March 14, 2013

Ted Cruz vs. Dianne Feinstein.

295 comments:

1 – 200 of 295   Newer›   Newest»
MadisonMan said...

Not going to watch, but I'll guess she doesn't answer.

That she's been there for a long time is part of the problem.

DADvocate said...

It's nice to know Feinstein is so welled educated and informed and still wants to shit on the Constitution and steal our rights. Harridan.

MadisonMan said...

She looks old.

Chef Mojo said...

Saw this earlier in the day. Cruz just rolled over DiFi. Best part is she had to admit he was right in the end. This is how you respond to gun grabbers. Make them actually defend their absurdities.

In the end, it seems to me, the lady doth protest too much.

DADvocate said...

BTW - Did you notice her humility? Overwhelming!

rcommal said...

Interesting that Charles Krauthammer, while supportive of Cruz's intent and point, just said that Cruz overreached. I'm conflicted as to whether or not what Krauthammer really meant was: "overshot." Regardless, perhaps it's the backlash that posed more concern. Or not.

Badger Pundit said...

Glad Feinstein made clear she's "not a sixth grader" and she's "reasonably well educated." At least we've got that straight.

Original Mike said...

As with climate change proposals, it doesn't seem to bother the supporters of gun control that the proposed remedy will not work. It's our intentions that matter!

DADvocate said...

Glad Feinstein made clear she's "not a sixth grader" and she's "reasonably well educated."

She also pointed out she'd "been here" a long time. Which means she part of the problem in Washington. Time for her to go home and let freedom ring.

Revenant said...

I so wish Feinstein would hurry up and die of old age.

It is probably the only way my state will ever be rid of the dippy bitch.

rhhardin said...

Women take an interest in something other than their job, in that kind of job.

Saint Croix said...

I'm not a sixth grader?

chickelit said...

Couldn't finish watching, DiFi comes off so badly. Her lasting legacy belongs to San Francisco and her influence should retreat to those boundaries. She is one too many liberal female Senators from the Bay area purporting to represent the entire state.

There were shootings in my town last night and two HS students are dead. I'll be looking to see what kind of weapons were used.

edutcher said...

Somewhere, George Orwell smiled today.

Lydia said...

Heck, she'll be 80 in June. I think she looks pretty darn good; I also think she comes across as sharp.

Why does Cruz keep addressing her in the third person -- "Does the senator...", etc.? Makes him look bad.

And I'm not a liberal.

Andy R. said...

Does Ted Cruz know that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater?

Bruce Hayden said...

I was impressed. Not with DiFi, of course, but with Cruz. How long has the guy been in the Senate? A couple of months now? I am pretty sure that he is the only former SCOTUS clerk in the Senate right now. Probably didn't hurt that he argued the states' case in Heller before that Court. Guy is scary impressive, and likely has at least 20 IQ points on Feinstein.

Amartel said...

"She also pointed out she'd "been here" a long time."

She says that like it's a good thing. And I'm not necessarily a big term-limiter. I just don't think it should be presumed that being a career politician is a good thing.

Bruce Hayden said...

Why does Cruz keep addressing her in the third person -- "Does the senator...", etc.? Makes him look bad.

Cruz is about as close to a professional debater as there is in the Senate, having won, or been runner up, in a number of national debate competitions while at Princeton. I would suggest that he does this to keep from personally attacking Senator Feinstein, and that it is maybe a carryover from his college debating days.

SJ said...

@Andy R.,

I think you're referring to the problem of a person falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.

More at Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater.

bagoh20 said...

Anytime someone responds to a question by telling you who they are instead of addressing it, is simply putting the card back in the deck and asking for a new card. Answer the damned question. There is a good answer even for her side. Everybody already knows who the hell you are. There is sign right in front of you that tells us. Maybe you should get one that says "Not a sixth grader." Then you could answer the questions being asked. And stop bragging about your 7th grade education.

Bruce Hayden said...

She says that like it's a good thing. And I'm not necessarily a big term-limiter. I just don't think it should be presumed that being a career politician is a good thing.

Well, I am, and think that being there a long time is a bad thing. The longer that politicians are in Washington, D.C., it seems like the more corrupt they become, and the more out-of-touch they become with their constituants (though this is DiFi, who is from California...)

Chef Mojo said...

Does Andy R. know that yelling fire in a crowded theater doesn't quite mean what he thinks it means?

Titus said...

I love her. Jew, liberal, San Francisco, Rich, Bitchy.

Totally fab.

Rusty said...

AndyR@6:38
Which has what, exactly, to do with gun control?

edutcher said...

Hatman thinks it gives DiFi the right to limit access top some very specific firearms.

Chef Mojo said...

Why does Cruz keep addressing her in the third person -- "Does the senator...", etc.? Makes him look bad.

This is typical of the Senate, and Cruz is in the definite mainstream in using this language. Senators usually refer to each other in the third person or in terms other than directly referring to the other Senator's name, i.e., "My distinguished colleague" etc. It's considered bad form to do otherwise.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andy Freeman said...

> Does Ted Cruz know that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater?

Actually you can, if there actually is a fire.

edutcher said...

PS Can't wait until he hears the new Pope isn't a Lefty on marriage equality or any other moral relativism.

Andy Freeman said...

> Why does Cruz keep addressing her in the third person -- "Does the senator...", etc.? Makes him look bad.

That's how they talk in the senate.

It's supposedly an improvement over bashing each other with canes.

bagoh20 said...

"Does Ted Cruz know that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater?"

I expected something along those lines from her, but they didn't get that far in 7th grade, and she was more concerned with herself than the issue. It's a politician thing

Anton said...

Wasn't it Senator Feinstein who first said, "You can take my Senate seat when you pry it from my cold, dead ass"?

Rabel said...

"In Sandy Hook youngsters were dismembered."

I just point this out because it appears to be a leak of unreleased information.

Rusty said...

titus@6:47

And dumber than a bowl of soggy Cheerios.

Hagar said...

Don't tell me what is "enough for me!"

