Senator Ted Cruz Smokes Out Dianne Feinstein: You Didn't Answer My Question! Wow!

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Res Ipsa

The point is that there is protected speech and unprotected speech. The same goes for the 2nd amendment. You can't have a tactical nuke in your house. You can't have a stealth bomber on your farm. You can't have kiddy porn. Yelling fire in a crowed theater is not protected speech.......

The debate can be where the lines should be but not whether or not there are lines.

The government is not trying to take all your guns away, period.

I agree with what you can't have in your statement. The main reason is because a nuke or bomber is not "arms" but "ordinance". If the debate was to determine what is constitutionally protected as “arms” I would say great go for it, but I fail to see one gun type constitutionally protected as “arms” and another gun type is not, or even finer discriminators, such as two guns are exactly the same except for one has a pistol grip and the other does not, or a gun has larger capacity magazines, or fires faster, or looks meaner, or is labeled AR and not deer rifle.

The question is whether ALL guns are considered arms and if not why? We also know that this is all academic since guns in general are “arms” as to the framers intent, and canons, nukes etc are not.

One could also ask why didn’t this come to light when we advanced from musket balls to Winchester repeaters? A vastly larger capability difference than anything we have today in comparison.

What about a Gatling gun?

You do bring up a good point....why is this an issue now? Since you ask I offer only my opinion.....lets go....

Jim Bob fell into a time machine with an AR 2000 with a 150 ammo clip. He lands into the room where the 2nd amendment is being discussed. I am almost certain that the 2nd amendment would look different today if that happened.

Like you said, these guys are thinking muskets or something like it and everyone should have some to protect against those dang Indians and if the King decides to change his mind or the Rothchild's hire Blackwater.
Nobody today can claim that the founding fathers, if they saw the arms today, would still write the 2nd amendment as it reads now. It is really retarded to think that seeing 200 years into the future would not effect a person....the 3/5ths of a person would not be included for example.

Why hasn't it been dealt with sooner? It hasn't been worth the effort. Just wait until Laser Rifles are introduced!
or better yet, a hand gun laser.......yayyyyyyy........Could you see the founding fathers being cool with everyone owning a laser pistol that has an 8 hour continuous fire clip capacity?

How about owning our own armed drones to patrol our property?

The founding fathers, in my mind, would say......."hey people, we did the best we could for our times, even then we couldn't agree on almost anything. Stop treating us like divine prophets. We ripped stuff off from Martin Luther and other greats from history, so we are flattered that you include us, but wake up and deal with the times your in."

reply to post by Res Ipsa

No, guns are not the real world power.........laws are.....then those granted authority under those laws with guns. As far as your circular reasoning goes, if I was a philosophy expert I would eviscerate your poorly constructed false premise, followed by false conclusion followed by more of the same.......but I'm not....however, like the Justice that opined on pornography said, "I know it when I see it" Your argument is nonsensical.

oh, and where do laws get power? hmm? courts? what established the courts? how are those laws enforced? oh, all from that "piece of paper" you mocked earlier, saying what it contained was meaningless, or that the meanings didn't matter.

if laws are power, why do so many break them? as for "eviscerating" my argument, i love how you didn't answer it or defend your position. you dodge questions and arguments in a manner that would make feinstein proud.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I'm not going to give you a civics lesson. You seriously don't know what you are talking about.
Read up on the creation of the Judicial Branch, until you can tell me the person that "gave" it any power, I'm not wasting my time arguing with you.

I was going to call it a night but came back to help teach you something.....Read "Monroe v Madison"
If you have any questions about how the Court got its power after that, I'll tell you.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

I'm not going to give you a civics lesson. You seriously don't know what you are talking about.
Read up on the creation of the Judicial Branch, until you can tell me the person that "gave" it any power, I'm not wasting my time arguing with you.

I was going to call it a night but came back to help teach you something.....Read "Monroe v Madison"
If you have any questions about how the Court got its power after that, I'll tell you.

edit on 19-3-2013 by Res Ipsa because: out of kindness

i've already studied it. judicial review is ironically unconstitutional and shouldn't be needed. i say "shouldn't" because any bill passed by congress that becomes law should already adhere to the constitution. if it doesn't, it is an illegal law and all who voted for it would be committing perjury by violating their oath of office. then it turns into something the courts should deal with. sadly this is not how things work, and unconstitutional bills are passed all the time.

the judicial branch was created by the constitution. the same document you purported to not care about.

your argument is "who cares about what the constitution means" while arguing that power is derived from laws that are either deemed constitutional/unconstitutional or haven't yet been tried BY courts established under the constitution. the whole point of judicial review is determining whether laws abide by the constitution, making the meaning of the constitution incredibly important any way you look at it.

complete. illogical. drivel.

it is a nice side track you've gotten us on here, but that was probably your goal.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Jim Bob fell into a time machine with an AR 2000 with a 150 ammo clip. He lands into the room where the 2nd amendment is being discussed. I am almost certain that the 2nd amendment would look different today if that happened.

