March 14, 2013

Ted Cruz vs. Dianne Feinstein.

294 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 294 of 294
Revenant said...

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

The Heller opinion makes no mention of bans on Saturday Night Specials. It may be that Scalia has privately said he thinks such weapons may be banned, but his private opinions have no legal relevance.

The opinion did, however, state that commonly-used firearms were protected, and the AR-15 is the most commonly used rifle in America. :)

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

The opinion did, however, state that commonly-used firearms were protected.

No it didn't. It said that "unusual" weapons weren't. Which begs the question of what to do with weapons made illegal before they became unusual.

Revenant said...

Actually I'm quite serious.

Well, cool then. :)

Bruce Hayden said...

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.

Except that both are military weapons. One interesting thing about the Miller case is that it was based on the established fact that the sawed off shotgun in question was not a military weapon - except that it was - the military used such in WWI to clear trenches. And, that was the reason that they adopted the Thompson submachine gun. The problem there was essentially ineffectual counsel, with the Miller record being essentially worthless for his defense.

In any case, shotguns are used by the military, as are handguns. My understanding is that revolvers were replaced by magazine fed semiautomatic handguns in the early part of the 20th Century, and the .45 1911 ACP handgun was adopted in, you guessed it, 1911. Yes, that means that the U.S. military has been officially using magazine fed semiautomatic handguns for over 100 years now. Almost two million were produced right before and during WWII for use by the American military, and it was been adopted at some time by maybe 35 countries including Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the PRC. Officially, it was replaced by the Baretta 9mm M9 in 1986, but is still in use by special operations troops to this day. Probably the most famous magazine fed semiautomatic handgun ever manufactured.

As an extra piece of trivia, the 1911 ACP was declared the Utah state handgun to honor native son John Moses Browning, its inventor, who also invented the M2 heavy machine gun still in heavy use by our military, and the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) used to kill Bonnie and Clyde.

Emil Blatz said...

Cruz is en fuego! Keep up the good work!

He asked a very clear and concise question, which she not only never answered, but which she responded to with a lot of disjointed emotional appeals. Honey, that's not how we evaluate the constitutionality of legislation!

She is 76+ and it's showing.

Revenant said...

No it didn't. It said that "unusual" weapons weren't. Which begs the question of what to do with weapons made illegal before they became unusual.

It affirmed the Miller holding that weapons in common use are protected.

But yes, it did say that "unusual" weapons may be banned. How the most common rifle in use can be "unusual" when "unusual" means "not usual, common, or ordinary" is left as an exercise for the reader. :)

Revenant said...

Bruce, I agree that the military uses those weapons. I was just saying that since you can have an effective military without them, I can see a ban on them being upheld.

Wisconsin Republican Alliance said...

That's awesome that you think Ritmo is flattering you, Shouting Thomas!

Myself, I would pay homage to you even if you looked like this.

MFindlay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MFindlay said...

Hey Ritmo,

Care to provide a page cite to back up the following claim:

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

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

But yes, it did say that "unusual" weapons may be banned. How the most common rifle in use can be "unusual" when "unusual" means "not usual, common, or ordinary" is left as an exercise for the reader. :)

The reader astute enough to understand that certain weapons were made unusual by their being, first, made illegal.

Scalia introduced some circuitous reasoning into his ruling therefore that any astute reader understands will be left for later courts to clean up.

But not for you. I guess you're just not, well, "astute" enough.

Shouting Thomas said...

I'm glad you spend so much time at my site, Ritmo the Retard.

Great video of a Serbian girl who plays the blues with incredible conviction today.

Not to be missed.

LilyBart said...

Glad Feinstein made clear she's "not a sixth grader"

This is idiotic. Nobody's accused her of being 'a sixth grader'.

She's accused of not respecting the 2nd Amendment, and the peoples' right to bear arms.

Bruce Hayden said...

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.

What must be remembered about the AR-15 is that it has evolved significantly since the select fire version was officially adopted as the M16 50 years ago. DiFi and the gungrabbers trying to ban "military style assault weapons" are essentially trying to turn back gun technology by at least those 50 years. A modern AR-15 is built using modern manufacturing techniques (including 3D printing) using modern materials, and incorporates numerous engineering improvements over the rifles that DiFi would (at least temporarily) allow us to keep. As I noted earlier, the WWII M1 Garand, etc. essentially used the same sort of wood stock used in colonial times, except with a semiautomatic loading and firing mechanism. That is now over 50 years obsolete. The AR-15 is a modern rifle, and is safer, easier to maintain, more reliable, and accurate, with less recoil than the rifles it replaced.