SJ said...

Notice that Senator Feinstein harps on the "Weapons of war" theme, which isn't entirely accurate.

Heck, I own one of these, which was a weapon of war in the 1940s. And it is either not mentioned, or exempted, under Feinstein's bill.

However, this rifle is not commonly used by the Army, unlike this similar rifle, which is a machine gun under the NFA.

If the shooter and Sandy Hook had used a Remington 870, the children in the school would be equally as dead. And their wounds would be equally horrific.

Tell me again, how making it illegal for a company to manufacture and sell new rifles, while allowing people who still own the rifles to keep them, will make anyone safer?

rcommal said...

Wow. Sen. Feinstein thinks the average sixth-grader these days has been versed in history, much less the U.S. Constitution? Then, she really IS out of touch. Now, my first instinct was: Given that, she really should retire. OTOH, the thought that popped just after that was: Well, maybe not. Representation, after all, and all of that. Stuff.

Anton said...

Rabel@6:55


She's taking the morbidly obese filmmaker's lead with the dismemberment comment. See, http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/03/robert-farago/michael-moore-show-the-world-the-dead-children-of-newtown/

Lydia said...

Third-person address is part of the Senate debating rules. Doesn't apply to interrogating witnesses before committees.

Compare that with Rubio questioning John Kerry. No third-person stuff there, and Rubio doesn't come off looking like a jerk the way Cruz does.

Gahrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
G Joubert said...

We can thank the dumbed-down voters in the dysfunctional and epically failed state of California for her having been there so long. She says it like it's a positive thing.

Big Mike said...

No, MadMan, "Don't you think she looks tired?"

Gahrie said...

While the Founding Fathers, authors and signers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, were governing this nation it was a common practice to sign letters of marque.

This allowed private American citizens to buy or build the most modern warship available, equip it with the most modern weapons available, and then use it in open warfare against the nation's enemies.....for profit no less.

It must also be remembered that those same Founding Fathers purposefully neglected to create a national army, fully expecting private citizens to be sufficently armed with "military" weapons to defend themselves against invasion.

The War of Independence started precisely because the government was attempting to seize privately owned military weapons and supplies, including artillery.

I think we can safely say that the writers of the Bill of Rights knew exactly what they were saying, and what they meant. It is simply ndeniable that the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment would allow private citizens to own bazookas.

Titus said...

He looks about 15 years older than he is. I think his anger and hate has caused him to age so much.

bpm4532 said...

Gee Ted, we're already there. Republicans are told to sit down, shut up and pay. Republicans are told they are criminals for the ideas they hold.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

My Gosh! A lot of bitchy Althousians on this chat-board today, thinking they know better than the ultra-conservatives who issued the somewhat definitive Heller ruling.

Give it a rest. The Good Reverend Revenant's death wish tells you all anyone needs to know about how much sway you carpetbaggers can have have on the Senator's career. Focus your efforts instead on Theodore Cruz, who has the brainlessness to think that all amendments are equivalent and absolute.

DADvocate said...

Here's an enlightening statement the reasonably well educated Feinstein had to say the other day.

And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.

Bob Ellison said...

It's an intelligence test. Cruz asked a question, and Feinstein didn't answer it, preferring to fluff up her feathers and act all Barbara Boxer.

People will tend to have binary views of this little duel. Some will think Cruz was engaging in debate with a pointed question that Feinstein flailed on; others will think Feinstein showed that little, young Senator who's boss.

Gahrie said...

Focus your efforts instead on Theodore Cruz, who has the brainlessness to think that all amendments are equivalent and absolute.

Do tell? I must be brainless too! Please enlighten me....which ones aren't equivalent? Who made that choice?

Why does the Left demand that a "right" created by a supposed penumbra surrounding various Amendments has more meaning and worth than a Right explicitly asserted in an Amendment reserved entirely to it?

Illuninati said...

It is hard to take Feinstein's points seriously when I'm certain that she is lying about her intentions. After Sandy Hook the Democrats appeared far too eager to use the tragedy for their political purposes. It appears that the Democrats' real agenda is to completely disarm the law abiding citizens, but they are doing it by increments. They won't be satisfied until they ban all guns from middle class citizens. Their goal is gather unlimited power to themselves bit by bit. They are totalitarians. Like all totalitarians they can never rest easy when the citizens are armed.

MunDane said...

Shorter DiFi: Don't you know who I am?

Revenant said...

Why does Cruz keep addressing her in the third person -- "Does the senator...", etc.? Makes him look bad.

It is a normal mode of address in the Senate.

Revenant said...

SJ,

Is your M1 Garand an original or one of the replicas? Just curious; I've thought about buying one.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Do tell? I must be brainless too!

Ahh. Your sincerity is encouraging.

Please enlighten me....which ones aren't equivalent? Who made that choice?

None of them are equivalent. They all address different things and, as such, have different sorts of limitations and exceptions.

Why does the Left demand that a "right" created by a supposed penumbra surrounding various Amendments has more meaning and worth than a Right explicitly asserted in an Amendment reserved entirely to it?

Your verbosity threatens your cogency. Consult a Strunk and White immediately and re-write.

lewsar said...

@sj i too have a garand, and it defines what i think of when people say "assault rifle". to me, it's a rifle carried by assault troops. the garand was the primary battlefield rifle for the american military from mid-1942 until 1965 or so. yet this rifle, with its 8 round en bloc clip, is perfectly acceptable under almost all of this spate of nonsensical gun control legislation.

and to turn the irony meter up to 11, i bought my garand from the united states government.

Gahrie said...

Why does the Left demand that a "right" created by a supposed penumbra surrounding various Amendments has more meaning and worth than a Right explicitly asserted in an Amendment reserved entirely to it?

Your verbosity threatens your cogency. Consult a Strunk and White immediately and re-write.


OK....why does the Left believe there is a "Constitutional Right" to kill an unborn child, yet deny the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment?

Gahrie said...

The primary reason I am attempting to buy a Garand is because it is both legal, and a weapon carried effectively on the battlefield.