I don't necessarily agree. Arms in general are weapons that a single person can carry and operate. This could be up for debate but fits with what we are talking about.

The reason I do not agree with your scenario is that throughout American history “citizens” have always had what was equal to or even better than what the standing army had, so as guns got better both the regular army and regulated militia have had access to any type of “arms” available, well except for today.

Now looking at the framers intent that “arms” provide the right for personal protection AND protection from tyranny one could assume that a regulated militia should have equal rights to what a hypothetical tyrannical Government would have, otherwise that hypothetical tyrannical Government (Nazi Germany as example) could and would just ban whatever they saw as a threat.

Like you said, these guys are thinking muskets or something like it and everyone should have some to protect against those dang Indians and if the King decides to change his mind or the Rothchild's hire Blackwater.
Nobody today can claim that the founding fathers, if they saw the arms today, would still write the 2nd amendment as it reads now. It is really retarded to think that seeing 200 years into the future would not effect a person....the 3/5ths of a person would not be included for example.

Whether we are talking about an AR full auto with a 30 round clip or a musket the nature of the two are the same, single person protection. You are debating efficiency and nothing more. If I went back in time and plopped down 10 cases of ARs with ammo in front of the framers they would say “boys get your new guns”.

So you have hit on a point here in that you suggest weapons today are just too lethal to have in the hands of citizens and I would say show me the data. I say show me the data because the data says otherwise. With 9000 murders each year with guns there are less than 50 of those murders from ARs and less than 400 from all rifles. Hell more people are killed with hammers than ARs. This means your whole argument is based on some unseen potential, not reality. The reality is that the smallest weapon with the least number of bullets and shortest range does the vast majority to all the deaths.

So once again the role of the gun has not changed one iota since the musket....

Why hasn't it been dealt with sooner? It hasn't been worth the effort. Just wait until Laser Rifles are introduced!
or better yet, a hand gun laser.......yayyyyyyy........Could you see the founding fathers being cool with everyone owning a laser pistol that has an 8 hour continuous fire clip capacity?

You are a smart guy and this is a slippery slope fallacy, just as I can say that they will limit all guns except for muskets…

Your logic is also a little skewed in you keep suggesting some overpowered weapon as a AR would be in the 1700s or a ray gun with mass destruction capabilities, so let’s look at that here. The musket was not overpowered in the 1700s just as the Winchester wasn’t in the 1800 and as the AR is not today, and nor will the ray gun most likely be like in 200 years. The reason is technology keeps up with these weapons too and so the weapon is just right for its time.

As example with Aurora, the guy had an arsenal and was very limited in what he could do with it due to the technology that got the police there in minutes to stop him; if there were people with concealed weapons in the theater too he might have done a lot less too. In 200 years I would bet technology will continue to do as it has always done and keep up with ray guns too.

How about owning our own armed drones to patrol our property?

I could and would debate whether this is "arms" and so protected, I see this more like our framers would view a canon.

The founding fathers, in my mind, would say......."hey people, we did the best we could for our times, even then we couldn't agree on almost anything. Stop treating us like divine prophets. We ripped stuff off from Martin Luther and other greats from history, so we are flattered that you include us, but wake up and deal with the times your in."

You see this is your true debate....whether the constitution is a living document or not. I view it as a not, unless done through an Amendment. So let’s say 90% of America want to change the 2nd through an Amendment then I would say go ahead, but until that Amendment happens the words are set in stone.

reply to post by Xtrozero

You see this is your true debate....whether the constitution is a living document or not. I view it as a not, unless done through an Amendment. So let’s say 90% of America want to change the 2nd through an Amendment then I would say go ahead, but until that Amendment happens the words are set in stone.

the founding fathers purposely made it hard to amend the constitution so that people could keep their rights longer. all governments eventually become corrupt.

the constitution contains the idea of inalienable rights, things that cannot be amended away. changing the second amendment to allow for these measures, or passing such laws anyways do not make them legal.

feinstein even brings this up. she knows it will take a long time for a lawsuit to develop and make its way to the supreme court, plenty of time to require every citizen to register their guns and confiscate the illegal ones. the constitution is quite clear on the meaning of the second amendment and its purpose, she shouldn't have to wonder if the bill is constitutional, because it clearly isn't.

reply to post by Res Ipsa


It is reality, but a bastardized form of.

And like Admiral Ackbar said...

reply to post by Res Ipsa


Yelling fire is freedom of speech.

If that results in disorderly conduct, with someone willing to be a victim due to it creating a "incident", then that is something else.


And yes, as what is being done and shown, the Govt would like to disarm the American Citizen.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by TauCetixeta

 

His argument was made more effective by the inability of Feinstein to respond intellectually. When Cruz used the banning of books/1st amendment argument, she should have said yes, some books are not protected by the first amendment, and so some guns should not be protected by the 2nd........that simple.

Is it the roll of the U.S. Senate to attack the the 2nd Amendment and then just let the

U.S. Supreme Court to clean up their mess?

It is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. That right shall not be infringed.

The progressives are choosing to infringe that right every chance that they get.

That are demanding emotional driven gun laws that will not work.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

You see this is your true debate....whether the constitution is a living document or not. I view it as a not, unless done through an Amendment. So let’s say 90% of America want to change the 2nd through an Amendment then I would say go ahead, but until that Amendment happens the words are set in stone.

the founding fathers purposely made it hard to amend the constitution so that people could keep their rights longer. all governments eventually become corrupt.

the constitution contains the idea of inalienable rights, things that cannot be amended away. changing the second amendment to allow for these measures, or passing such laws anyways do not make them legal.

feinstein even brings this up. she knows it will take a long time for a lawsuit to develop and make its way to the supreme court, plenty of time to require every citizen to register their guns and confiscate the illegal ones. the constitution is quite clear on the meaning of the second amendment and its purpose, she shouldn't have to wonder if the bill is constitutional, because it clearly isn't.

Confiscate the illegal guns???

If i had 100 illegal guns , i would probably hide them in a cave somewhere IF i had

common sense. How are you going to find and confiscate them???

Hint: The bad guys ignore all of your wonderful gun laws.

reply to post by Xtrozero


yep, I am more in line with a living breathing document.

I can tell you that there is debate over what a "well regulated militia" is. Some, like yourself, think it means the citizens. Some think that if they meant everyday people they would have said everyday people. Some think it is meant for a national guard. Apparently what "arms" are or aren't can be debated.

I wouldn't mind seeing the stats for all gun fatalities and remove all inner city gang, black on black, shootings.
What weapon kills the most white suburban female kids? Only stat I care about since only stat to effect me.

If your group won't allow current laws to be enforced or unmolested, won't allow background checks as to minimize the opportunity of wackos owning guns....or waiting periods even. Then don't expect people like me to be too sympathetic about the potential infringement of this groups 2nd amendment rights.

The argument for protection against domestic tyranny is lame. The U.S. military could wipe out whomever they wanted, whenever they wanted if it came to that.

This issue starts at the top about money, where does the NRA get all of it? How does it make sure it keeps getting it? How many of the gun and ammo manufactures would be cool with having entire product lines made illegal?

I wonder what the word "regulated" means in the 2nd amendment?

reply to post by TauCetixeta



Senator Dianne Feinstein: " I Carried a Concealed Weapon " - (1995)
www.youtube.com...

Published on Dec 31, 2012


April 27, 1995, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) spoke at the US Senate hearing on terrorism shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing. During the hearing, she referenced her concealed carry permit and how she carried a gun with her in the 1970′s, citing the urge to arm yourself for protection — in her case from threats. She states: "I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I
carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was
going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me."
For a little more background on the environment she was dealing with
in the 70s, Feinstein was elected to the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors in 1970. In 1978, Mayor George Moscone and City Supervisor
Harvey Milk were assassinated. Dianne Feinstein was the first to
discover the shootings. It was then that she succeeded Moscone as mayor.

With all that violence being targeted at the politicians in that city
at that time, it is understandable that she would get trained,
licensed, and carry a firearm. I don't blame her, and she should have
that right.
But look at what is happening here. Senator Feinstein is a member of
the political class and in that climate she had every right to defend
herself. However, she wants us little people (aka, Mr and Mrs America)
to be subjected to a blanket ban on firearms.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Res Ipsa

 

Yelling fire is freedom of speech.

If that results in disorderly conduct, with someone willing to be a victim due to it creating a "incident", then that is something else.