Part of why the AR-15 family is so popular these days is that it is the PC of long guns (and, no, I didn't come up with the analogy). It is almost completely modular, with different buts, upper receivers, barrels, and accessories easily swapped in and out. You really can't say that it is inappropriate for hunting, since it has been configured for pretty much any rifle caliber from .22 all the way up to .50 BMG (which apparently has to be side loaded, but certainly has been done). Maybe a .223 AR-15 isn't powerful enough for deer or elk. What about .306? etc. And with the introduction of rail systems, accessories, including different sights (including night vision), lights, etc. are easily added and replaced.

One of the interesting things going on right now in the AR-15 arena is the self-manufacture of lower receivers. They are the part that has the serial number, which is required if you are going to transfer ownership. But, you can make one, and as long as you don't transfer ownership, no serial number is currently required. And, then you just add the desired parts - upper receiver and barrel of the desired caliber, butt, etc. You can start with an 80% (I think) complete receiver, and then mill the holes. Jigs are available, but currently it takes more machine tools than most have in their garages. Or, you can make one using 3D printing, with publically available plans.

I have always assumed that if a new AWB is enacted, this loophole would be closed. We shall see.

Anonymous said...

Hand grenades for every citizen! Demand it!

Achilles said...

Facts:

1. More people were killed by knives and stabbing weapons for the last several years than all rifles. That includes "assault weapons."

2. More people were killed with clubs and blunt weapons than all rifles over the last several years.

3. More people were beaten to death or choked with bare hands than were killed with all rifles over the last several years.

Fact: All of these murders were already illegal and resulted in someone getting killed. Knives, clubs, and bare hands are all more dangerous to the average citizen than assault weapons.

Fact: Any new law abridging our second amendment rights is targeted specifically at law abiding citizens. Murderers are already breaking a law that results in life in prison or death. Adding a new law does nothing to them.

People who support gun control are either stupid or evil. There are no good intentions here. Hitler took guns from the population. So did Mao. So did Lenin and Stalin. Governments around the world that disarmed citizens have killed millions. They all said it couldn't happen here too. You have a better chance of being beaten to death than shot with an AR-15. Feinsteins law exempts federal officials. The only reason to pass a gun control law that exempts the feds is to exert control over the citizens.

Sheridan said...

"Something Must Be Done"!!! That's my new motto. For everything.

There's only one way to resolve this endless, annoying debate regarding the validity of the Second Amendment.

Ask Cedarford! He helped us get through the Benghazi mess. He can certainly help us with this trivial matter of interpreting the Constitution! After all, for C4, the Constitution is just an operating manual like the pamphlet that comes with your basement sump pump. Don't like what the Founders (dirty old white men) created? Words seem fuzzy or anachronistic? Just change them to suit your mood at the moment! Hey, everything is subject to revision!

Cedarford, where are you? Enlighten us!

Revenant said...

The reader astute enough to understand that certain weapons were made unusual by their being, first, made illegal.

It would indeed take an "astute" mind to interpret the court's ruling as meaning "weapons which are made illegal may be banned".

Anyhoo, you're out of luck if you're hoping the court will accept an argument that Feinstein is banning "unusual or dangerous" weapons. She gave that game away when she allowed police and current owners to keep them. :)

Synova said...

"Hand grenades for every citizen! Demand it!"

Only if they come with a launcher and a tank.

It's a curious thing, really... the more people argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn't really mean military weapons the more it becomes clear that it really and truly does mean military weapons.

What else could it mean?

But really, most gun-nut sorts have been entirely on-board with strict limits - with "reasonable" limits. Hunting guns and self-defense guns and ordinary sorts of weapons, and maybe a .50 shouldn't be restricted but it just wasn't that big a deal. Then someone said... but not the scary looking ones, because those are scary... started saying it was all about HUNTING.

Clearly the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

And if the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting then, logically, the conclusion must be that the 2nd Amendment is about military weapons. And if it is military weapons, then that's what it is.

So yes, grenades. The launcher. And maybe a tank if it strikes your fancy and you've room for it. People build rockets, have the know how and ability to create chemical weapons and bombs in their homes, handle multi-ton killing vehicles every single day. Stopping someone from having a *tank* is not going to keep anyone from killing you.

chickelit said...

If men can't bear arms in the woods, only the bears will be armed.

Revenant said...

Hand grenades for every citizen! Demand it!