MadisonMan said...

I remember when she was elected. She can't be old, even though she certainly looks old, because that would be mean I'm old.

chickelit said...

Gathie wrote: OK....why does the Left believe there is a "Constitutional Right" to kill an unborn child, yet deny the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment?

Ritmo's favorite diversionary tactic on that one is to debate whether it's a child or a seahorse.

Mark said...

Feinstein is the smart CA Senator.

Which says a lot about why CA is in the shape that it's in.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Ritmo's favorite diversionary tactic on that one is to debate whether it's a child or a seahorse.

Not only mine, but the Supreme Court's, douchweasel.

Let me ask you a question, did you photograph and frame the zygotes that Mrs. Chickenliterature spawned?

How about the stage when they had the vestigial gills? Any photos of those on the desk at work?

SteveR said...

She didn't answer the question because its not about passing a good law, its about making a political statement. So he's making sure that's evident.

Chip S. said...

I recognized the expression on Cruz's face while Sen. Ma'am Sr. was ranting.

It's the face of a prof listening to a tedious student asking a long and stupid question.

O Ritmo Segundo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
O Ritmo Segundo said...

I recognized the expression on Cruz's face while Sen. Ma'am Sr. was ranting.

It was the insufficiently sanguine face of a cold-blooded serial killer, who thinks that Americans have insufficient means of killing each other and disregarding their humanity.

Also see: Lawyer.

Revenant said...

The thing I find most amusing about Feinstein's endless bleating about "military weapons" is that the second amendment exists solely to protect civilian ownership of military firearms.

You could argue that there is no Constitutionally protected right to own, say, a handgun or a shotgun, since no civilian militia would use those to fight -- but arguing that the second amendment doesn't allow ownership of a military rifle is as retarded as arguing that the first amendment doesn't protect political speech.

Of course, the irony here is that the silly cunt's belief that the AR-15 is a military weapon is mistaken; the military switched to automatic rifles sixty-plus years ago. So she arguably *could* ban it without violating the second amendment... because civilians should really be allowed to own M-16s, instead. :)

rcommal said...

Revenant!!

Good job.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

The thing I find most amusing about Feinstein's endless bleating about "military weapons" is that the second amendment exists solely to protect civilian ownership of military firearms.

So where's the Good Reverend Revenant when it comes to protecting my constitutionally ordained right to bazookas and RPGs! You fallow pussy! Come on and demand it! Don't be wimpy like Justice Scalia and say that Saturday Night Specials are too "unusual" a request for defense! I want whatever I can carry! Aaaarrghhhhghghghghg!!!!

Of course, the irony here is that the silly cunt's belief that the AR-15 is a military weapon is mistaken; the military switched to automatic rifles sixty-plus years ago.

You should ask people in the military why they don't agree.

But then, we can tell from your last sentence that you're not serious anyway. And not that the flirtatious, Revenant-patented "winky" emoticon gave it away or anything. That's just the icing on your own special kooky cake.

Revenant said...

Feinstein is the smart CA Senator. Which says a lot about why CA is in the shape that it's in.

The funny thing is that she owes her Senate career to Dan White's shooting of George Moscone... with the gun issued to White by the San Francisco police department.

But remember, only police and government officials can be trusted with guns. :)

O Ritmo Segundo said...

What happened to the abortion diversion? It was bound to be soooo funnnnnn!!!!!

Anyway, I think that this is is a hazard of having kids with an evolution-denying pro-lifer.

Dr Weevil said...

Is someone who selects which constitutional amendments are important and which may be ignored a 'cafeteria consititutionalist'? I would have thought it obvious that all the amendments are equally valid, except the 18th, which is entirely invalid since it was repealed by the 21st.

Phil 3:14 said...

Sen. Feinstein pulled the "righteous indignation" card to easily. I wouldv'e liked to have seen more to get a better context.

(or maybe not)

glenn said...

Quoting the Constitution to a liberal is like telling a junkie dope is bad for them. They want the "Little Book" to obtain when they agree with it and disappear when they don't.

Chip Ahoy said...

I got over half way through a wearisome old woman saying she's been around and knows what she's seen and resents being talked to like a 6th grader, while she's busting a move on all our constitutional rights as a 7th grader so I was forced to stop listening. Homey just flat don't listen no more.

Michael said...

Ritmo. Rude to post pictures of deformities. Vulgar. Telling.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Is someone who selects which constitutional amendments are important and which may be ignored a 'cafeteria consititutionalist'?

I like that! It's the way we should refer to that rights-shredding left-winger Scalia, with his allowance for exceptions to carrying arms based on manner, purpose, and how "unusual" or "dangerous" they are.

Nice strawman, though. Name me a single left-winger who objects to time, place and manner restrictions on the 1st amendment. Or to the exception for libel.

Just because right-wingers don't understand the meaning of those exceptions - as demonstrated, for instance by their laughable attempt to sue Al Franken for lampooning FOX - doesn't mean they don't exist.

When are you guys going to wake up, stop being such a bunch of doucheweasels, and just accept reality? It's really starting to get boring.

Michael K said...

Does she know what an "assault weapon" is ? The AR 15 is widely used as a hunting rifle. I'm sure she has no idea of this.

California has low standards for Senators. I remember when Cranston was involved in a scandal.

Roux said...

She would take away all of our rights if it served her purpose. What a bitch....

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I'm sorry, Michael. I never knew. Your wife must have gone through a lot to keep those pre-op pics private.

Revenant said...

If anyone's curious, there is are some interesting records of the debate over the second amendment here.

Interesting stuff; it is particularly interesting to see how worried they were about letting the government do things we now take for granted, like "maintain an army in peacetime".

Chip S. said...

Feinstein usually rocks the Dear Abby look, but today's wig was more Betty White-ish.

I think she's trying to look younger.

Michael said...

Ritmo. Those are the kinds of pictures fat and pimply boys like you whack off to. No need to share. Pity your personal skills match your intellect but there you go.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Thanks Rev!

