

To HELL with “case law”.

Put another way: TO HELL WITH “HELLER”.

listens2glenn on March 14, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Sorry, distracted by work load. Should read, ring their bells.

Bmore on March 14, 2013 at 2:24 PM

No, Feinstein, you’re stupider than any sixth grader I’ve ever met.

AcronisF on March 14, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Once again: since when do you have to prove you “need” something before you’re allowed to own it?

Bat Chain Puller on March 14, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Ya – I personally think this point needs to be emphasized far more often. I want to make the Dems answer the question: Do we have a Bill of Rights or a Bill of Needs?
If we have a Bill of Needs, then YOU (Demtard) don’t NEED a giant limo that can go 100 mph; YOU don’t NEED a 10,000 sf mansion, YOU don’t NEED a private jet; YOU (Barky & Moocher) don’t need 6 months of taxpayer funded vacations per year; etc etc etc.

dentarthurdent on March 14, 2013 at 2:26 PM

From the New York Slime:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/us/politics/panel-approves-reinstatement-of-assault-weapons-ban.html

“The road is uphill. I fully understand that,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, the sponsor of the bill, after its passage in the committee. “My passion comes from what I’ve seen on the streets,” she said, adding, “I cannot get out of my mind trying to find the pulse in someone and putting my fingers in a bullet hole.”

Can someone tell when DiFi was trying to find a pulse, or putting her finger into bullet holes? Was it during Christmas season in Cambodia?

patch on March 14, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Video: Dianne Feinstein not happy with Ted Cruz’s question on the Second Amendment

No kidding. I’ve yet to meet a six grader that believes it is “legal to hunt humans.”

Resist We Much on March 14, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Call them what they are. For instance, Feinstein is arrogant, stupid and dishonest. Say it. Point out examples. Make her cry. Challenge her to answer a question with logic and facts – she can’t do it.

Monkeytoe on March 14, 2013 at 2:24 PM

While I totally agree with your sentiment, I would debate the tactic. Calling liberals names allows them to toss the Victim Card (TM). My view is to attack the argument and trash it, showing the authors of it to be the slime they are by roundabout means.

Dem: “You were mean to me!”
Pub: “I only debated your argument; I didn’t attack you, personally.”

Liam on March 14, 2013 at 2:28 PM

No kidding. I’ve yet to meet a six grader that believes it is “legal to hunt humans.”

Resist We Much on March 14, 2013 at 2:27 PM

I guess you don’t live in Detroit, Chicago, or LA? *L*

Liam on March 14, 2013 at 2:29 PM

So, now we learn that none of our rights is absolute.

Thanks for clearing that up, Durbin.

stenwin77 on March 14, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4