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

reply to post by solomons path


You are moving the goal posts..............I didn't hear her say she is going to try to ban guns. She wants to ban assault rifles.........Stick to that and not that tired mantra, "the government is trying to take our guns" crap.

You haven't made one convincing argument to the contrary.

The government wants to "regulate" what you can have and can't have.........not eliminate your right to bare arms........
Does it get any simpler than that? No waffling.....

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


"judicial review is ironically unconstitutional"

Wow, really, you going to hang your hat on that one?

reply to post by Res Ipsa


So, are you for people like DiFI restricting rights, or not?


If so, you really should just remove the Ron Paul signature, as it is in direct contradiction to your statements.

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.

You cherry picked from this post in an attempt to prove your point, or that I am waffling, or changing the goal posts but what part of "show me where she wants to take ALL THE GUNS AWAY from us" did you not understand?
I even clarified by saying "Not some guns, ALL guns" yet you come back with the some gun example. NS she wants to ban assault rifles, who doesn't know that!?

reply to post by Res Ipsa


There's no cherry picking when trying to explain reality to socialists and members of the American Communist Party.

Doesn't matter what kind of logic is presented, if it isn't socialism or communism, you don't want to hear it.

Success in America is not a 'gimme'. Never has been. Never will be.

You can't have our Second Amendment. Period.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by solomons path

 

You are moving the goal posts..............I didn't hear her say she is going to try to ban guns. She wants to ban assault rifles.........Stick to that and not that tired mantra, "the government is trying to take our guns" crap.

You haven't made one convincing argument to the contrary.

The government wants to "regulate" what you can have and can't have.........not eliminate your right to bare arms........
Does it get any simpler than that? No waffling.....

You see, the problem is that we all keeping hearing the wise words from Thomas Jefferson.

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Liberty sounds pretty good to me. Sign me up for that.

reply to post by Res Ipsa


Her quote was not in reference to just the mythical "assault weapon". She succeeded in that endeavor . . . hence, the statement about "getting the all". "Turn them all in" . . . not just "assault weapons". That clip was from 2003 after the first AWB expired and she immediately started on the new "campaign". I wish I still had the CSPAN clip (13 mins) from 2003 where she specifically says "her only regret about the current weapons ban it that it didn't go far enough to include ALL semi-automatic weapons".

I haven't moved any goal posts . . . I've been very consistant. It's obvious, by this point, you either are in agreement with the agenda or you are intentionally being obtuse. You continually ignore direct points that refute your assertions that a prohibitive action of any type falls in line with the BoRs.

I find it very ironic that your sig line is supporting Paul and you claim to be interested in individual liberty . . . nothing about your responses back those claims up.

Enjoy your dream . . .

There's a video of Feinstein admitting she wants to outlaw ALL guns. I'm sure that video has been posted her eon ATS somewhere.

It's been posted just about everywhere.

Socialists try to ignore that video.

reply to post by macman


Because I don't agree with how the argument is characterized it makes me anti libertarian?
I am about denying ignorance, and it is ignorant at best when people say that the government is trying to take
all firearms from people. It is ignorance splashed with hubris to insist anyone here is protected under their own interpretation of the Constitution. I am just attempting to educate those people on that reality.

Congress makes laws, they have educated people that tell them whether or not a proposed law would be constitutional, they have people that say yes and people that say no. If one of those laws get subjected to judicial review there are going to be justices that say yes, and some that say no. Often 5/4. Wouldn't that seem to indicate that either 1) The Constitution is not as easily understood as some pocket carrying people think or 2) Decisions are agenda driven or 3) both

My pet peeve is not just people that claim they have an absolute right, but that they believe it requires no one else to agree, no one else to give that right its power. There is nothing physical that can't be taken away from you.

reply to post by Res Ipsa

Do you support DiFI and he attempt to restrict the rights of the people, as guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

This is a questions that does not need a 3 paragraph retort. You either do, or you don't.
Which is it.

reply to post by coltcall


If I ever run across that video.....and she makes that comment seriously and not one of those, "in a perfect world I would like to see the world without any guns" type of thing. then I will post that I was wrong.

I don't think such a thing exist and to spend anytime looking for it to just prove I am right or wrong would be a serious waste of time, especially when it is trying to prove a negative....(meaning if it doesn't exist it would take forever to find that which doesn't exist.)

Originally posted by coltcall
There's a video of Feinstein admitting she wants to outlaw ALL guns. I'm sure that video has been posted her eon ATS somewhere.

