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

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
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)"

You studied the Constitution. Great!

What do you think of the argument made by Senator Ted Cruz?

reply to post by Res Ipsa


You have fallen into the trap of using "Case Law" as the law of the land.

Case law is the manipulation of current laws. It is used as some whored out justification to tweak a law for a current application of, where the law was tweaked before hand to do the same.

Basically, I did it, but so did someone else and got away with it.

reply to post by macman


It isn't a trap........it is reality........I probably hate it worse than you but that doesn't make it untrue.

reply to post by TauCetixeta


His argument was made more effective by the inability of Feinstein to respond intellectually. When Cruz used the banning of books/1st amendment argument, she should have said yes, some books are not protected by the first amendment, and so some guns should not be protected by the 2nd........that simple.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa


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.

There was and is ONLY one purpose of the 2nd amendment, if you really want to be intellectually honest. IT is to protect the free men and women of this country from the tyranny of government.

You look at the time it was established the founders had just fought a war from a tyrannical government that sought to bar the freedom of the colonies.

It is naive to think we are so far removed from those conditions that secondary concerns (public safety) take precedent over the concerns that first caused the founders to establish those rights.

You mention kiddy porn as not protected, of course taking the argument of those who will seek to take rights (OH for the children sake) as it is something so anathema (harming children) that who would argue against you.

Yes freedoms can be tempered, for things like the public interest, things that are morally repugnant. However where I disagree is that owning an Assault rifle is something as morally repugnant as child porn.

Makes me wonder Why you didn't use examples like Catcher in the Rye or Tom Sawyer for your first amendment argument ( because we all know that it would be silly to ban those books), no you went with the standard cry of "for the children" to shut down any further attack of your stance.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by TauCetixeta

 

His argument was made more effective by the inability of Feinstein to respond intellectually. When Cruz used the banning of books/1st amendment argument, she should have said yes, some books are not protected by the first amendment, and so some guns should not be protected by the 2nd........that simple.

i agree, but i think she was also dumbstruck by the idiocy of his question...afterr all, he was a law school graduate, and the analogy he used is easily refuted by 1st year law students

reply to post by jimmyx


I won't give her that much credit. She defaulted to base emotional solicitation targeting peoples brain stems.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
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)"

I don't care if you went to law school or studied the Constitution, while there. You are still misrepresenting those concepts. While you cannot use the 1st as a defense in those instances, it is the crimes associated that are the reason. Once a crime has been commited, you have infringed on someone else's rights and cannot claim a right in defense.

I've seen plenty of papers in law reviews that misrepresent the Constitution for no other reason than to push an agenda . . . maybe you were simply taught based on this? A prime example is Carl Bogus' "Secret History of the Second Amendment" where he argues the addition of the Bill or Rights was based on the racist views of the Southern States and their fear of abolition:
Bogus - Secret History of the 2nd

If it makes you feel better, since you are steeped in jurisprudence . . .

The notion child pornography being "excluded" from the 1st comes directly the case of New York v. Ferber. New York orginally convicted Ferber on basic obscenity charges; however, the court reversed these charges with the exception of the child pornography films. The reason for upholding the charges for child pornography, only, rested not in the ability to regulate the 1st, but because it is a lasting record of child exploitation and abuse. It is essentially the same reason the 1st cannot be evoked to protect against possesion of a "snuff" or murder film.

2.Distribution of visual depictions of children engaged in sexual activity is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children. The images serve as a permanent reminder of the abuse, and it is necessary for government to regulate the channels of distributing such images if it is to be able to eliminate the production of child pornography.

Also, as the court ruled that the government has compelling interest to stop the exploitation of children

However, "virtual" child pornography is protected by the 1st amendment, as it is the act and not the content that is not protected by the 1st.

The Court observed that statutes that prohibit child pornography that use real children are constitutional because they target “[t]he production of the work, not the content.”

I already gave you precedent on the "fire" claim (Schenk v US) . . . this case had nothing to do with fires or theaters, it was about distributing pamphlets supporting the Communist Revolution and Schenk being arrested and tried. The "opinion" for upholding his charges (which were later overturned) stated the the "1st doesn't protect dangerous speech, such as yelling "fire". The court later found it was not dangerous speech; however, the fallacious opinion has lived in infamy.

This in no way relates to the issue at hand with the 2nd. Simply prohibiting based on appearence or the false claim that they are any more lethal than any other semi-auto firearm doesn't not make the act of homicide or attempted homicide any less likely. In fact, as these weapons have only been used in about 0.6% of gun crimes since the lifting of the previous AWB; it will actually have no impact at all.

Anyway you want to cut it . . . There is no logical reason to ban any type of weapon, as the crimes using those weapon is already illegal. Furthermore, the weapon is not the cause of the crime. And simply owning the firearm does not lead to commision of any illegal act.

Feinstein and Schumer are still rats and are intentionally trying to subvert our Bill of Rights, in order to push a Collectivist agenda. And, intentionally trying to conflate unrelated issues for emotional gain.

reply to post by benrl


I didn't use Catcher in the Rye or any other book of that ilk because I didn't argue that your guns should be taken away.

The point is that there is protected speech and unprotected speech. The same goes for the 2nd amendment. You can't have a tactical nuke in your house. You can't have a stealth bomber on your farm. You can't have kiddy porn. Yelling fire in a crowed theater is not protected speech.......

The debate can be where the lines should be but not whether or not there are lines.

The government is not trying to take all your guns away, period.

reply to post by solomons path


Actually wanted to put a longer quote on the "virtual" case of Ashcroft v CPPA, as the language at the end shows another reason why you can't phohibit firearms based on fear and precog notions:

In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Court held unconstitutional the federal Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) to the extent that it prohibited pictures that were not produced with actual minors.1137 Prohibited pictures included computer-generated (”virtual”) child pornography, and photographs of adult actors who appeared to be minors. The Court observed that statutes that prohibit child pornography that use real children are constitutional because they target “[t]he production of the work, not the content.”1138 The CPPA, by contrast, targeted the content, not the means of production. The government’s rationales for the CPPA included that “[p]edophiles might use the materials to encourage children to participate in sexual activity” and might “whet their own sexual appetites” with it, “thereby increasing . . . the sexual abuse and exploitation of actual children.”1139 The Court found these rationales inadequate because the government “cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person’s private thoughts” and “may not prohibit speech because it increases the chance an unlawful act will be committed ‘at some indefinite future time.”'

may not prohibit the right to bear arms because it increases the chance an unlawful act will be committed "at some indefinite time" . . . ?

Schumer's fallacious arguement for equating to firearms as already failed this test on the 1st . . . but, I'm sure you snakes will just claim your typical "argument from authority" . . . "We/They/I went to law school', everyone else is an idiot."

When you can't use logic . . . fall back to insults and emotion.

reply to post by solomons path



(((((((I've seen plenty of papers in law reviews that misrepresent the Constitution for no other reason than to push an agenda . . . maybe you were simply taught based on this?)))))))

Law review papers? Law review papers? You couldn't begin to count the number of Supreme Court decisions
that...... "misrepresent the Constitution for no other reason than to push an agenda."

Playoffs?! Playoffs!??

for fun, read Justice Marshall's opinion in the Johnson v McIntosh case. It demonstrates the brilliance of a man who needed to justify taking the land of Indians by the U.S. so in wasn't unconstitutional. His verbal prestidigitation was as amazing as the decision was reprehensible.

The point again is........The Court will tell you what the Constitution is because it is what will be enforced. Any other interpretation is an intellectual exercise and perhaps useful as a tool for predicting future laws.

Holding up a Bible or the Constitution and claiming you have truth on your side is as useful as printing your own money.

to say that courts dictate what the constitution means is a logical fallacy. the writers are responsible for imparting what any written work means.

courts would love people to think that they can decide what the constitution means, but opinions don't dictate reality.

wanna know what was meant by a particular work? see what the authors say about it. it's that simple. i don't care who was "taught" what where. it has no effect on the veracity of their opinion.

now, what do the founders say?

Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:
"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."

Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790):
"[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded."

www.guncite.com...

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence" George Washington
First President of the United States

cap-n-ball.com...

the last two are particularly telling of what the constitution intends. that the constitution never be taken to mean citizens may be prevented from owning their own weapons, and that firearms are a necessity to maintaining liberty and independence.

reply to post by solomons path


I am thinking that was the case where they ruled that just because an adult looks like a minor, that isn't illegal kiddy porn. The law, or part of the law that was struck down as being unconstitutional was the part that said it is kiddie porn if the person "looks" like a minor.

If that is the case I am thinking of, you really went off the rails.

Are you trying to be ironic by behaving like Feinstein? Did I really imply that unless you are an attorney you don't know what you are talking about? Let me clarify, I would think this even if you were.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


WTF? Who cares what the Constitution means? How does that help you? It is not a logical fallacy to state the real world application of this piece of paper. Don't some of you understand this? It does not matter what the Constitution says, it provides you ZERO protection unless there is a power to enforce that protection.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

WTF? Who cares what the Constitution means? How does that help you? It is not a logical fallacy to state the real world application of this piece of paper. Don't some of you understand this? It does not matter what the Constitution says, it provides you ZERO protection unless there is a power to enforce that protection.

guns are the real world power to enforce the protection.

you're using circular reasoning. the courts, which you say dictate the meaning of the constitution and thereby give it power, are established BY the constitution. you're saying that "piece of paper" gets it's power from courts, which it created, which then validate the constitution, which then gives power to the courts, ad infinitum.

you must have studied at backwards law school in contradiction land.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by solomons path

 

I am thinking that was the case where they ruled that just because an adult looks like a minor, that isn't illegal kiddy porn. The law, or part of the law that was struck down as being unconstitutional was the part that said it is kiddie porn if the person "looks" like a minor.

If that is the case I am thinking of, you really went off the rails.

Are you trying to be ironic by behaving like Feinstein? Did I really imply that unless you are an attorney you don't know what you are talking about? Let me clarify, I would think this even if you were.

edit on 18-3-2013 by Res Ipsa because: clarity

Child pornography is not necessarily without value, but it is illegal because of the harm that making and distributing it necessarily inflicts upon children. Ferber expressly allowed virtual child pornography as an alternative that could preserve whatever literary value child pornography might arguably have while at the same time mitigating the harm caused by making it. The CPPA would eliminate this distinction and punish people for engaging in what had heretofore been a legal alternative.

This case, while involving those that "appear to be children", also found that any porn (animated, CGI, or literary) that does not involve actual children is protected under the 1st.

So again, "child pornography" is not an "exception" to the 1st . . . it is deemed child abuse and you cannot invoke your right to free speech in defense of an illegal act. Just as someone cannot invoke their right to bear arms in defense of shooting someone.

There is no logical argument for prohibition of any type of weapon. The best they can come up with is "rights aren't absolute, what about child pornography". After that it's all emotion and "I've seen kids shot".

What rights are being taken away from someone, by those owning a firearm, who do not commit a crime? Shall not be infringed is pretty straight forward, as is the reasoning for including it in the BoR. You brought up the constitutionality of firearms prohibition and equate it to "child porn" and "yelling fire". When confronted with the fallacy of equating these concepts to firearms prohibition, you waffle, throw out logical fallacies, and of course end with "you don't know what you are talking about". Just like any other lawyer would . . .

You can try to side step the decades old agenda and the fact that more than one anti-gun group has publically stated the only reason for going after the mythical "assault weapon" is based a flawed public perception and their scary looks. You can continue with you fallacious appeal to authority arguments and vague "but"s . . . I would never expect someone that went to law school to admit they are wrong.

But you are . . . and so is Schumer and Feinstein. Unfortunately, Cruz isn't or wasn't quick enough to call them on it.

ETA - I understand the "real world" application v intent argument . . . As do many, without any need for law school. However, it is the subversion of the intent and the blatent misrepresentation of our rights by those in power that is the real issue. Also, the reason why people get so upset when it is done, whether in regard to the 2nd or any other amendment. It's the reason people were upset about the Patriot Act and people are upset about NDAA and CISPA.

You can either defend based on semantics and logical fallacies or you can realize the gov is actively trying to destroy the idea of individual rights, even so far as claiming those that believe in the concept are "domestic terrorists". Sooner or later, everyone will have something that effects them taken away. If firearms is not that issue with you, but you "don't see the issue" . . . I guess just don't expect anyone else to "see" yours if/when they are taken from you.

reply to post by solomons path


I don't want them to take away my guns. We have the right to have guns.

If the Court for some crazy, in some alternate universe, said we have no right to have guns then that would be the law and you and others can deal with it the way you choose.

It may not be illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. But if you do and it gets people killed your attorney is not going to use the 1st amendment as a defense, because it is not protected speech. He might use "mistake" because you thought there was a fire. He may use insanity. He may use mistaken identification, "it wasn't me."

I seriously don't know how to more clearly articulate my position. You do not have a 100% inalienable right to whatever weapon you want to have, you never will. Just like you don't have a 100% inalienable right to say anything you want anywhere you want at anytime you want without the risk of legal consequence.

The Amendments are not Black and White. You can fight to push the line just like the left fights to push the line but you need to understand that you are pushing the line but have no hope of eliminating it. You won't get to own Patriot missiles.

You sure have some issue with attorneys. It might be because you argue how it "ought to be" and are offended by the reality of what it is.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

WTF? Who cares what the Constitution means? How does that help you? It is not a logical fallacy to state the real world application of this piece of paper. Don't some of you understand this? It does not matter what the Constitution says, it provides you ZERO protection unless there is a power to enforce that protection.

guns are the real world power to enforce the protection.

you're using circular reasoning. the courts, which you say dictate the meaning of the constitution and thereby give it power, are established BY the constitution. you're saying that "piece of paper" gets it's power from courts, which it created, which then validate the constitution, which then gives power to the courts, ad infinitum.

you must have studied at backwards law school in contradiction land.

No, guns are not the real world power.........laws are.....then those granted authority under those laws with guns.

As far as your circular reasoning goes, if I was a philosophy expert I would eviscerate your poorly constructed false premise, followed by false conclusion followed by more of the same.......but I'm not....however, like the Justice that opined on pornography said, "I know it when I see it" Your argument is nonsensical.

Hey!

Why am I seeing "law" related advertising on ATS now? Talking about "Lawline" and "CLEs"
Can they see what we are writing and use it to target their advertising?!

Originally posted by Res Ipsa

The point is that there is protected speech and unprotected speech. The same goes for the 2nd amendment. You can't have a tactical nuke in your house. You can't have a stealth bomber on your farm. You can't have kiddy porn. Yelling fire in a crowed theater is not protected speech.......

The debate can be where the lines should be but not whether or not there are lines.

The government is not trying to take all your guns away, period.

I agree with what you can't have in your statement. The main reason is because a nuke or bomber is not "arms" but "ordinance". If the debate was to determine what is constitutionally protected as “arms” I would say great go for it, but I fail to see one gun type constitutionally protected as “arms” and another gun type is not, or even finer discriminators, such as two guns are exactly the same except for one has a pistol grip and the other does not, or a gun has larger capacity magazines, or fires faster, or looks meaner, or is labeled AR and not deer rifle.

The question is whether ALL guns are considered arms and if not why? We also know that this is all academic since guns in general are “arms” as to the framers intent, and canons, nukes etc are not.

One could also ask why didn’t this come to light when we advanced from musket balls to Winchester repeaters? A vastly larger capability difference than anything we have today in comparison.