Why? Just as an example, I can defend your right to act like a cunt without wishing everyone else did.

chickelit said...

Cedarford, where are you? Enlighten us!

He must be cooking up some Progresso Stew for dinner somewhere.

Chip S. said...

progressive stews

chickelit said...

@Inga: Please distinguish between things already forbidden--like grenades--and more things being added to the forbidden list.

Revenant said...

People build rockets, have the know how and ability to create chemical weapons and bombs in their homes, handle multi-ton killing vehicles every single day. Stopping someone from having a *tank* is not going to keep anyone from killing you.

For that matter, if someone DID buy a tank with the intent of killing innocent people you should be thankful he wasted his money. You could literally pull off a thousand Oklahoma City-style bombings with that kind of budget.

Synova said...

"@Inga: Please distinguish between things already forbidden--like grenades--and more things being added to the forbidden list."

People were pretty comfortable with what was already forbidden - didn't question it much. You couldn't buy a machine gun, but you could get a nifty looking AR. Who was agitating about what was already forbidden?

But start trying to add more things to the list, try start saying but no one *needs* more than six bullets, or ten... no one *needs* more than six shells in their shot-gun... no one *needs* a black, plastic, gun... no one *needs* a tricked out rifle...

And you think... no one *needs* to duck hunt.

And then you wonder why anyone put up with those clearly unconstitutional restrictions at all, and why should you?

Achilles said...

If people could have M2 .50 cals I guarantee more people would be killed by knives than by .50 cals. If people could have grenades almost nobody would be killed by them. Less than 500 people have been killed by assault weapons as they are defined per year for the last several years. These stupid give everyone a grenade straw men misses the point. This is about the government controlling the citizens.

I firmly put Inga in the stupid camp, rather than the evil camp though.

Cincinnatus said...

Feinstein can't actually form a coherent argument, so she dances in the pools of blood like any ghoul.

Cincinnatus said...

" ... Saturday Night Specials ..."

And Ritmo brings up the racist origins of gun control without even meaning to. How amusing.

dhagood said...

@chip s: nice link :)

Anonymous said...

Why Achilles, you are a heel!

Anonymous said...

Actually the point is that so many misrepresent the Second Amendment's purpose, it's not meant to allow citizens to arm themselves to the teeth.

Anonymous said...

Revenant I will defend your right to be a prick on every thread!

Anonymous said...

Going to bed and dream of hand grenades dancing in circles, longing for my weapons.....Must... Have... Them.

AlanKH said...

I liked Feinstein better when she was that psychiatric nurse opposite Jack Nicholson.

dreams said...

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

Because that is the way they all do, you would know that if you had ever watch any hearings. It is all emotion, feelings with liberals and you're seem like a liberal to me.

chickelit said...

Inga said...
Going to bed and dream of hand grenades dancing in circles, longing for my weapons.....Must... Have... Them.

Inga's going to bed to dream of "Happiness Is A Warm Gun"

Gahrie said...

Actually the point is that so many misrepresent the Second Amendment's purpose, it's not meant to allow citizens to arm themselves to the teeth.

Actually, that is precisely the 2nd Amendment's purpose.

What part of privately owned modern warship and privately owned field artillery is hard to understand?

Anonymous said...

It's good to see under the 2 Obama terms all these liberal wish lists that are being pulled out of the drawer, dusted off and present to the American people.

Sometimes they don't seem to like us, trust us, or really believe in that much freedom.

virgil xenophon said...

Following on Gahrie, iirc, up thru the Civil War civilians, without being requested by the Army, raised their own companies of men, to include field artillery as well as rifles, uniforms and supplies, and then presented themselves to the Army (Union) to be commissioned on active duty.

Revenant said...

Actually the point is that so many misrepresent the Second Amendment's purpose, it's not meant to allow citizens to arm themselves to the teeth.

I like that you tell us what you think the Second Amendment's purpose isn't but don't actually say what you think the purpose *is*.

In any event, talking about "arming yourself to the teeth" is a pointless distraction. One person can effectively use one gun at a time, even if he owns a million firearms.

Revenant said...

Revenant I will defend your right to be a prick on every thread!

Come now, Inga, who are you kidding? You haven't defended another person's rights in your entire life.

If it doesn't personally affect your silly fat ass you couldn't care less about it. :)

JAL said...

As noted above, the military issues semi-automatic side arms. Have a pix of family member wearing one when deployed.

