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

reply to post by Flatfish


When were what you called sawed off shotguns made illegal.

Short barrel shotguns are perfectly legal.

In fact, some handguns shoot shotgun shells.

The double barrel short shotgun is very popular. You want to buy one?

Modern Double Barrels for Home Defense
www.gundigest.com...

reply to post by Flatfish

That's all just a bunch of fear mongering B.S. being propagated by your so called "intelligent," right wing Tea Party extremist movement. IMO, there is no such thing as an intelligent Tea Party legislator but after reading several of your other post in this thread, I have come to realize that you are also a "birther," which pretty much explains everything.

So much to say but most not on topic! You, sir, will keep me busy on ATS for a while because you’re so lost!

Fear mongering?? To that I say SLIPPERY SLOPE!

When you go for a TYPE of gun you go for GUNS! One incremental ban leads to the next! You should know that.

As far as “there is no such thing as an intelligent Tea Party legislator” I direct you to TED CRUZ and I rest my case….check mate.



PLEASE TRY to justify your senator Dianne Feinstein….I beg you!

reply to post by Flatfish


So just an ad hominem attack then?

and thanks for clarifying that everyone who does not follow the leftist agenda is an "extremist"

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.

reply to post by Flatfish

Not really that different from the fact that today, one can take a perfectly legal 12 gauge shotgun and shorten the barrel to the point that it becomes illegal, at least here in Texas. Or the fact that someone can take a semi-automatic MAC-11, place a penny inside the gun in the correct position and immediately convert the gun to fully automatic, also illegal here in Texas. The list goes on and on.

I’m not sure about your penny trick…sounds suspect to me!

Regardless, you want to equate simply adding a pistol grip to a shotgun the same as a MAC-11? Does a pistol grip pump somehow make it deadlier than a semiauto???

Maybe semi auto shotguns should be banned as well.

What part of Texas are you from?? I’d bet AUSTIN.

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.

I just love the sanctimonious tone of those that, obviously, don't have knowledge of the history of this agenda or the true reason behind laws prohibiting certain activities.

First off . . . you are right. These weapons aren't chosen at random, but it has nothing to do with their lethality or functionality. It is simply based on perception and used as a foot in the door to ban all firearms. A fact further bolstered by the immense popularity and number of these arms in circulation, yet almost nonexistent use in gun-related violence.

[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.

Violence Policy Center study 1988

Second, child pornography is not "an exclusion to the 1st amendment". Child pornography is an infringement on the rights of children. Children who are exploited by adults, whom they are powerless to stop from exploiting them . . . also called "child abuse". Children who cannot, as minors, give consent to this exploitation. It's the reason that pornography is protected by the 1st, as adults can give their consent. Mags/videos that display child pornography are glorifying an illegal act and are therefore illegal, in the same way that "snuff" films are illegal.

Third, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not illegal. I ask you to try it out sometime at a theater and see if you are charged. If you are charged . . . . let us know what you were charged with. You may be charged with inciting a riot, if people panic . . . but, if no one does . . . no laws were broken. Yelling "fire" in a crowd creates panic and can get people injured. Yelling "fire" in a crowd, where there is no sign "fire" is illegal in the same sense that calling in a bomb scare is illegal or threatening someone with murder publicly, it only becomes a crime if someone is injured or the authorities respond. . . . It's an infringement on the rights of those that you are "hoaxing". The false perception of this analogy comes from a backward interpretation of Shenk v US in 1919 and the analogy always, conveniently, leaves out "falsely". Basically, if you yell "fire" in a crowd and it is false, it is dangerous, and the 1st can not be invoked to protect you from damages caused by your actions.
Shouting Fire wiki

So really . . . who is diplaying the ignorance?

ETA - Owning any type of firearm, even and AR-15 doesn't harm or infringe on the rights of anybody. It is the act of murder that infringes on their rights, which is illegal. Threating someone with a firearms also infringes on their rights and is illegal, but it is not the type of arm that makes this illegal.

You are right though . . . very few people in this country and a few in this thread lack the ability to think or the aptitude to know what they are talking about.

Wow. The prices of automatics on the open market. This HK 93 .223 TRANSFERABLE MACHINE GUN went for one penny less than sixteen thousand buckeroos!
www.impactguns.com...

Now, what where you saying about Feinstein's ranting and raving?

And this Thompson 1928 A22 .22LR Sub Machine Gun goes for a single penny under ten thousand bucks.
www.impactguns.com...

Anyway, I've got a Jeopardy question for anyone who thinks they can answer it: When can an Amendment to the Constitution not be an Amendment to the Constitution because it violates the Constitution of the United States?

This HK 51B 308 TRANSFERABLE goes for 33 thousand dollars....except it's out of stock already.
www.impactguns.com...


And good news. More ARs are arriving daily...as is more ammo
www.impactguns.com...

Anyway, if anyone knows the answer to the Jeopardy question: When can an Amendment to the Constitution not be an Amendment to the Constitution because it violates the Constitution of the United States? Just chime right in.

reply to post by Res Ipsa


Oh . . . and it is perfectly legal to own an Abrams tank. While it may be cost prohibitive and hard to "store" . . . there is nothing illegal about owning one. However, the armament is illegal if it falls under the National Firearms Act of 1968. So, another piece of ignorance on your part.

reply to post by seabag


As i watched that 6:10 clip again, it looks like Senator Ted Cruz is the calm adult in

the room. Senator Dianne Feinstein behaved like small child who just got caught with

her hand in the cookie jar.

When the temper tantrum didn't work, she begrudgingly answered the question

"Obviously, no."

reply to post by seabag


What does it matter if you can do the penny trick?
Any competent person with some machining can manufacture and change parts of most firearms to create a full auto version of said firearm.

Big deal.

Originally posted by seabag

I’m not sure about your penny trick…sounds suspect to me!

It may sound suspect, but I assure you that I have emptied a 30 round clip of 9mm ammo in a "penny" modified MAC faster than you can say "30 round clip." A buddy of mine has one and it is just unbelievable how fast it will empty the clip when modified.

Originally posted by seabag
Regardless, you want to equate simply adding a pistol grip to a shotgun the same as a MAC-11? Does a pistol grip pump somehow make it deadlier than a semiauto???

Maybe semi auto shotguns should be banned as well.

Actually, I was comparing the pistol grip shotgun to a sawed off shotgun and emphasizing just how easy it was to modify a perfectly legal gun into something banned under current law.

Originally posted by seabag
What part of Texas are you from?? I’d bet AUSTIN.

And you'd be wrong, even though I have to admit that I do like Austin. I'm from the Corpus Christi area and I've owned guns all my life. I'm not anti-2nd Amendment and I don't believe that reasonable gun regulation will weaken and/or eliminate our right to own & bear arms any more than any of the gun regulations currently in place.

Originally posted by coltcall
reply to post by Flatfish

 

When were what you called sawed off shotguns made illegal.

Short barrel shotguns are perfectly legal.

In fact, some handguns shoot shotgun shells.

The double barrel short shotgun is very popular. You want to buy one?

Modern Double Barrels for Home Defense
www.gundigest.com...

Not sure when, but;

en.wikipedia.org...

United States
Under the National Firearms Act (NFA), it is illegal for a private citizen to possess a sawed-off modern smokeless powder shotgun (a shotgun with a barrel length shorter than 18 inches (46 cm) or an overall length shorter than 26 inches (66 cm)), without a tax-paid registration from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, requiring a background check and either a $200 or $5 tax for every transfer, depending upon the specific manufacturing circumstances of the particular sawed-off modern shotgun being transferred. Short-barreled muzzleloading blackpowder shotguns, in contrast, are not illegal by federal law and require no tax-stamped permit, although they may be illegal under state law. As with all NFA regulated firearms, a new tax stamp must be purchased before every transfer. Inter-state transfers must be facilitated through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) while intrastate transfers may be between two persons.[8]
In the US, shotguns originally manufactured without shoulder stocks (and thus is not legally a shotgun), with a total length under 26 inches, are classified as an "Any Other Weapon" by the BATFE and have a $5 transfer tax, if they are manufactured by a maker possessing the appropriate Class 2 Special Occupational Taxpayer Federal Firearms License. However, in order to convert an existing shoulder-stocked shotgun to a short-barreled shotgun or an existing pistol-grip-only shotgun to an "Any Other Weapon", a private citizen must pay the standard $200 NFA tax.[1]

reply to post by macman

Any competent person with some machining can manufacture and change parts of most firearms to create a full auto version of said firearm.

I prefer the bump stock or slide-stock if I want to waste a bunch of ammo and put a smile on my face…because it’s ATF approved and legal.

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by coltcall

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by coltcall

 

Yeah, except for the fact that a copper penny and/or a hack-saw are hardly the tools of a gunsmith.

The point is that there are already numerous variances that can be done to perfectly legal weapons that immediately makes them illegal weapons. So why is it that back when those laws were put into effect, it didn't spell the end of the 2nd amendment and/or the beginning of gun confiscation in America?

Outlaw the Second Amendment? Yeah. Sure. How about outlawing apple pie and baseball? It just doesn't happen. It's like gravity. It's here to stay. Quit jumping off roofs trying to change it.

What the hell is this supposed to mean? I never said to "outlaw the 2nd amendment." What I said was that when sawed off shotguns were made illegal, (whatever year that was) it didn't result in the 2nd amendment being outlawed and neither will the banning of assault weapons today. Furthermore, there was no gun confiscation after the banning of sawed off shotguns either.

That's all just a bunch of fear mongering B.S. being propagated by your so called "intelligent," right wing Tea Party extremist movement. IMO, there is no such thing as an intelligent Tea Party legislator but after reading several of your other post in this thread, I have come to realize that you are also a "birther," which pretty much explains everything.

As far as being a 'birther'...as you call me....I stay out of the politics of abortion. That's one area of politics I don't personally go into.

Now, about outlawing guns....or grass....or booze.....and let's go to talking about the eighteenth amendment for a spell.

The Eighteenth Amendment was unconstitutional from the get go. The Second Amendment is NOT. The Eighteenth Amendment was eventually repealed by the 21st Amendment because nobody could make an unconstitutional Amendment work.

The G Men couldn't bust the big time gangsters for violating the Volstead Act because such a bust wouldn't hold up in court. They had to get the gangsters on other charges. They got Capone on tax evasion. Luciano on prostitution charges. They went after Vito Genovese for a murder rap. But Vito escaped to Mussolini's Italy and started a North African heroin smuggling operation into New York, with the help of the Nazis and Mussolini's drug addled son in law.

But the G Men could never use the unconstitutional eighteenth amendment to send Capone or Luciano or Genovese to prison, cause they had the money and mob lawyers to fight it in court.

Someone could prove that the marijuana laws are unconstitutional or illegal or whatever....except no one wants to make grass legal. Everyone's making too much money the way the system now works.

Same with any gun ban laws that Feinstein might be able to wrangle up. Those laws would be shot down in court. Democrats and Republicans and Independents and those who don't vote all have and love guns.

As for whatever gun laws are on the books, or have been on the books but since been rescinded, those laws are constructed in such a way that everyone is making plenty big bucks. These illegal laws drive the price of guns and ammo upward.

Meanwhile, the Church Chat Lady say to the congregation that what the newspapers say is true about booze, grass and guns are bad, and the congregation says Amen.

It's all economics. It's not the law.

Now, as for abortion, since you brought the topic up....and I don't personally get involved in the abortion issue.....but it is plain to see that Roe v Wade will NEVER be overturned in a court of law.

Originally posted by Flatfish

What the hell is this supposed to mean? I never said to "outlaw the 2nd amendment." What I said was that when sawed off shotguns were made illegal, (whatever year that was) it didn't result in the 2nd amendment being outlawed and neither will the banning of assault weapons today. Furthermore, there was no gun confiscation after the banning of sawed off shotguns either.

That's all just a bunch of fear mongering B.S. being propagated by your so called "intelligent," right wing Tea Party extremist movement. IMO, there is no such thing as an intelligent Tea Party legislator but after reading several of your other post in this thread, I have come to realize that you are also a "birther," which pretty much explains everything.

Let’s look at your point here.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

BEAR ARMS
The ability to fight

ARMS

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

INFRINGED
Encroach on a right or privilege or to violate.
Obsolete To defeat
Invalidate

So to say that shotguns are ok but 12 inch ones or ones that might hold a bunch of rounds are banned, or to suggest any rifle is banable is an infringement on your 2nd amendment rights.

I guess the simple answer is they were wrong when they infringed on the types of guns banned in the past just as they are wrong today as they try to continue to limit more.

Your logic could easily just run the course to say only BB guns are lawful to meet the intent of the 2nd amendment,

reply to post by coltcall


When I used the term "birther," I was referring to some posted comments which were inferring that President Obama was born in Kenya. At the time, I thought it was you that had made those comments.

Upon further reflection of the posts, I think I may owe you an apology. It's looks like it was "texasgirl" who made the comments I was referring to.

I am truly sorry for calling you a "birther," which has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Your reply really needs to be a sticky somewhere, as it is the most correct response to the nonsense of anti-gun people.

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by coltcall

 

When I used the term "birther," I was referring to some posted comments which were inferring that President Obama was born in Kenya. At the time, I thought it was you that had made those comments.

Upon further reflection of the posts, I think I may owe you an apology. It's looks like it was "texasgirl" who made the comments I was referring to.

I am truly sorry for calling you a "birther," which has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

Hey, it's not like I really care one way or the other that Obama was born in Kenya.

If you had read my entire commentary I stipulated that the tradition of the President being born in America, to American parents or whatever, has been thrown entirely out the window.

There's an argument over whether Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would be eligible to be president. That argument is specious. Being that Obama was born in Kenya. The future presidents no longer have to be born in America, to American parents.

The future president can be Venusian or Martian or Indonesian or Chinese or Japanese or Canadian born.

All the old arguments have been tossed out the window.

If Obama can be president....which he is....there are NO more arguments whether Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio are eligible to be president.

And the courts will obviously NOT ever overturn Roe v Wade....but I stay out of debates about abortion for the most part.

reply to post by Flatfish


Yes. I understand what you are saying about 'sawed off shotguns' per the Firearms Act.

And that law was proven unconstitutional.

Just like the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution was unconstitutional.

Laws are passed. People shrug and move along. Illegal laws are taken off the books.

'Sawed-off shotguns are subject to various legal restrictions depending upon jurisdiction. Not always a tool of criminals, such firearms have been and are still in use by military forces and police agencies worldwide."

Okay, in New York and Chicago....all guns are outlawed. Is that constitutional. In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, no.

Here is a whole slew of photos and videos of people with legal sawed off shotguns:
video.search.yahoo.com...

Are you telling me that all these people in these photos and videos are breaking the law and openly defying arrest? I don't think so.

At one time the Mac 10 was outlawed. The manufacturers proved that it was unconstitutional to outlaw the Mac 10. Today you can purchase a Mac 10...or Mac 11...whatever...

reply to post by solomons path


Did I say yelling in a theater is "illegal"? Read more carefully.
It is not "protected" speech.

I don't know if while you were in law school you got the opportunity to study the Constitution, but I did.

Once again, for all those that use their interpretation of the Constitution to proclaim their rights as if they were the law of the land, pay attention..........The Constitution is what the Court says it is......An informed person would start their arguments with statements like..."The Court said in (insert case) that..." or "My opinion of how the (insert amendment) reads is..." Not this, "It is my Constitutional right to, (insert nonsense)"