Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Ted Cruz versus DiFi on 2nd Amendment

Ted Cruz versus DiFi on 2nd Amendment

Via Mediaite:

On Thursday, during a committee hearing in the U.S. Senate on gun control legislation, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) engaged in a heated exchange over the constitutionality of her support for stricter gun control laws. In posing a question regarding the constitutionality of new gun laws, Cruz lectured Feinstein about the language in the Bill of Rights. Feinstein did not appreciate the lecture and informed Cruz that she was “not a sixth grader.”

“It seems to me that all of us should begin, as our foundational document, with the Constitution” Cruz began. “And the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Cruz went on to expound on the phrase “the right of the people,” its origins and its prolific use by the Founding Fathers in a number of Constitutional provisions, including the First and Fourth Amendments.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Well,he certainly got them up in arms (no pun intended). I’ve become a big fan of this man.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Rosalie. | March 14, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    Notice that Patrick Leahy had to open his pie-trap to show that he’s (a.) awake; (b.) still breathing; and (c.) is as insipidly stupid as most people think he is.

    Vermont? Ver-freakin-MONT? Texas has small counties bigger than Vermont, Pat. Now, play with your Etch-A-Sketch and be quiet.

Ted asked a killer question, that DiFi never did answer responsively.

She was prompted by others to evoke “child porn” in response to the “specific books” query. Which the astute listener will note is not responsive.

Fully automatic weapons are outlawed, without a Federal registration and expensive tax stamp. Those are the “child porn” of firearms in this arena of thinking.

In my opinion, the real nugget here is Durbin’s comment in the last 30 seconds or so: “None of these rights are absolute–none of them.” Has there ever been a bolder statement of the dems disrespect for the Constitution? Surely there’s a political ad here!

    Ragspierre in reply to MTED. | March 14, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    Actually, no…

    No rights are “absolute” in that they are all NOT license. Each right has some restraints…which are sort of obvious if you think about them.

      Browndog in reply to Ragspierre. | March 14, 2013 at 3:12 pm

      So, then I guess it’s really not a “right” then, is it?

        Ragspierre in reply to Browndog. | March 14, 2013 at 3:18 pm

        No. A right is NOT license. You may not slander me in exercise of your 1st Amendment right to speech.

        You may not convey information to an enemy under the 1st Amendment.

        See…???

          Browndog in reply to Ragspierre. | March 14, 2013 at 3:37 pm

          Nope. I don’t.

          Slander is against the law.

          Gonna lecture me?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 14, 2013 at 3:57 pm

          Lecture?!?!

          No. I’m going to point out the obvious.

          Duh.

          Browndog in reply to Ragspierre. | March 14, 2013 at 4:03 pm

          Duh?

          A tad condescending…

          What you speak of is abuse of Rights, not use.

          “Rights and responsibilities” ring a bell?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 14, 2013 at 4:04 pm

          “Slander is against the law.”

          So… Under your thinking, our rights are subject only to passage of a law?

          See now…???

          ALLLLLL civil rights are subject to some limits.

          Consider the OccupyWhatever assertion that they have a 1st Amendment right to “occupy” a public park. Right or wrong?

          Browndog in reply to Ragspierre. | March 14, 2013 at 4:18 pm

          I knew you would go there.

          You have it backwards.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 14, 2013 at 4:24 pm

          No.

          YOU have it backwards.

          Rights are not (I’ll repeat for the hard of learning) LICENSE.

          They are ALLLLLL limited.

          retire05 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 14, 2013 at 4:29 pm

          You may not slander me in exercise of your 1st Amendment right to speech.

          And you call yourself a lawyer?

          I most certainly slander you. As a matter of fact, proving slander, and getting an award against it, has stringent requirements that must be met by the laws of each, individual state.

          If I want to stand on a bucket in the middle of Time’s Square and scream “Rags is a jerk and eats kittens.” you have to prove some financial harm from that. Or at least you do in the state you practice law (?) in.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 14, 2013 at 4:34 pm

          “I most certainly slander you.”

          And, in doing it (as here), you prove your own perfidy.

          Good grief. What a flock of stupid.

          Browndog in reply to Ragspierre. | March 14, 2013 at 4:57 pm

          See, there you go again-

          This is a debate worth having. A debate that should be happening from Capital Hill to high school civics class, but it’s not.

          Why?

          Because of lawyerly types like yourself that “know”…things like the meaning of the word “is”.

          You shut down debate…..just like a lib.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 14, 2013 at 6:45 pm

          How? By pointing out the obvious…???

          I never said, “Shut up!” I gave you plain, commonsense examples of limits on rights…even very fundamental ones…showing the difference between a “right” and a license.

          That isn’t remotely like “what ‘is’ is”. It is a clear, rational difference.

        Paul in reply to Browndog. | March 14, 2013 at 5:40 pm

        what difference, at this point, does it make?

        SoCA Conservative Mom in reply to Browndog. | March 15, 2013 at 11:14 am

        Your rights end where my rights begin.

      Perhaps, but he needs to be pressed to elaborate on that comment in the context of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments.

    Browndog in reply to MTED. | March 14, 2013 at 3:05 pm

    Why wouldn’t he, and all democrats think that?

    They have case law after case law to back them up-

    Nothing is ever weighed against the Constitution anymore, it’s weighed against precedent.

    The Supreme Court has done more to limit Constitutional rights than the democrats could have ever hoped for…and they’re not done.

