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

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by TauCetixeta

 

I think we may have found the antidote for the 2016 democrat ticket….

Rand/Cruz - Cruz/Rand or possibly Cruz/Rubio – Rubio/Cruz??

Hey, nobody knew Obama before the ‘anointed one’ took his throne. Cruz, Paul and Rubio are all making big waves and all have bigger national name recognition than Obama did in 2007.

Sounds nice but Cruz was born in Canada. That will be a problem for him.

Originally posted by indisputable
reply to post by TauCetixeta

 

I am not well versed in The us amendments... BUT with that aside i would like to know why is not one type of gun enough,and why not the most basic and simplistic of gun

Indisputable

here it is...there are people in the US that think having an assault rifle, semi-auto or auto, but with unlimited ammo capacity will stop the US government from becoming a police state, much like germany did before the run-up to WW2. and if each household had these, it would be impossible for the government to go house to house and put american citizens in FEMA camps, or imprison them in their own homes much like the depictions of the movie "1984"....www.imdb.com...

Originally posted by indisputable
reply to post by TauCetixeta

 

I am not well versed in The us amendments... BUT with that aside i would like to know why is not one type of gun enough,and why not the most basic and simplistic of gun

Indisputable

We treasure the 2nd Amendment in the United States.

We have the right to bear arms.

We also do not appreciate it when gun grabbing liberals stick their noses in our

gun cabinets.

The Gun Grabbing Liberals know the new gun laws will not work. They do not care.

It's very important to skip to the end and see what they REALLY want.

They want a database of all American gun owners for future gun confiscation.

Good old Diane Feinstein made the statement that women who are being raped, should not try to defend themselves. They should allow themselves to be raped.....then let the police do their job afterward.

Which reminds me of a joke someone sent me in my email:


A man escapes from a prison where he’s been locked up for 15 years
He breaks into a house and inside, he finds a young couple in bed.
He ties him to a chair. While tying the wife to the bed, the convict gets on top of her, kisses her neck, then gets up and goes into the bathroom.
While he’s in there, the husband whispers over to his wife,
“Listen, this guy is an escaped convict. Look at his clothes! He’s probably spent a lot of time in jail and hasn’t seen a woman in years.
I saw how he kissed your neck. If he wants sex, don’t resist, don’t complain. Do whatever he tells you. Satisfy him no matter how much he nauseates you. This guy is obviously very dangerous. If he gets angry, he’ll kill us both. Be strong, honey. I love you!”
She responds: “He wasn’t kissing my neck. He was whispering in my ear. He told me that he’s gay, thinks you’re cute, and asked if we had any Vaseline. I told him it was in the bathroom. Be strong honey. I love you, too.”


W'allllllll.....I wonder how funny Uber socialist liberal Diane Feinstein finds that joke to be funny? I mean, let the police do their work for the husband long after the dastardly act has been perpetrated upon his person?

That was a Cruz Missile.

Cruz asked a leading and loaded question and it was answered poorly, big deal. Your belief about guns aside, you can not legitimately think that the second amendment is regulated any more aggressively than the 1st or 4th amendment. A mere glimpse of american jurisprudence will demonstrate that the 2nd amendment is in fact one of the least regulated of all the amendments in the constitution. Particularly, the decision in Keller creates significant legal protection for gun ownership and is the most recent case on the issue.

The first amendment is regulated perhaps more than any other constitutional provision despite being "sacred". It is surely more regulated than the second amendment. If you disagree I can share with you a litany of supreme court cases which regulate speech and religion.

The fourth amendment protections are incredibly limited as well. Any police officer or first year law student can tell you that your fourth amendment rights are easily circumvented through a number of public policy exceptions. Again, second amendment rights are legally more absolute than the 4th amendment. Again, I can share a litany of supreme court decisions which demonstrate this to be true.