But I can't seem to find James Madison's take on how slow and stodgy a hunter one had to be in the 18th century to miss a buck without the help of an AR-15.

Revenant said...

Does she know what an "assault weapon" is ?

Well, an "assault weapon" is a term invented by gun control groups who guessed, correctly, that people would confuse the term with "assault rifles". So the answer to the question "what is an assault weapon" is "whatever the government says in an assault weapon".

Since the federal "assault weapon" ban expired years ago, the answer to the question "is the AR-15 an assault weapon" is "depends on what state you're standing in". :)

Chef Mojo said...

Oh, yes. Ritmo's vaunted intellect. Not to mention morality.

Whatever, Ritmo.

Dr Weevil said...

Poor stupid Ritmo attributes to me something I did not write. Of course, there are some limits on the rights guaranteed in the first and second amendments. But listing specific models of guns to be banned for arbitrary reasons is the equivalent of listing specific authors or directors whose books or movies are to be banned, and I don't know any right-wingers who favor that obvious violation of the 1st amendment. Why do so many leftwingers support the equivalent obvious violation of the 2nd?

Inga said...

Revenant, I wonder, could I have a hand grenade? They look just like cute little green pineapples.

rcommal said...

Resisting...resisting...

...resisted.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Ritmo. Those are the kinds of pictures fat and pimply boys like you whack off to.

My, my, Michael. You have quite the imagination there.

You know, not a lot of people would feel comfortable immediately equating birth deformities with sexual thoughts. But to your credit, you do.

We should all give Michael a round of applause for suppressing such strange and socially reprehensible thoughts. That must be quite a burden for him.

Chuck said...

Wow, I had no idea that Feinstein could string to together such an uninterrupted string of idiotic non-sequitirs.

Somewhere above in these comments thread, Andy R. asked the old First Amendment question about 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre.' That is actually a much better question than anything that came out of Feinstein's mouth. We really could have a decent discussion about the practical limits of extending protections of the Bill of Rights. Feinstein didn't get us one word closer to that discussion.

Cruz was an exceptionally controlled debater -- and a gentleman -- to not take personal offense at Feinstein's sneering allusion to her seniority as a Senator. It was insulting. I might not have minded, if she had instead discussed her role in the 1994 Assault Weapons bill, and how that did not fall prey to a constitutional challenge. But she didn't. Feinstein rambled off into the carnage of Sandy Hook, which is irrelevant to a serious debate about the constitutionality of the pending legislation.

I noted that Dick Durbin had tried to get a question in. What was it? Did it come up later? (I just saw the video of the hearing and Durbin backed off.) Dick Durbin is as skilled as he is evil, in the business of litigating the legislative process. Durbin would have conducted a better debate.

And Feinstein's fixation on the categorization of "military" weapons is pure bunk to anyone who knows anything about guns and particularly AR-15's. They aren't particularly military at all, except that they look nasty like some military-issued weapons do, but such talk is essentially nonsense.

A Browning 870 pump-action shotgun was designed for WWI trench warfare, but is now widely used for hunting. I own one, for duck hunting. And yet the U.S. Army and police departments are still to this day buying 870's.

Yes, Senator Feinstein, we get it. You didn't go to law school. and it shows. Dick Durbin was a skilled lawyer; that shows. And Ted Cruz has a very bright legal mind, and that shows.

Paul Zrimsek said...

"And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines."

Pretty dishonest of Feinstein to say that without also mentioning that there's a bag limit.

Michael said...

Ritmo. You should see to your mental health, dude. Yiu are one sick motherfucker.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

But listing specific models of guns to be banned for arbitrary reasons is the equivalent of listing specific authors or directors whose books or movies are to be banned, and I don't know any right-wingers who favor that obvious violation of the 1st amendment. Why do so many leftwingers support the equivalent obvious violation of the 2nd?

"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Justice Scalia! Are you listening! A pseudonymous blog commenter named "Dr. Weevil" just called you out as a "left-winger", intent on violating the 2nd amendment! You hear that? You can't hide from him any longer!!!

rcommal said...

And if I can resist that, I can resist so much more.

I've never, ever been tempted to use a firearm gratuitously. Not ever, not even once. Quite the contrary.

Wordage, on the other hand, is something else again. Even then, I've resisted way, way, way, way more, more, more than I have not.

Hey.

Dr Weevil said...

Of course, people who write some of the things Ritmo has written on this very thread don't usually go around calling other people "doucheweasels". What would be the appropriate metaphor here? "The pot calling the kettle black" implies that the name-caller is just as bad as the target. What if he's very much worse? Would that be the porcupine calling the hedgehog prickly? Michael Moore calling Chris Christie fat?

Chip S. said...

ISWYDT

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Yiu are one sick motherfucker.

Really, Michael? Sick enough to say this:

"Those are the kinds of pictures fat and pimply boys like you whack off to."

Because that wasn't said by me. In fact, that thought wasn't entertained by me.

It was brought up, oh so thoughtfully, by a commenter who goes by the name of "Michael" at 8:30 PM tonight. He describes himself as an investment banker from the "sweet sunny south".

Chef Mojo said...

But I can't seem to find James Madison's take on how slow and stodgy a hunter one had to be in the 18th century to miss a buck without the help of an AR-15.

An civilian AR-15 has exactly the same rate of fire as any other semi-automatic rifle that might be used for hunting.

Is your objection that it looks bad? Does it intimidate you? Does all that black hardware make you feel all weak in the knees? Mine is just great for hunting. Light, reliable and accurate. Great for harvesting meat.

James Madison never specified gun types of any sort, so why does this even enter into the argument?

Of course. Since your intellect is based on irrelevancies, that's the sort of insipid bullshit you'd toss out there,

Geoff said...

"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

What makes an AR-15 dangerous or unusual?

It is also the most popular rifle platform in America.

If the revolution happened today, modern George Washington would be leading Militia troops armed with AR-15s.

Paul said...

So Feinstein says Cruz is rignt yet still wants to at least TRY to take away peoples rights.