But to lighten the discussion up (relevantly) let us return to Joe Biden's advice about owning a shotgun (versus an Ar-15). Watch all the way through for the proper impact.

JAL said...

CDC 2010: One half (>5500) black males were victims out of a TOTAL of 11,000+ firearm homicides. (Most would be illegal handguns, not many AR-15s)

Who are the racists again?

Feinstein & Company need to deal with the roots of the fratricide in urban America before they take a hatchet to the Bill of Rights.

But they are scared to death to do so because it is the proverbial Gordian knot they can't cheat their way around. And as they must DO SOMETHING!!! to show they care restricting firearm ownership for law abiding Americans makes them feel so much better.

Does nothing for black at risk Americans and even would make it harder for some to legally defend themselves, instead of easier.

Kirk Parker said...

Bruce!

Please, don't fall into that old Miller trap. Miller did not hold that the shotgun was not a military weapon. The decision says that only military weapons are protected by the second, that there was nothing in the trail record that addresses this point, and remanded the case (which unfortunately became moot due to Miller's demise before any further proceedings could issue.)

Kirk Parker said...

Inga,

You're completely 100 percent wrong. That's exactly what the 2nd Amendment means--that the ordinary citizen can arm themselves in every way equivalent to the standard military infantryman.

Kirk Parker said...

MadMan,

"Do I need more? No"

Better hope your assailants never come in more than twos, and that your aim is always both perfect and effective.

Kirk Parker said...

Gahrie,

Didn't people already have the right to "buy or build the most modern warship available"?

The letter of marque just handled the "use it in open warfare againSt the nation's enemies" part.

Kirk Parker said...

Oh, and I almost forgot:

Go to hell, Senator Feinstein! What a despicable, contemptible wretch you are. You are supposed to be our representative, our servant. Not lording it over us...

Achilles said...

Yay Inga makes a joke!

She also called me a heel which was witty the first time someone used that.

The second amendment was specifically intended to keep the balance of power in favor of the individual against the state. Numerous founders are quoted in writing in that context. You have to be astoundingly ignorant to believe otherwise. And why are gun grabbers so he'll bent on giving the government a monopoly on force? The greatest mass murderers in history are governments that first disarmed their people.

Ritmo and Inga and all of the other gun grabbers demonstrate the complete absence of rational support for gun control laws. You guys were terrible even compared to other gun grabbers.

Rusty said...

Inga said...
Hand grenades for every citizen! Demand it!

hand grenades fall under the description of "destructive devices" and don't fall under the NFA act of 1934.
Only fully automatic firearms and rifles with a barrel length under 16 inches and shotguns without a stock with a barrel length under 18 inches fall under this act. Those firearms aren't illegal to own. They simply require a tax be paid.
You can still own a destructive device if you want to, but that''s another tax. Pay the tax and you can own any weapon over .50 cal. including artillery.

As far as banning assault style semiautomatic weapons goes, well that horse has left the barn. Good luck. All it will accomplish will be to make millions of legal gun owners outlaws. It may not be legal anyway since it would deprive citizens of their property without compensation.

Just more legislation designed to make folks without critical thinking skills feel good about themselves.

Unknown said...

Congress is the first line of defense against unconstitutional laws, the President is the second line, and the Supreme Court is the final line. If the first two do not care to ensure that laws remain consitutional, why would the latter, whose members are appointed by the second and approved by the first, give any more damn about the Constitution.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Aw. The poor old gal feels patronized. "How dare Cruz disrespect Feinstein by talking about The Constitution in a thoughtful way that stands behind it and the citizens it protects.

Doesn't Cruz know who she is?! - Feinstein has been a politician for life and on a committee for life and she knows best and how dare you question the old authoritarian democrat!
Hold me, Bliztie.

becket03 said...

Cruz asked about a reasonable comparison, albeit one which isn't exactly apples to apples. If Feinstein had noted the distinctions astutely, e.g., by pointing out the disparity in killing power between a book and a gun, she might have carried the argument, or at least presented a reasonable rebuttal.

Instead she got all huffy and offended, intent on slapping down her interlocutor by heatedly presenting her presumably superior bona fides. She took it personal and it showed, and that's always a mistake in debate.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
virgil xenophon said...

@AprilApple/

You should've seen "Morning Joe" this am. Mika & Joe BOTH went bat-shit crazy on Cruz, calling his views "criminal" "obscene" and otherwise totally so extremist as "to ignore the facts" of the 2nd Amend and American history, etc. One of the most unbelievable displays of ignorance, (of both history, the law and basic facts regarding types of guns) and moral arrogance I've EVER seen in a loooongg, long time..

