This subject is being made over complicated by one important factor. As Mr Cruz points out, obliquely by asking the question he asked, messing about with what is and is not covered by the constitution, weakens the whole document upon which the United States of America rests its morality and its ethics, which is unacceptable. As Dianne Feinstein pointed out in response, things are being done with weapons, which, rightly, and fairly, tug at the hearts of all good people, and install woe in the hearts and minds of all.

The thing that appears to be missing, is someone standing up and advocating a political solution which solidifies and maintains the power of the constitution, WHILE protecting the citizens from the sorts of attacks which are the driver of the entire argument, the entire debate as it stands. I may not be American myself, and I may not personally favour firearms as defensive weapons, prefering as I do the cold steel to the hot lead. However, it is clear to me, that the reason that a solution which protects the constitutional right of the people to bare arms, and the human right of all people to go about thier business in some saftey, is that the only solution that can perform both feats simultaneously, would be staggeringly costly.

The simple fact of the matter is, that in the cases which have driven this debate, the person or persons held responsible for these acts, have had history of mental malfunction, or were clearly disturbed at the time they planned, and executed their awful acts. Therefore, it seems sensible, to me at least, that the solution ought not to be to keep firearms away from dangerously maladjusted people, but to keep people who pose a risk to thier fellow man, away from both thier fellow man, and the firearms with which they have recently made such a public mess.

It must be remembered that people who are in a situation mentally, which makes them capable of mass murder, will find a way to do it wether they have access to fire arms, or knives, or hammers or axes. Baseball bats, hockey boots, bricks, rocks, poisons, all these things could potentially be used to kill many people. Any mook with a chip on thier shoulder and a desire to kill, could construct an explosive using fertilisers and simple trigger mechanisms, perhaps with alarm clock timers.

Heck, I could kill a man with a can of expanding foam, but the thing that prevents me doing that, is that I am not some sort of psychotic, or a sociopath, or some other mentally dysfunctional unfortunate.

However, as obvious as this solution is, it will also be vastly expensive to adequately identify, track, and in some cases institutionalise those who pose the real risk to thier fellow man. The reason for this, is that mental health in the States is precisely as poorly dealt with as it is anywhere else. There is a lack of cross communication between organisations responsible for the care of the mentally ill, the government departments which handle other aspects of that care, and the deparments of state governments responsible for registration of firearms. If these bodies communicated with one another effectively, and if the organisations responsible for keeping dangerous people away from society were to function as broadly as they must to be effective, then BILLIONS would have to be spent.

And spent those billions MUST be, because infringement of the second ammendment is as unacceptable as would be further deaths through government inaction. The only alternative that will work is to accept the truth, that the people responsible are the problem, not the tools they use to do the job.

it's simple...ted cruz want no band on any firearm, no matter how powerful or deadly. feinstein wants military style weapons banned from the general public. i suggest that every neighbor around ted cruz's home be armed with bushmaster assault rifles, him, his wife and kids would obviously feel perfectly safe. also, every one of the people that have communicated with cruz, that may not like him or even hate him, also be armed with bushmaster assault rifles, all mentally ill people should be armed with bushmaster assault rifes. all parolees from prison should be armed with assault rifles......absolute IS ABSOLUTE.

Originally posted by jimmyx
it's simple...ted cruz want no band on any firearm, no matter how powerful or deadly. feinstein wants military style weapons banned from the general public. i suggest that every neighbor around ted cruz's home be armed with bushmaster assault rifles, him, his wife and kids would obviously feel perfectly safe. also, every one of the people that have communicated with cruz, that may not like him or even hate him, also be armed with bushmaster assault rifles, all mentally ill people should be armed with bushmaster assault rifes. all parolees from prison should be armed with assault rifles......absolute IS ABSOLUTE.

Solution: Go after the mentally ill. Stop attacking law abiding Americans with new

Gun Laws that WILL NOT WORK.

Senator Dianne Feinstein KNOWS the new gun laws will not work. She does not care.

The progressives have their eye on the prize.

They want a database of all law abiding Americans with guns so they can confiscate them

in the future. We can all see the big picture. She is fooling --- no one ---.

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.

wrong, wrong, wrong...books with child porn are banned, which is totally against the 1st amendment...picking and choosing what gets protected by the constitution happens all the time...that's why ted cruz didn't get an answer, because it was such a ignorant question. and, for those of you on the first 2 pages of this thread in support of this nutball from texas, to not even be able to think this through using elementary reasoning skills, is beyond comprehension.

Originally posted by jimmyx

wrong, wrong, wrong...books with child porn are banned, which is totally against the 1st amendment...

Tell that to Jock Sturges.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by jimmyx

wrong, wrong, wrong...books with child porn are banned, which is totally against the 1st amendment...

Tell that to Jock Sturges.

i looked him up....he had naked pictures of children, not child porn

Originally posted by jimmyx

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.

wrong, wrong, wrong...books with child porn are banned, which is totally against the 1st amendment...picking and choosing what gets protected by the constitution happens all the time...that's why ted cruz didn't get an answer, because it was such a ignorant question. and, for those of you on the first 2 pages of this thread in support of this nutball from texas, to not even be able to think this through using elementary reasoning skills, is beyond comprehension.

Wrong......again.

All you have to do is actually listen to the entire 6:10 clip.


Eventually, Senator Ted Cruz DID get an answer from Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Her answer " Obviously, No."

Originally posted by jimmyx

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.

wrong, wrong, wrong...books with child porn are banned, which is totally against the 1st amendment...picking and choosing what gets protected by the constitution happens all the time...that's why ted cruz didn't get an answer, because it was such a ignorant question. and, for those of you on the first 2 pages of this thread in support of this nutball from texas, to not even be able to think this through using elementary reasoning skills, is beyond comprehension.

Actually . . . you and anyone else that makes this argument is wrong

Child pornography is illegal because it infringes on their rights. It's exploitation of children by adults, who they have no power over, in the same way that subjugating those based on race is illegal. Pornography between consenting adults is not illegal, due to free speech . . . however, a minor can't consent to pornography.

So, this is a blatent fallacious argument. The Progressives want to equate its being illegal to a "morallity" issue and claim that this shows that individual rights are not absolute. They are Collectivists and don't believe in individual rights, they believe in privilages. I just wish Cruz was more on the ball and stated this for the record and wiped that smug smile off of Schumer's face.

Owning any type of weapon does not infringe on anyone's rights. Murder infringes on their rights and murder is illegal.

The anti-gunners are fantastic liars and hook everyone in with a plea to emotion, often using children, and that is why they love the "child pornography" argument. They are the lowest type of liars and scum, in the same way child pornographers are when they invoke the "freedom of speech" argument . . . as is any one that agrees with them.

The anti-gunners are fantastic liars and hook everyone in with a plea to emotion, often using children, and that is why they love the "child pornography" argument. They are the lowest type of liars and scum, in the same way child pornographers are when they invoke the "freedom of speech" argument . . . as is any one that agrees with them.

"Often using children"

Did you hear Michael Moore wants to release the photos of dead Newtown, Connecticut

children in order to attack the 2nd Amendment?

They have no shame.