And note she has a CCW (yes she packs a handgun) has police protction, gates, etc...

But then, everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Revenant said...

I can't seem to find James Madison's take on how slow and stodgy a hunter one had to be in the 18th century to miss a buck without the help of an AR-15.

Goodness, Rit -- an AR-15 isn't *nearly* deadly enough for deer hunting! It fires intermediate cartridges. You want something powerful if you're going to shoot something as big as a deer.

Here are some pictures of cartridges. Second from the left is what you'd want for a buck. The next-to-last is what the AR-15 uses -- good for things like racoons, coyotes, etc.

Or burglars, of course. That's what I bought mine for. :)

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Doucheweasel is just a funny thing to say. And it sounds even a bit like "weevil". But in any event, please don't let your fragile ego be bruised by the taunt introducing the irrefutable reasoning. I just wanted to fit in by being as inappropriately insulting as the rest of the gang here.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

James Madison never specified gun types of any sort, so why does this even enter into the argument?

Hmmm.... Probably because a guy named "Antonin Scalia" said it should. Does he scare you?

Of course. Since your intellect is based on irrelevancies, that's the sort of insipid bullshit you'd toss out there,

Sure. You go ahead and feel free to talk about your ideological folk hero on the bench that way. Once he's gone, good luck getting any bit of your reactionary agenda even close to judicial relevancy ever again.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr Weevil said...

Now someone who calls himself "O Ritmo Segundo" criticizes me for using a pseudonym? Just how unselfaware do you have to be to write something like that?

And how stupid do you have to be to think what I wrote contradicts in any way what Scalia wrote? The whole point is that many of the guns Feinstein wants to ban are not in fact more "dangerous" than many of the ones she doesn't (openly admit that she) wants to ban. The word "arbitrary" was carefully chosen.

Here's a hint - not for Ritmo, who's too stupid to understand and too doucheweasely to admit it if he did, but for everyone else:

The 1st Amendment does not prohibit the government from banning child pornography. It does prohibit the government from banning all books by people whose last name starts with B, or all books written by Muslims, or all books on analytic philosophy, or all movies by Quentin Tarantino, or any such arbitrary (note that word) restriction.

chickelit said...

@Chip: I didn't but I doubt I'd like it.

Geoff said...

"Hmmm.... Probably because a guy named "Antonin Scalia" said it should. Does he scare you?"

You still haven't answered what makes the AR-15 exceptionally dangerous and/or unusual.

You've quoted a supreme court ruling, but you haven't shown how it applies.

And how can banning the most common rifle type in America stand up to the standard that protects weapons "in common use at the time." ?

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Goodness, Rit -- an AR-15 isn't *nearly* deadly enough for deer hunting! It fires intermediate cartridges. You want something powerful if you're going to shoot something as big as a deer.

Yo. Word. And the natives (and even Katniss Everdeen) used bows and arrows. Goodness gracious, don't tell me you're afraid of a deer!

Or burglars, of course. That's what I bought mine for. :)

Oh, you just did that because Scalia's circuitous reasoning prevented you from using a Saturday Night Special, which would have been much more cool and manly!

Michael said...

Ritmo. I wonder if your parents knew you were crazy before they knew you were an asshole? It was probalbly the other way around but only you would know for sure. Either way it must have been difficult. I know people whose kids are assholes and they, the parents, are deeply disappointed but my friend the psychiatrist says the parents of the crazy kids, the ones like you were/are, are the saddest.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

You still haven't answered what makes the AR-15 exceptionally dangerous and/or unusual.

I dunno. Probably because it seems to be the weapon of choice for domestic mass murderers.

I'm sure they can stick that bit in the dockets.

Dr Weevil said...

Nothing fragile about my ego. I just thought it was hilarious that the douchiest and weaseliest commenter on this thread would be stupid enough to call anyone else what he so obviously is himself. Does he really not know how he comes across?

O Ritmo Segundo said...

If the revolution happened today, modern George Washington would be leading Militia troops armed with AR-15s.

Oh, so the 18th century wasn't a "cool" enough time period for you in which to have a revolution?

n.n said...

Out of my cold, dead hands... or, alternatively, not until government agents, criminal cartels, terrorists, petty thieves, and other minority opportunists learn to behave themselves.

It would be an act of simple masochism, or insanity, to defer defense of our unalienable rights to people who have repeatedly demonstrated a selective respect for their preservation.

As for progressive proscriptive laws, what do they intend to do about people who are not constrained by the law, including government agents?

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Does he really not know how he comes across?

To you?

I could give a damn about appearances. Go model yourself on the runway of Althouse comments if you're just interested in how you "come across".

Or simply attend to the substance of what's being said, which you can't do.

rcommal said...

Ritmo: You silly.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I know, Michael. Boo hoo. Do you need some bushes to go cry behind?

Pervert.

Revenant said...

Revenant, I wonder, could I have a hand grenade? They look just like cute little green pineapples.

Well, the founders lived in a time when private citizens owned warships and field artillery. I doubt they'd have soiled their frilly undergarments at the thought of hand grenades. :)

If you read the opinions of the men involved in ratifying the Constitution and its amendments, it is pretty clear that they thought the proper solution to "people using weapons to commit murder" was "hang the murderer". Pre-emptively banning people from owning things because they might do something undesirable is a concept that didn't really catch on here until late 19th century southern Democrats started worrying about keeping the local n-words in line.

Dr Weevil said...

Now Ritmo thinks other people should "attend to the substance of what's being said"? Comedy gold. Perhaps he should try it some time himself.

Chip S. said...

@chickelit, that was for rcommal.

rcommal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Geoff said...

"I dunno. Probably because it seems to be the weapon of choice for domestic mass murderers."

I'm sure they can stick that bit in the dockets."

"seems to be" ? You can't do better than that? No hard stats? Nothing?

Just, it feels like it?

It is also the rifle of choice of many fine police departments.

And tons of people besides "most popular rifle" means it ends up in all sorts of hands, good or bad.

The real question is: is it a huge source of gun violence in this country?

And the answer is: no.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

Shouting Thomas said...

Ritmo the Retard doing his "I went to college!" routine again.

Jesus, Ritmo, I guess you're the first, huh?

rcommal said...

And, Ritmo:

Why?

Chip S. said...

It was amusing.

Shouting Thomas said...

Haven't had the pleasure of hearing how much you love black people lately, Ritmo the Retard.

You've got to be able to work that in here some way.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Well, the founders lived in a time when private citizens owned warships and field artillery. I doubt they'd have soiled their frilly undergarments at the thought of hand grenades. :)

If you read the opinions of the men involved in ratifying the Constitution and its amendments, it is pretty clear that they thought the proper solution to "people using weapons to commit murder" was "hang the murderer". Pre-emptively banning people from owning things because they might do something undesirable is a concept that didn't really catch on here until late 19th century southern Democrats started worrying about keeping the local n-words in line.


So you disagree with Scaleya's contention that "to bear" means "to carry" and instead revert to fetishizing guys in wigs and false teeth from two hundred-twenty five years ago, and the time period in which they lived?

Got it.

chickelit said...

@ritmo: I know

Shouting Thomas said...

The fetish part is standard now, Ritmo the Retard.

Get that one every day from the alternet readers.

You can do better than this.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Ritmo the Retard doing his "I went to college!" routine again.

Jesus, Ritmo, I guess you're the first, huh?


I heard Scalia did, too.

Hell, maybe he'd even be impressed by your "intentionally unlearned" ways of discussing things. No one else is.

Don't you have a third-world country to visit and find people there to impress?

Inga said...

Yep, back to the good old days of wooden teeth.

mishu said...

I see douchey Ritmo is trying to highjack the thread. My what swagger he has over admitting he pisses himself at the sight of an AR-15. He's so scared of it, he wants the government to ban it.

Michael said...

ST. Our crazy Ritmo did not finish college if he went at all. He lets out these little bits and thinks no one notices. Being crazy.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, Ritmo the Retard, what you've got is the age old bit about guns being a substitute for a small penis.

Gee, that's original.

Link it to your undying love for blacks and how you're gonna be their Jesus one day, and our night will be complete.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Hey Thomas,

I hear that the Congo has some unmarried, scarred women looking for abusive guys. Have you considered flying over there?

Chip S. said...

Oh, good. I can stop trying to figure out Kant b/c he wore funny looking clothes.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Why the Jesus talk, Tommy?

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Oh, good. I can stop trying to figure out Kant b/c he wore funny looking clothes.

Did Kant propose that time stands still? Do the people who study him say that?

Geoff said...

"Oh, so the 18th century wasn't a "cool" enough time period for you in which to have a revolution?"

I'm not trying to throw a revolution.

Or change anyone, or do anything other than go my way.

It is just plain to me what the 2nd amendment was for and that it applies directly to the weapons trying to be banned.

"It only protects what a militia man would carry!"

Well, exactly.

The 1st amendment covers more than parchment and ink.

Blogs are pamplets.

AR-15s are muskets.

Shouting Thomas said...

Ritmo the Retard goes ballistic.

I think you should just skip the attempts at egghead posturing, and go straight for the stupid jackass insults.

What's really funny is you'll end your tirade with "Peace out."

chickelit said...

Ritmo said (gasp!) Because that wasn't said by me. In fact, that thought wasn't entertained by me.

You're quite the entertainer, there.

Shouting Thomas said...

That Congo bit could be regarded as racist, Ritmo the Retard.

Black woman live there.

You have a tendency to let your temper get the better of you.

MadisonMan said...

The primary reason I am attempting to buy a Garand is because it is both legal, and a weapon carried effectively on the battlefield.

I only have a Fox Sterlingworth, 16 gauge, double barrel.

Do I need more? No.

I Callahan said...

I'm sorry, Michael. I never knew. Your wife must have gone through a lot to keep those pre-op pics private.

A while back, our hostess came up with some commenting rules. As a matter of fact, while I type, I can look above about 6 inches on my screen and see something about "good faith".

Ritmo comes in and drops loads in these threads constantly, with absolutely no evidence of any good faith whatsoever, and continues to get away with it.

Ritmo - the above comment you made means that in addition to being a liberal (which is bad enough), you are an infected, shit-encrusted asshole.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I think you should just skip the attempts at egghead posturing, and go straight for the stupid jackass insults.

Awesome! Glad you agree.

I think I'll start with this one:

Q. Why did "Shouting Thomas" become a conservative?

A. Because he has a face that could stop a clock.

chickelit said...

Inga said...
Yep, back to the good old days of wooden teeth.

You afraid of getting splintered?

Chuck said...

Watching the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on C-SPAN right now.

One hilarious point made by Ted Cruz. When Feinstein was lecturing Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court decision in Columbia v Heller, she had seemingly forgotten (I had forgotten!) that Ted Cruz was the counsel of record (!!!) in the Supreme Court for 31 amicus states who supported striking down the D.C. gun ban.

Lecture Ted Cruz on Heller? It was (in part) HIS CASE!

Chip S. said...

You're the guy claiming that Madison, et al.'s views on politics are outdated b/c of powdered wigs.

It's not that time stands still; it's that certain principles endure. You can no more reject ideas just cuz they're old than you can claim that nothing new is worth knowing.

XRay said...

Fuck, I loved that. Facts versus emotional bullshit. What a concept.

Shouting Thomas said...

My face has stopped some of the most beautiful women in the world in their tracks, Ritmo the Retard, which you know.

So, we'll ascribe that remark to your tiny penis.

Do you have to bend over to see it?

Darleen said...

Actually, Congress DID try to carve out what was/wasn't acceptable books/media/speech in 2002

McCain-Feingold

Took Citizens United to slap it down.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Ritmo comes in and drops loads in these threads constantly, with absolutely no evidence of any good faith whatsoever...

You mean, other than the loads of un-refuted evidence I cited on the constitutional way of interpreting the 2nd amendment, based on what Justice Scalia actually said?

So I think that, if anything, that speaks to the lack of good faith of those who disagree.

chickelit said...

@ST: why are you so certain that Ritmo even has a penis?

wholelottasplainin' said...

DiFi should have stuck to acting.
She was at least passable in "Planet of the Apes".

But as a Senator asked to make a legal argument for screwing with the Constitution, she's pathetic.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

My face has stopped some of the most beautiful women in the world in their tracks, Ritmo the Retard, which you know.

Either that stopped them, or the back of your hand did.

Shouting Thomas said...

Ritmo the Retard does indeed have a habit of dropping loads.

You're supposed to shit in the toilet, kid.

Didn't anybody teach you?

I Callahan said...

Probably because it seems to be the weapon of choice for domestic mass murderers.

Absolutely, 100% wrong. Handguns kill more people than assault weapons, and dare I say, more people in mass shootings than assault weapons.

Revenant said...

Probably because it seems to be the weapon of choice for domestic mass murderers.

That would be handguns, actually, followed by shotguns. Semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are a distant third.

In any event it should be obvious that "dangerous" did not mean "kills people when you shoot them with it" or the SCOTUS would have simply said "all guns can be banned" and left it at that. A dangerous gun is one which kills or injures people its owner *doesn't* want to kill -- e.g., a gun prone to accidental discharge, a gun prone to explosive misfires, or a gun so poorly made that the bullet's path is unpredictable. That sort of thing.

Chef Mojo said...

Yep, back to the good old days of wooden teeth.

But, Inga? That's just the thing. Technology advances, whether with false teeth or firearms. Or medicine. In their lifetimes, the founding fathers saw the means to inoculate against smallpox, no matter how crudely. (Wonderful scene in the series John Adams illustrates that...).

One of the reasons we won the Revolution is that our rifles were better than theirs. Rather we actually had rifled muskets to their smoothbore muskets. Technology.

The AR-15 platform is mainstream, and has been for years. People who want to ban it want to ban all firearms, and they're lying if they say otherwise.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

@ST: why are you so certain that Ritmo even has a penis?

Lol. That's low. But maybe the best attempt at humor you can muster. I give credit.

It's probably payback for the talk of tails and gills, I suppose.

The tail one did go a bit far, I'll admit. But the bit on gills and zygotes, that's actually an accurate point. Nothing to be ashamed of, assuming you actually know what biology is. And aren't afraid of it - like Shouting Thomas is.

garage mahal said...

With all the police brutality going on in our cities against innocents, protesters, and whatnot, we shouldn't be talking about restricting their rights to protect themselves.

Arm the homeless too, I say.

AprilApple said...

Feinstein - the old decrepit modern democrat party. Sickening.

I Callahan said...

I think you should just skip the attempts at egghead posturing, and go straight for the stupid jackass insults.

ST, you must have missed his first 3 or 4 comments.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

In any event it should be obvious that "dangerous" did not mean "kills people when you shoot them with it" or the SCOTUS would have simply said "all guns can be banned" and left it at that. A dangerous gun is one which kills or injures people its owner *doesn't* want to kill -- e.g., a gun prone to accidental discharge, a gun prone to explosive misfires, or a gun so poorly made that the bullet's path is unpredictable. That sort of thing.

Bullshit. His willingness to uphold bans on Saturday Night Specials didn't have anything to do with this.

See? You're the most knowledgeable interlocutor here, and even you aren't bothering to get the facts straight. You don't care to.

AprilApple said...

Note she cannot answer the quesiton without lauching into 6th grade playgroud bullying.

Shouting Thomas said...

Whoops!

Ritmo the Retard segues back into egghead posturing mode!

Slippery little bastard.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

My face has stopped some of the most beautiful women in the world in their tracks, Ritmo the Retard, which you know.

The arrogance of this improbable statement aside, it's important to stop in one's tracks before turning and running in the other direction. Lol. ;-)

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Ritmo the Retard segues back into egghead posturing mode!

Slippery little bastard.


AKA: Facts frighten and confuse Shouting Thomas! Bad! No facts! No facts! Keep it personal and emotional ONLY!

Shouting Thomas said...

The arrogance of this improbable statement aside...

I'll give you some ammo to really shit yourself, Ritmo the Retard.

Myrna always told me... "If you've got it, flaunt it!"

See if you can resist the temptation to soil yourself.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

ST, you must have missed his first 3 or 4 comments.

What doesn't he miss? Only 3 or 4 this time?

mishu said...

I'm fascinated that DiFi thinks bullets can implode. Does she think there is fissile material in the bullets or a tiny vacuum chamber? I would have pressed her on that.

Shouting Thomas said...

Why would anybody attempt to engage a jerk like you in serious discussion, Ritmo the Retard?

Ridiculing and baiting you is the only sensible approach.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Why would anybody attempt to engage a jerk like you in serious discussion, Ritmo the Retard?

Because they're not as stupid as you and can actually engage in something called "facts" and reasoning.

Ridiculing and baiting you is the only sensible approach.

No. It's just all you're capable of.

wholelottasplainin' said...

O Ritmo Segundo said...


" Name me a single left-winger who objects to time, place and manner restrictions on the 1st amendment. "

How about Joe Biden, just yesterday, who demanded that a college journalist surrender photos of him taken at a public event?

Oh wait: that was a "miscommunication". One that occurred after the photos had been deleted.

How about the numerous attempts the WH has made to get certain stories "killed"?

Snork!


Shouting Thomas said...

So, to substance.

Feinstein was hilarious. She refused to answer the question and gave Cruz a completely irrelevant lecture that had something to do with the depth of her incredible emotions.

She's got a little bit of Ritmo the Retard in her.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Oh my, Thomas. That was pretty damn substantive.

You've got all the reasoning skills of a whoopee cushion.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Come to think of it, "old" and "wrong" are two ways of saying the same thing.

Harry Blackmun may have owned a leisure suit. Away with Roe v Wade therefore!

Shouting Thomas said...

I'm glad you're impressed, Ritmo the Retard.

You know, you're close to being in Typhoid Mary territory.

She is more reasonable on certain days than you are on your best days.

Revenant said...

So you disagree with Scaleya's contention that "to bear" means "to carry" and instead revert to fetishizing guys in wigs and false teeth from two hundred-twenty five years ago, and the time period in which they lived?

There is a procedure for amending the Constitution, Rit, and it doesn't involve complaining that the folks who wrote it wore funny clothes and lived a long time ago.

But in any event I didn't say the Constitution protects private ownership of artillery -- I said I doubted people used to private ownership of artillery would have been worried about hand-held explosives.

Shouting Thomas said...

I often wonder why you do this idiot act here, Ritmo the Retard.

I suspect we will never know.

AprilApple said...

The left want to plow over our rights to achieve their ultimate goal. No guns. Hugo Chavez has a gun and a military - you don't. Sucks to be you.
That's what the left want.

I know a hard core lefty liberal who thinks that she (yes she) should be able to own the same guns as our military. Why not? Why this assumption that we shouldn’t?


What do we get from the left - emotion. Emotion that will never do a thing but criminalize law abiding owners while these gun=grabbing anti 2nd amendment progressive laws do nothing to prevent criminals from committing crimes.

Look at the blue state model. Blue states with strict anti-gun anti 2nd amendment laws have issues with gun crime. Institutions that advertise "gun free zone!" are targets of gun crime. Hi - I’m un-armed please victimize me. All thanks to Feinstein's ridiculous emotionalist thinking.

Gahrie said...

But I can't seem to find James Madison's take on how slow and stodgy a hunter one had to be in the 18th century to miss a buck without the help of an AR-15.

Me either. But I do know he was OK with private citizens owning modern warships, mounting modern weapons engaging in warfare for profit against our enemies.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, what I gathered from Feinstein's tear-jerker was the assertion that anybody who disagrees with her is in favor of school children being chopped into pieces with automatic weapon fire.

That's reasoning worthy of Ritmo the Retard.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

There is a procedure for amending the Constitution, Rit, and it doesn't involve complaining that the folks who wrote it wore funny clothes and lived a long time ago.

That wasn't said for the purpose of amending anything, which I think you know. It was said to call out people who think their colonial fetishization absolve them from having a point.

But in any event I didn't say the Constitution protects private ownership of artillery -- I said I doubted people used to private ownership of artillery would have been worried about hand-held explosives.

Ok, then. So you admit that you didn't have a point, either.

But at least you're intelligent enough to limit the fetishizing and understand what's relevant (and probably reluctantly, what isn't) to Ted's argument.

Now watch as Shouting Thomas objects to the factual nature of this exchange. I hope he doesn't wail about how it isn't emotional and dumbed-down enough for him.

AprilApple said...

Cruz speaks of the constituion with thoughtfulness. That's his job.
Feinstein rambles off the standard democrat crap: 'Don't you know who I am! How dare you!"

Revenant said...

With all the police brutality going on in our cities against innocents, protesters, and whatnot, we shouldn't be talking about restricting their rights to protect themselves.

I realize you almost certainly meant that sarcastically, but: correct. :)

AprilApple said...

Yep Shouting T.

Feinstein's lame old tired argument - If you don't agree with her emotion, you must want to slaughter little kids.

Shouting Thomas said...

Back to the festish angle.

Ritmo the Retard, you're just a fucking indoctrinated dope.

The funny thing is that you really seem to run on angry testosterone.

I often wonder about young men who've absorbed the idiot feminist indoctrination, but still are beset by testosterone.

Seems to confuse you. As I said, you'll end up with the "Peace Out!" bullshit.

One day, you sort out the confusion.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Cruz speaks of the constituion with thoughtfulness. That's his job.
Feinstein rambles off the standard democrat crap: 'Don't you know who I am! How dare you!"


That's 'cause he looked like an obstinate, hectoring asshole. And one who couldn't be bothered with the relevant facts.

Much like Shouting Thomas.

Bobo McChimp said...

Totally agree with Shouting Thomas!

Shouting Thomas said...

That's 'cause he looked like an obstinate, hectoring asshole.

That's exactly how I'd describe you, Ritmo the Retard.

And, you reach this same emotionally hysterical pitch over every issue you discuss.

Amazing that, isn't it?

Shouting Thomas said...

Ritmo waves the white flag of surrender!

Bobo McChimp said...

Mirabelle!

AprilApple said...

What we get from the left when they cannot articulate an actual argument:

"How dare you!"
Right after the "how dare you!" they inevitably roll out the straw man. Stand back and watch it burn.

garage mahal said...

I realize you almost certainly meant that sarcastically, but: correct. :)

Actually I'm quite serious.

Bobo McChimp said...

Hey man! Where did Shouting Thomas go?

Come back here, Dude! Let's jam!

rcommal said...

Ritmo:

Stand up. Forget the back and forth. Be, simply, straightforward, all that other stuff aside.

Just list your proposal for how (if and when, & etc.) guns and ammunition and so forth should be regulated, straight out and plain. Use a number list, or an alphabet list, or whatever, if you want. Do it however you want to/need to. But just do it: list it & explicate it.

I've read your comments for many years now. You are an old commenter, as am I. It's been a long time. Going on a decade; close enough, at least.

Do that thing, Ritmo, this one time, the thing I just suggested in a previous comment:

Just list your proposal for how (if and when, & etc.) guns and ammunition and so forth should be regulated, straight out and plain. Use a number list, or an alphabet list, or whatever, if you want. Do it however you want to/need to. But just do it: List it & explicate it.

Just do it. State it plain

Shouting Thomas said...

Thanks for the compliment, Ritmo the Retard.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Bobo McChimp said...

I'm just getting started!

We can practice our guitars later!

Mirabelle!

Shouting Thomas said...

No, Ritmo the Retard, you can't play music with me.

You haven't got the chops.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 295   Newer› Newest»