It's been posted just about everywhere.

Socialists try to ignore that video.

It just hit the Drudge Report! Senator Feinstein got the bad news from Harry Reid.

It's over. She lost. The Assault Weapon ban has been pulled!

Score a clear victory for Senator Ted Cruz!

reply to post by solomons path


You know what . . . since you fail to use logic and simply wish to argue. Answer one question, from your esteemed POV, of course.

How is prohibition anything like "child porn" (which you falsely claimed was an exclusion, but then changed to the correct "cannot be used in defense of a crime", in this case child abuse), in light of the SCOTUS decision that "virtual" child porn is protected by the 1st, as the agrument cannot be made that a work (in this case, the firearm) cannot be limited based on the assumption of future crimes?

Instead of telling everyone else why they are wrong by simply saying so, with no reference to back up any claim, let us know why it can be ruled on as such.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Res Ipsa

 

Do you support DiFI and he attempt to restrict the rights of the people, as guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

This is a questions that does not need a 3 paragraph retort. You either do, or you don't.
Which is it.

In a perfect world, or one filled with people like me, there would be little need for a Bill of Rights. I see very little need for a Federal government and in fact I am very much a federalist. government should be as local as possible.

I don't live in that world.......too many inferior people that have dodged Darwin because of modern tech. Those people are like cancer cells that take out good healthy cells. So I can either go down swinging in defense of every freedom I have had to surrender to fight the cancer or deal with it. In fact I am reminded of this compromise every April!

There isn't an either you do or don't to every question......like......You Pro-life?....either you are or aren't?
Unless you believe that every life is protected than the answer isn't so simple.

reply to post by Res Ipsa


Also . . . The government doesn't have the authority to "regulate" arms in this case. It is granted by the BoRs, which is entirely a "restriction" on what the Federal Gov has the power to "regulate".

States can (and have) "regulate" what type of arms their citizens are allowed to own, as long as it falls in line with that state's constitution.

The right of the people . . . shall not be infringed . . . is all that really needs to be said.

reply to post by Res Ipsa


So another Jury Trial lawyer response, to a simple question.

I will ask once more. Do you support DiFis actions or not?

This is not a question that requires, nor needs any response, other then "Yes" or "No".

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by solomons path

 

You know what . . . since you fail to use logic and simply wish to argue. Answer one question, from your esteemed POV, of course.

How is prohibition anything like "child porn" (which you falsely claimed was an exclusion, but then changed to the correct "cannot be used in defense of a crime", in this case child abuse), in light of the SCOTUS decision that "virtual" child porn is protected by the 1st, as the agrument cannot be made that a work (in this case, the firearm) cannot be limited based on the assumption of future crimes?

Instead of telling everyone else why they are wrong by simply saying so, with no reference to back up any claim, let us know why it can be ruled on as such.

Child porn.....that uses children...human children....is NOT protected by the 1st amendment.....The other examples you gave just confuse the issue....japanese animie children are not children. 18yr olds that are children look a likes are not children. 38yr old midgets dressed like a school girl are not children. So I did not falsely claim the exclusion, you just didn't comprehend.

Even protected speech isn't always protected if it falls into the Time, Place, and Manner category.

So your big argument is that "future crimes" is the driving force behind banning guns? If that was the case than all privately owned guns and rifles would be targeted for elimination. Isn't happening, would never happen.

The Court will never shape the question regarding banning assault weapons by asking, " . . .limited based on the assumption of future crimes." If they did then you know right then that they are going to rule the law unconstitutional before they even hear the case. You obviously are assuming that is the question they would create to answer....you are also naive to think that the obvious questions are the ones that get asked when it comes to Supreme Court cases. I told you they have the answer first, and then shape the question to fit.

reply to post by macman


You will get neither.

because it is not a simple question and I answered it already.

reply to post by solomons path


you don't know many lawyers do you? How many ways are there to interpret what the word "infringe" means?

"Thou shall not kill" How easy is that to interpret? 4 words. Yet there is an interpretation that says "kill" and "murder" do not mean the same thing. You kill someone in self defense. You murder someone in cold blood.

I promise you that "infringe" can be, and has been, interpreted in more ways than yours.

reply to post by Res Ipsa


Yeah, you really should remove the Ron Paul signature. You neither work to foster liberty, nor do you openly discuss the simplistic nature of a simplistic question.

You may claim to be a Libertarian, but are far from it.


To bad, as I thought a great discussion could have been had here.