And yes, as what is being done and shown, the Govt would like to disarm the American Citizen.

wtf? and your point?

reply to post by coltcall


show me where she wants a "blanket ban on weapons"
show me where she wants to take all the guns away from us.
Not some guns, ALL guns.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by coltcall

 

show me where she wants a "blanket ban on weapons"
show me where she wants to take all the guns away from us.
Not some guns, ALL guns.

I think Senator Feinstein should stop sticking her nose in our gun cabinets and

spend more time reducing the size of the U.S. National Deficit.

We are currently stealing money from our children and grandchildren.

why do we even want to consider letting a government that is so out of touch, so corrupt and after watching that you tube video, thinking they need to be our parents, take or modify our weapon rights?




I mean seriously?

I am not to concerned about this issue because the Federal government has not gotten anything done in the past 4 years except for Obama care, which more than half of the American population does not understand...

There are so many issues and concerns in the World at the moment, this is just a waste of tax dollars in my opinion, I wonder how much money we had to pay for that circus act and trade of bullcrap...

Really folks you need to get out and get some fresh air and look at the big damn picture, your doing what they want you too...

Yet I have learned a long time ago, I just cannot wake you guys up...



So just let me point at it, and you tell me I am crazy...

reply to post by Res Ipsa


You've been shown...ask and ye shall receive truthful info......



Dad: This Picture of My Son Holding a Gun Triggered a Visit from NJ Police, Family Services


The young man in the photo is the 11-yr-old son of Shawn Moore. The gun is a .22 rifle, a copy of the AR-15, but a 22 caliber. The photo was posted on Facebook by a proud father. That Facebook posting apparently triggered an anonymous call to New Jersey’s Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). On Friday night, March 15th, two representatives from the state’s social services office (along with four local police officers) came to the Moore home and demanded to see the family’s firearms.

www.theblaze.com... ook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share%20Buttons

reply to post by TauCetixeta


Gabby Giffords announced she expects to make twenty million dollars in donations for her antigun agenda...

These socialists are making big bucks with their gun grabbing agenda.

And then there is the photo of Gabby holding an AR 15...and her husband buying one in Tucson.

Hmmmm....I wonder how many potential contributors are putting their checkbooks away?

Originally posted by Res Ipsa

Originally posted by benrl
I love how she dodges the question and goes for an emotional retort rather than address the real issue asked.

Emotions don't override the rule of law, the comparison of banned books and the first amendment to guns is spot on, you can't pick and chose what gets protected by the constitution randomly.

This is not a genuine assessment of what was said is it? Our country is really screwed if you and those that gave you stars really think this.

For one, nobody is "randomly" picking what guns to exclude from 2nd amendment protection. Secondly banned books aren't "randomly" chosen either. Sorry but kiddie porn is not protected. You yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected. You owning a Abrams tank is not protected. Who cares if Fienstein is a flake and couldn't think quick on her feet, she is a politician and an annoying one at that. If you and your star buddies have no interest in being intellectually honest or are unable to, then I resubmit.......we are screwed.

Do I even have to state that I am no liberal. I'm not anti-gun either. I am anti ignorance but in this case I really don't think ignorance is applicable. The information is in the video. I guess I am also anti partisan tardation. then.

Your first post that I responded to . . .

Then, when I showed you the fallacy of every one of your assertions that led to this backtracking waffle:

It may not be illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. But if you do and it gets people killed your attorney is not going to use the 1st amendment as a defense, because it is not protected speech. He might use "mistake" because you thought there was a fire. He may use insanity. He may use mistaken identification, "it wasn't me."

Which is what I said several times . . . It's not that "child porn" or "fire" is an exclusion, but that you cannot use them as a defense to a crime, which infringes on the rights of another. So, now we seem to be in agreement? So how are gun owners infringing on the rights of another without a crime being commited. I've also already shown you where the SCOTUS has said that you cannot limit someone's rights based on the possiblility of future crimes being commited (Ashcroft v CPPA).

Now you are moving the goal posts again to say . . .

show me where she wants a "blanket ban on weapons"

Well . . . here you go . . . video doesn't lie. What will you waffle and backtrack to next?


And from 2009:


Looks like they finally found their "time" . . .

I've been dealing with this agenda, since the late 80's with the initial Brady movement . . . Naivety is letting yourself for the emotional plea of safety.

[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

VPC 1988 report on gun bans

reply to post by solomons path


That Senator Feinstein video revealed that she is clearly in the minority.

"The votes weren't there." Thank God!

Progressivism: Central planning infrastructure. Intimidation, control, confiscation and

re-writing the law 1 agency at a time.

That are stopped dead in their tracks when they are smoked out by true patriots

like Senator Ted Cruz.