    Notice Difi kept citing Heller…

    Touted by conservatives as a great victory…but was a horrible ruling…as evident by her repeated citing of–not the ruling–but dicta contained in the ruling….which is now the new Constitution.

    (Not to mention it was a 5-4 ruling….1 vote from “the right of the people Congress to overrule the Constitution shall not be infringed”

“Feinstein did not appreciate the lecture and informed Cruz that she was “not a sixth grader.”

Di, is 100% correct on that point. She failed her 5th Grade tests, sooo, she turned to poli-somethin’ or other *speiling was her worst sujec..

Just perfect for what she does now though. Running her mouth!

And yet, I/WE are ruled by these dummkopf’s. We gotta’ change that!

Oooh boy he really got under her skin. Rick Wilson had a good piece at Riccochet explaining the reactionary response to Rand Paul’s filibuster and Ted Cruz’s failure to adhere to the old-school rules. As Wilson notes, it isn’t just the old guard Republicans who have issues with the “insolence” from a newbie like Cruz. I was waiting for DiFi to cuff him on the ear. Instead she delivered the “outrageously outraged” version of “get off my lawn.”

    janitor in reply to Mary Sue. | March 14, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    You mailed it, Mary Sue.

    (I would have clicked “like” — what happened to these buttons?)

    Browndog in reply to Mary Sue. | March 14, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    I personally enjoyed Leahy’s initial response, trying to bail out Feinstein…

    Mumbling, fumbling, stumbling….”er..books”

    Say what you want about the republicans, but at least they have a few thinkers…

    The other night I was trying to think of who on the Dem side had was at least a thinker..

She did get one thing correct. She’s not a 6th grader. A 6th grader would not have needed to be lectured to.

Thank the Lord! Diane Frankenstein did not pull out her concealed carry gun and start fireworks what with Ted Cruz defending her right to have one. Why they gave her a concealed carry permit when she is so obviously mentally challenged is the real injustice.
GO Ted Cruz Missile!!

Awesome!

Cruz was on Feinstein like white on rice.
She threw out a few gun-control buzzwords like “Sandy Hook”, “bazooka”, “weapons of war”, “bodies”, and acted all high and mighty and insulted that anyone would dare to question her motives… and Cruz just stared at her politely and waited for her to finish her BS. Then he jumped right back into her face; ‘You didn’t answer the question.’

Fearless! Like a bulldog!

Henry Hawkins | March 14, 2013 at 3:03 pm

Incoming Cruz missile, Diane.. duck!

Bazookas?

    MTED in reply to Icepilot. | March 14, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    …and “imploding” bullets! Sarah Palin would have been skewered mercilessly by the press for that comment.

      Ragspierre in reply to MTED. | March 14, 2013 at 4:00 pm

      DiFi is not bothered by EITHER common sense OR physics…!!!

      She has an agenda, and by gawd, she’s gonna cram it.

      Down our throats, that is…

Didn’t Feinstein once say, “You can take my Senate seat when you pry it from my cold, dead ass” ?

If I were 20 years younger and not happily married, I might fall in love all over again with this man; plain speaking and strong, willing to take the fight to them, oh, and and not bad at all in the brains department. Where are all our other so-called representatives? Oh, I forgot, they are too busy singing “Kumbayah” to do something useful, or at least something they were elected to do, which is represent us (a.k.a. known as protecting us and our rights)! Go Cruz-missile!!

    breakn70 in reply to MAB. | March 14, 2013 at 7:29 pm

    Two and a half months into his term and they’re already afraid of him. 4 on 1 and they still lose the argument.

    (DiFi, Leahy, Durbin and Schumer)

TrooperJohnSmith | March 14, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Wanna play the emotion card?

“Senator Feinstein… how about all those people who were murdered by Richard Ramirez after your ill-timed press conference, when you were San Francisco mayor, which allowed him to escape the police, who were just about to arrest him?”

First we hear from Rand Paul defending our Constitution. Then, we hear from Allen West. And then, again, from Ted Cruz. I am growing faint.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | March 14, 2013 at 5:05 pm

DiFi would never talk to a white man like that. Clearly, she has to put the young, uppity hispanic in his place by exercising her white privilege.

I always imagined falsely playing the race card for political gain would be more gratifying. That was disappointing.

    Her non-answer tirade was a tour d’force in passive-aggressive elitism.

    ” And so I — you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.”

RReaganConservative | March 15, 2013 at 6:18 am

Sen. Ted Cruz is absolutely correct, and Sen. Diane Feinstein deserved every syllable of Sen Ted Cruz’s confronting teaching lecture moment of the U.S. Constitution’s stated Bill of Rights-specifically the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments, to make clear, to reiterate to Ms Liberal fascist Sen. Diane Feinstein that the U.S. Constitution is absolute- is what it is, and is NOT what liberal’s view of what they want it to be and say.

I salute and applaud Sen Cruz !!

I R A Darth Aggie | March 15, 2013 at 10:42 am

I caught part of Mark Levin’s show last night. I heard this, and I think this should be written in very large, bold letters:

It’s the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs

SoCA Conservative Mom | March 15, 2013 at 2:42 pm

DiFi is playing the damsel in distress. I can just picture it, behind the scenes, back of hand to forehead, attack of the vapors, “He was ruuuuuude to me! Someone needs to teach him to respect his elders. Doesn’t he know WHO I am…”

The Dems are the party of incivility. I guess they can dish it out but can’t take it.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend