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

reply to post by Res Ipsa


It seems that this "kid" has, because you continually retort with statements like you have.

Funny, as I don't recall ever giving out my age to you.

I guess your next response will be something like "Now look here son"........

reply to post by solomons path


My position on the topic of gun control and the 2nd amendment is that both extreme sides are liars.
Both are myopic, ignorant, dangerous, and brainwashed. They are both the fundamentalist of their religion.

Anyone on here that has used the term "socialist" "communist" and other zealot language I oppose.
and since there is no one here spewing the far left position I don't have them to target. I have little respect for
either extremes because once again they both are ignorant and dangerous.

I have equal loathing for Feinstein as I do for her counterparts....it just happens that there is only one side here.

reply to post by macman


No, but I will show you the respect of waiting to respond until you say something worth a response. It will make it more civil.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by HIWATT

 

are you asking me if I understand what you were saying? or that you weren't picking sides?
yes to both.

I was attempting to put you under submission.

carry on..

reply to post by Res Ipsa


Ah, that is cute. More condescension from you.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by solomons path

 

My position on the topic of gun control and the 2nd amendment is that both extreme sides are liars.
Both are myopic, ignorant, dangerous, and brainwashed. They are both the fundamentalist of their religion.

Anyone on here that has used the term "socialist" "communist" and other zealot language I oppose.
and since there is no one here spewing the far left position I don't have them to target. I have little respect for
either extremes because once again they both are ignorant and dangerous.

I have equal loathing for Feinstein as I do for her counterparts....it just happens that there is only one side here.

So defending the 2nd or the agenda to destroy our individual rights makes you extreme? I'm assuming, and I could be wrong, that by combating the anti-gun movement, as I have been, and not agreeing with you . . . I am in that camp? Defending indivdual liberty and wanting the government to respect the restrictions placed upon them by the BoR makes me extreme? So, being a Libertarian (which you claim to support) makes me extreme . . . Because, I surely haven't used the socialist/communist language or shown any support for the NRA (which I don't)? Nor have I professed ownership of any "assault weapons" that wouldn't be practical for my everyday life. I did use "Collectivist" a couple times, but that would imply that I support Individualism? And in supporting Individualistic philosophies, I have never shown support for the GOP (collectivists) or even believe Libertarians should be huddling under their banner.

Now I'm confused again about your intentions. Is it to support Individual liberties or defend the collectivist ideology?

I'm not a very smart man, as you said previously.

reply to post by solomons path


I did not take the effort to create a thorough profile of you based on your posts.
You have however displayed myopic viewpoints. Also an unwillingness to separate "ought to be' and "is"
Some comprehension issues, or more likely it came off that way because it deviated from your script.
Your mind is made up on what rights you believe you have, no amount of truth to the contrary is going to change
that.....that to me is a pretty good indication of fundamentalism. Embrace it.

Beck, Rush, O'Reilly, Obermann, Feinstein, Coulter, Moore, Reed, The crying man, Maddow...etc....they are all fundamentalist......I believe fundamentalist are ignorant and dangerous in all walks of life whether it be politics or religion....It is my opinion, I own it, I am prejudice against them.

I wish Cruz had gotten to ask a follow up question.

When Cruz asked whether Congress has the power to limit the "right of the people" listed in the Bill of rights, and also appearing in the first and 4th amendments, he asked whether Congress could outlaw specifics books (thus limiting the 1st amendment).....

Feinstein said that Congress could ban pornographic works.

I was waiting for him to ask when in 237 years that Congress has ever banned a specific pornographic book, magazine or film?

Congress has never claimed that privilige. So her argument was flawed.

Feinstein said that "ordinary citizens don't need MILITARY weapons."

I wanted someone to ask about the term "a well-regulated MILITIA."

But Republicans don't have the orbs to say such a thing in public.



The founding fathers were a bunch of extremists.

God love 'em.

Originally posted by tovenar

Feinstein said that "ordinary citizens don't need MILITARY weapons."

I wanted someone to ask about the term "a well-regulated MILITIA."

But Republicans don't have the orbs to say such a thing in public.



The founding fathers were a bunch of extremists.

God love 'em.

Would you be willing to elucidate for me on the "well-regulated MILITIA"?

Originally posted by tovenar

I wish Cruz had gotten to ask a follow up question.

When Cruz asked whether Congress has the power to limit the "right of the people" listed in the Bill of rights, and also appearing in the first and 4th amendments, he asked whether Congress could outlaw specifics books (thus limiting the 1st amendment).....

Feinstein said that Congress could ban pornographic works.

I was waiting for him to ask when in 237 years that Congress has ever banned a specific pornographic book, magazine or film?

Congress has never claimed that privilige. So her argument was flawed.

I think I will let Solomons address your porn ban rather than me, if he decides to....or you could read the thread.
arggggggg...I can't let it go.

Feinstein is correct......Congress could ban porno......but they would have to base it on a reason that could meet "Strict Scrutiny".......The government has to convince the Court that the government has a "Compelling Interest"
In fact Congress can make any law they want if they can meet that standard.......ANY.......

I have spent way too much time on this thread trying to make that point understood...

For an example in the future......an assault rifle that shoots guided bullets, that explode like grenades....Congress could make a law banning them, giving the reason that it is a threat to national security.....Nobody cares if it is or isn't....if the Court agrees that it is a Compelling Interest of the government, then it will have met Strict Scrutiny and the law would NOT be unconstitutional.......People need to understand that........The government is not going to present the case as a threat to "future crimes" that would not be a convincing compelling interest argument....they will say national security or threat to the general Welfare of the Citizens.......

reply to post by Res Ipsa


It's funny that we both hold the same view on that, but yet, you side more on the collectivist belief that the "good" of the group outweighs the rights of the individual. Where as I tend to think the rights of the individual should be protected against what is deemed "good" by the mob. And I still fail to see how a Libertarian could take up the mantle of Collectivism, seeing as it (Libertarianism) is based in the individual rights ideals of classical liberalism (social liberal/economic conservative) proposed by John Locke. Even if you don't agree with having/using whatever is to be prohibited.

My "rights", IMO, don't exist thanks to the good graces of this or any other government. I'm a fan of John Locke, Natural Law, Thomas Paine, Austrian theory, anachro-capitalism. So, what I feel my rights are shouldn't matter to anyone else, if I'm not infringing on theirs.

I don't think the government in anyway should prohibit anything away, if I am not commiting any crime in possessing said item.

So how is owning any class of arm, which I do not use to commit a crime, any of the govs business?

Or are you really a collectivist who finds the idea of Austrian-econopolicy exciting and supports those that believe in individual liberties?

You don't have to answer that if you don't want to . . . I've wasted too much time in this thread/site today and will be heading out . . . But, it still seems like you are only in support those that hold your views and I don't see that as a very liberal or libertarian point of view?

ETA - to be clear . . . I don't like either party or any of the pundits/media heads you mentioned. I'm also an Atheist, so I'm not playing the "god given rights" card either. I've never had anyone call me a fundamentalist though . . . I'll have to keep that as a badge of honor. Fundamentalist Individualist. 'cept I don't believe in Anarchy, so . . . maybe I'm a conflicted fundamentalist?

Poor Ted got teamed up on. He tried and had some success. But he can't win.

And Diane is one of the biggest idiots in the world. She wants so bad to ban guns. She knows so much about them, according to her. Unfortunately, the way she speaks betrays her.

The regular American people do NOT have military weapons. The only military weapons are those owned illegally, if existent at all.

To answer somebody asking why we need an AR15, the answer is simple. Think of it as any other collection. Let's use cars. Do you need that BMW or Mercedes that you spent way too much on just to have a luxury car? No, but you want it because you like the look, feel, and comfort. You wanted that Mercedes because the Toyota wasn't as nice. The Mercedes fits your driving style. You don't need it to get from point A to point B, you got it for joy riding. You bought it with all these extra little gadgets and doodads to make your use of that car more enjoyable for you.

Now, do I need to buy this AR15 with 30-round magazine, ACOG scope, and laser sight? No, but I want it. Why? Because it is a fun set up to have when I go to the range. Or when I take it out to rural areas and enjoy watching soda bottles and assorted fruit being hit.

Truth be told, having a gun is kind of like having a car that you use for fun. Or maybe a motorcycle would have been a better example. Hopefully you naysayers get what I'm saying even though I'm sure you have some genius retort.

Has anyone o' ye naysayers even so much as been up close to a M16 or AR15 and know the intricacies of the weapons? Getting pretty fed up with people saying a bunch of crap about guns when they obviously have no idea what they're talking about.

reply to post by Res Ipsa


uscode.house.gov...

For someone that comes across as the end all be on constitutional law, you sure offer much ignorance.

I am embarrassed that you claim to be a libertarian where you clearly show that you have no issue and believe that the Govt has the right to restrict the individual.

reply to post by TauCetixeta

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.

they keep lists on everyone. people posessing firearms based on what was said online, to your doctor, or any avenue the information comes through, they'll know who has the guns, and when you don't turn them over it will be off to the reeducation camps for you.

reply to post by Res Ipsa

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.....

orly? she wants to ban every gun capable of accepting a clip, and every semi auto, then she wants to ban every gun that has an attached clip capacity of more than 10 rounds. 8 round limit on tube fed pump action shotguns.

the bill then goes on to ban "certain other guns" (i.e. 100 or so pages worth) specifically. the second amendment says "shall not be infringed". this is quite the infringement. i think i shall stop responding to you, obvious person is obvious.

reply to post by Res Ipsa

"judicial review is ironically unconstitutional" Wow, really, you going to hang your hat on that one?

i see we need to go back to basic grammar and definitions for you.

not according or consistent with the constitution of a body politic (as a nation)

www.merriam-webster.com...

care to point out where the constitution specifies judicial review? oh, right. it never mentions it.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
yep, I am more in line with a living breathing document.

Can you see the dangers in that? Do inalienable rights really change?

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.

That debate is very one-sided. In all instances the term "the people" means The Citizen, "we the people" is plural for Citizens. No one debates this until we get to the 2nd Amendment where “Right of the people to keep and bear arms” doesn’t mean “the right of the citizen” anymore.

"Arms" are only up for debate if we want to determine if nukes, tanks, F-22s are arms also, but all handheld guns are not up for debate as to whether they are arms or not.

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 deal here is WE are on your side with this one. We don't need more laws that will not be enforced, or don't hold enough punishment for criminals to think twice about breaking them. We also want to keep guns out of the hands of wackos, but I'm not sure how to do this when the latest bunch of wackos were not identified as one until after their killing spree. Back ground checks are a good thing for all, because a person to person sale must still meet the law and if a person sells a gun to a person that by law cannot have one then the seller broke the law too. So only a person who is stupid or already illegal would do this.

BUT YES! ENFORCE THE LAWS PLEASE!!

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.

So you are debating with a guy with 28 years of military experience, and at this moment I'm at one of the most insurgent active locations in Afghanistan…I kind of know what I’m talking about in this case.

Your scenario is not a realistic one. Of course the Federal Government could wipe the ground in your scenario, but since we are a republic, we are talking 50 United States and if ½ or more decided to break away from a Federal Government that went the direction of tyranny then those 300 million guns in The People’s hands would make a big difference when added to 20 30 40 national guards/reserves.

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

Militia is not the regular military, but armed citizens. A well regulated militia is made up of citizens with training/skills to fight. The framers were made up of extremely smart people…extremely smart, their words were not used in happenstance.

There is a reason they felt we should be a republic, there is a reason we will defend against all foreign and DOMESTIC enemies, there is a reason they saw it was critical that the civilian population had the RIGHT (not privilege) to bear arms. A National Guard does not have rights, but The People do.


I personally see all this as a political move to play on people's emotions. You worry about your love ones and that is fueled everyday by the news. But when was the last time the news covered EVERY car accident in America on a daily bases, EVERY death due to overdose, stupid actions etc. As we seem to see with anything dealing with guns.

I wonder how much conviction you have in fixing all these other things that help contribute to the million non-illness deaths each year in America and not just the 9000 due to guns.

Originally posted by tovenar

I wish Cruz had gotten to ask a follow up question.

When Cruz asked whether Congress has the power to limit the "right of the people" listed in the Bill of rights, and also appearing in the first and 4th amendments, he asked whether Congress could outlaw specifics books (thus limiting the 1st amendment).....

Feinstein said that Congress could ban pornographic works.

I was waiting for him to ask when in 237 years that Congress has ever banned a specific pornographic book, magazine or film?

Congress has never claimed that privilige. So her argument was flawed.

No follow up question was necessary. Senator Ted Cruz got the answer he was looking for.

"Obviously, No !"

Senator Ted Cruz...................1
Senator Dianne Feinstein........0

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
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.

But the question is why?

She has no logical reason to what she wants to ban. Once again, the main focus is on weapons that contribute less than 50 murders to the 9000...

Did you ever think it’s just a start? I can guarantee you that if she could she would go after all guns if it wasn’t political suicide…

BTW what gun would you feel safe with in the hands of the population?