The Freshman Senator Ted Cruz of Texas had a very pointed and consitutional question regarding gun control for Senator Diane Feinstein of California two days ago during a hearing. Getting right to the point he said, “The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is: Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?”
That is one hell of an insightful question. Well Senator, what is your answer on this whole thing how are you going to answer this. Can you just legislate away the rights of the people as you are willing to do? And in true liberal fashion, when encountering the truth or losing an argument through logic she went to avoid, deflect, attack, and spread fallacy. She went on to tell him how much government experience she had, and she is not in grade school. Well no crap. Then she went on to bloviate about the dangers of firearm violence and how she had been to Sandy Hook. Wheee, you’re still not answering the question Senator.
This wrinkled old bat believes she has great respect for the Constitution, but thinks that weapons of war, which are clearly delineated as something that can be banned under District of Columbia v. Heller apply to the AR-15. Apparently so. What she doesn’t realize is that military grade weapons, automatic weapons, bazookas, rocket launchers, grenades, tanks, howitzers, etc. are illegal for people to own already. Machines guns and the like fall under the National Firearms Act of 1934, you don’t require a new law to ban those things. The AR-15 and other semi-automatic rifles are not military grade assault weapons. The military does not go into combat with those; you are just reaching in order to inject your ideology onto the people. One other very important point… [most] of the weapons you’ve listed in this legislation, the 2271 exemptions from the second amendment, have been proven NOT to have been used at Sandy Hook. You are using the horrible deaths at Sandy Hook to promote a political ideology and playing on the heartstrings of Americans in the process.
Feinstein has clearly been an elected official long enough and has dictated her will to the people as one of their elite rulers that she no longer reads the opening of the Constitution as We the People, instead she sees a document entitled The Wee People. I wish this wrinkled old b%^& would just shut her mouth, but libtards never do. When a legislator is forced to use emotion and insults to spread half-truths and lies rather than the using the reason and logic with a well thought out argument within the confines of the law; it is a tacit admission that her argument is a sham.
I’ve included the video below so you can see the entire exchange below.
By the way, Heller had been argued earlier in the hearing and Cruz was expounding on the argument within the confines of DC v Heller, so don’t write to me and try and tell me I’ve missed the whole point of her argument. Heller clearly does not apply to his question because he was not talking about gun bans on dangerous and unusual weapons that are not in common use, which is what was decided in Heller. read it here : http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html