If you think that the feds go after guns more so than other rights, your delusional. The real issue isn't the effectiveness of the 2nd amendment but rather wether the commerce clause of the constitution vests congress with the authority to regulate fundamental liberty interests. The court has concluded on numerous occasions that the commerce clause does indeed trump and allows a regulation of fundamental liberty interests if the government can show something called strict scruitiny, which is that the law is the least restrictive means of achieveing a compelling government issue. The question about guns is whether the government can meet that burden, in Keller for instance they failed to do so.

reply to post by solomons path



I think there is another reason they fall back onto child pornography, but that is a different discussion and one that should not be discussed here. But suffice it to say, ever have a girlfriend accuse you of cheating on her when in fact it was quite the opposite?`




But more to the point, I should be outraged by the number of people that blindly think that Feinstein is in the right here on the issue of banning guns. If any of these people think that the US government is beyond the crap they were doing 140 years ago in wiping out the Indians in this country due them not having firearms adequate enough to defend themselves then by all means only set your wayback machine to just 40 years ago to The Second Battle of Wounded Knee which was over having a corrupt leader, who had financial and muscle from the Federal Government in the form of US Marshals and National Guards deployed to stop the protest.

Think we have grown up in those 40 years? How about 20 years ago? in which the warrants were issued on legally purchased firearms under the suspicion that they *could* have been modified into illegal machine guns that were only illegal because they would have been manufactured after 1986 if they had indeed been illegally modified. Despite the claims of sheriff's department determining they were legal and that the basis for the warrant was the complaint of the neighbor that had a personal grudge.

10 years ago? A Free Trade Protest in Miami, FL in which 250 are arrested, 100 injured and 12 hospitalized when the Federal Government pumps $8.5 million into local law enforcement to handle the protest. Any question as to why Miami recently had a "military exercise" just this year in which helicopters fired 50 caliber blanks on the city?

Or just look up the Wheeler Block Party of 2011 in which LRAD was used to break up an end of the year party of college students. Granted the party was out of hand, but doesn't riot geared police using pepper spray and sound cannons seem to indicate a bit of pre-planning to raid the party?

Face it, so long as any population is significantly "out-gunned" they are at the mercy of superiorly equipped, whatever their plans and schemes may include.

reply to post by IndianaJoe


If you think the progressives are not attacking the 2nd Amendment then you are delusional.

Denial is no way to go through life my friend.

"Shall Not Be Infringed" is exactly what it means and has no other interpretation. However! is a direct threat to the government and all of their private membership and way of "lifestyle"

Shall not be infringed is the only real security for the constitution through its keepers IE: "WE THE PEOPLE"

Regardless of what any member of the government say's or implements on paper, it is irrelevant and has no authority that allows circumvention of "Shall Not Infringe" therefor making the executive body Enemies of the People and our right to defend against its threat of circumvention.

any gun law within each city, county or state has the ability to regulate.... The government has no authority Constitutionally and should focus more on regulating themselves of their trespasses on the people

reply to post by TauCetixeta


I own guns and support the second amendment. I don't justify my belief by some overly broad and frankly ignorant rational. Guns are a fundamental liberty interest and therefore laws regulating them must be the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling govt interest. This is how the court will look at this issue, and i can pretty much guarantee this will ecentually be heard by the SC. The government taking weapons is one thing regulating gun ownership through backround checks is another. One will pass constitutional muster the other will not.

Many people are under the impression that the second amendment creates an unfettered right to own guns. People who believe this are simply misinformed and choose to ignore 200 years of american jurisprudence. I hate to break it but you don't have an absolute right to speech, religion, privacy or propery either. This isn't some conspiracy to scre you but rather the outcome of 100's of years of thoughtful litigation.

reply to post by IndianaJoe


I'm admittedly delusional because I don't believe in running the government on judicial precedent. I know it happens. I also know it carries a lot of weight to many people. It carries none with me. If there were any justification for using precedent, there would be even more justification for using the writings of the founders, including the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Apparently that doesn't happen too often. I personally thing it should. That's just my opinion though.

Originally posted by SPECULUM
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is exactly what it means and has no other interpretation. However! is a direct threat to the government and all of their private membership and way of "lifestyle"

Shall not be infringed is the only real security for the constitution through its keepers IE: "WE THE PEOPLE"

Regardless of what any member of the government say's or implements on paper, it is irrelevant and has no authority that allows circumvention of "Shall Not Infringe" therefor making the executive body Enemies of the People and our right to defend against its threat of circumvention.

any gun law within each city, county or state has the ability to regulate.... The government has no authority Constitutionally and should focus more on regulating themselves of their trespasses on the people

Yes, of course the 2nd Amendment states Shall Not Infringe.

Senator Dianne Feinstein and her cohorts in that room want to ignore & shred the

U.S. Constitution and then just let the U.S. Supreme Court clean up their mess.

It's scary to see the lengths the progressives will go to attack the 2nd Amendment.

Progressive Michael Moore wants to release photos of dead children from the

Newtown, Connecticut shooting to push forward an emotional attack on the NRA and

the 2nd Amendment.

reply to post by Ahabstar


Senator Ted Cruz arrived at CPAC and is causing more trouble.

He introduced Gov. Sarah Palin.

Senator Ted Cruz Causing More Trouble

reply to post by TauCetixeta


Her and her buddies will burn for this crap.
Only progressives think that by limiting firearms, they are allowing you access to the certain type they deem as "okay".

And I will second and third the statement of all they did was respond with BS, emotion driven anecdotes and drivle.

Tar and feathering politicians needs to come back in style.

Originally posted by TauCetixeta

I hope he lectures the progressives every week!

I didn't watch the video, I haven't read more then two or three posts.

I did, however, see the 'warning' from the MODS and have to agree.

My question is this: When a republican/tea party member, or other esteemed member of the right - won't answer a question - it's okay? But when Diane Feinstein does it (and she is not PROGRESSIVE only a Californian Democrate - the two are not synonymous) it's news?

It's just SOP (Standard Operating Proceedure) for ALL LEADERS - government and otherwise).

Real news on the front page please. Just what is ATS' definition of 'Breaking News'? I'll have to look it up. My responsibility.

reply to post by macman


The emotion driven nonsense didn't work.

Senator Ted Cruz was expecting it. Answer the question senator!

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

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by TauCetixeta

I hope he lectures the progressives every week!

I didn't watch the video, I haven't read more then two or three posts.

I did, however, see the 'warning' from the MODS and have to agree.

My question is this: When a republican/tea party member, or other esteemed member of the right - won't answer a question - it's okay? But when Diane Feinstein does it (and she is not PROGRESSIVE only a Californian Democrate - the two are not synonymous) it's news?

It's just SOP (Standard Operating Proceedure) for ALL LEADERS - government and otherwise).

Real news on the front page please. Just what is ATS' definition of 'Breaking News'? I'll have to look it up. My responsibility.

When a liberal socialists ask a question, it's about the most ridiculous question ever asked.

When a liberal socialist pretends to answer a question, it's about the most ridiculous pretense of answering a question ever heard.

Liberal socialists would love to not only outlaw the Second Amendment, they'd love to outlaw anyone asking them a question.

Originally posted by TauCetixeta
reply to post by macman

 

The emotion driven nonsense didn't work.

Senator Ted Cruz was expecting it. Answer the question senator!

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

Diane Feinstein's supposed bill would allow a 12 gauge shotgun, but ban the same 12 gauge shotgun if it has a pistol grip.....and other ridiculous assertions by Senile Feinstein in her quest to outlaw the whole of the Second Amendment.

And liberal socialists wonder why the American public isn't falling for Feinstein's senility.

What is ugly horror dog Feinteins advice to the swiss woman who was gang raped in India ? her husband was tied up, she was gang raped in front of him, they stole their money and mobile phone [sorry cant call the Police now] when the U.S dollar etc collapses and women have no way of protecting themselves ,imagine how many countless rapes and sexual assults will happen !!!! whats Feinstein going to say these victims .''There there dear ,its better to be raped ,stabbed or killed than own one of those awful guns !!! dont worry you will get better once the pencillin deals with the syphillis ,gonnorhea etc the rapist had ''

Originally posted by bronto
What is ugly horror dog Feinteins advice to the swiss woman who was gang raped in India ? her husband was tied up, she was gang raped in front of him, they stole their money and mobile phone [sorry cant call the Police now] when the U.S dollar etc collapses and women have no way of protecting themselves ,imagine how many countless rapes and sexual assults will happen !!!! whats Feinstein going to say these victims .''There there dear ,its better to be raped ,stabbed or killed than own one of those awful guns !!! dont worry you will get better once the pencillin deals with the syphillis ,gonnorhea etc the rapist had ''

Ya know, I was wondering if those rapists are Hindi or Muslim.

That Hindi-Muslim Kush War has been going on for decades.

Though I guess the rapists haven't been caught yet? But I don't think they will call the police on themselves, whether Hindi or Muslim.

It's kind of odd the numbers of socialist liberals who claim they'd rather be raped or murdered than to hurt someone while defending themselves.