Anonymous said...

Rev, well if my ass is so fat, why do you keep grabbing it? And as for the heel, I never grabbed your gun.

:). :)

Anonymous said...

Go Mika, go Joe! THAT is what the majority of Americans think about this sick gun fascination.

virgil xenophon said...

PS to AA:

I'm very serious when I say that if one took today's meltdown by Mika & Joe by itself one could come to one--and only one--single, solitary conclusion: Cruz is the Anti-Christ.

Don M said...

Interesting how the leftists wet themselves when Feinstein got schooled. Cruse makes the point that her proposed law is legal. She doesn't care, because she is old and scared. I can at least say that as a cit of CA I have always voted against her.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Morning Joe? - No never watch it.
Not a surprise to hear it's an emotionalist display of stupidity and ignornace.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Democrat feelings and whims are superior to the US Constitution.

Democrats are not creative or thoughtful enough to figure out how to stop criminals, so they go after low hanging fruit: The criminalization of the law abiding citizen.

virgil xenophon said...

@AA:

I know it's tough sledding, but you really should at least "sample" Morning Joe (up to the limits of the 'throw-up-in-the-mouth factor) regularly if only under the rubric of "Know Your Enemy."

Roger J. said...

Ted Cruz appears to me to be a pretty sharp guy--he has actually argued cases before the supreme court and has been on the winning side in some of them. From my impression he seems to have handed Senator Feinstein her ass (although a bucketloader would probably been necessary)

virgil xenophon said...

@AA (once again) @8:17

Yes, it's the same psychology used by the drunk who has lost his car keys in a darkened alley but insists on looking for them under the brightly-lit corner streetlamp on the main drag "because the light is so much better there."

virgil xenophon said...

PPS to AA: And (you'll love this) to top it all off MJ also had "The Rev" Al Sharpton aboard as well, opining on gun-control and offering his special brand of "wisdom" to complete the picture. Perfect.

Roger J. said...

I do rather enjoy the discussions of the uninformed about military weapons--I have some experience with their use and the amount of ignorance with respect to their capabilities and use is mind-boggling. For example: the Browning Mod 2 MG is a great military weapon--as for any civilian use, anyone who thinks it can be used without a tripod and linked ammunition is indeed as fool. the weapon and tripod and ammunication requirements are very heavy which is why they were either mounted or crew served.

As for warships by use by civilians--indeed the case. Letters of Marque commissioned private ship owners to use their private resources to carry out combat operations. The American privateer Rambler did significant damage against british shipping during the war of 1812 and fought british warships as well.

Roger J. said...

Oh--and Inga, re hand grenades--they no longer look like pineapples but more like baseballs. And have been such for 50 years--you may want to stop watching "sands of iwo jima" for factual references.

JAL said...

Is infringing on the rights of the American citizen to won firearms a step towards chipping aweay at teh Bill of Rights?

Mrs. Feinstein has an "Up close and personal" relationship with the Constitution.

Funny how 1. That wasn't Cruz's question and 2. Nothing of the Consitution, especially the Bill of Rights seems to have rubbed off on her.

Term limits. These people (multi-term politicians) think they are royalty.

Make them all fly coach.

Roger J. said...

I note that Senator Feinstein played the patronized card on an interview last nite--Poor girl schtick--This from a senator who has enriched he family fortune on her position as a senator by funneling public money to her family. Sorry Di baby--not buying--you got your ass handed to you and now you are a victim. Bullshit

harkin said...

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

Interesting because that hypothetical was used by Justice Holmes to make it an equally "clear and present danger" to the country for antiwar socialists to distribute pamphlets encouraging young men to defy the draft. So the "fire" argument was a bucket of grease liberally applied to the slippery slope.

madAsHell said...

"I've seen the bullets that implode"

Really?? Imploding bullets?

I gotta get me some of them imploding bullets!!

Methadras said...

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.


No, it was the hammers way of saying cruz was rude. Cruz was brilliant and Douchesteins little act of getting uppity and getting her preened little feathers ruffled on que stated how long and how many laws shes signed and authored in the senate. If there was ever a reason for term limits the senate is it. 2 term limit, then goodbye. If you can't get your shit done in 12 years, you suck. If however you are there for decades to weaken this country like she is attempting to and has done in the past, then it's time to take you out back and put you out of your misery.

Bruce Hayden said...

As far as banning assault style semiautomatic weapons goes, well that horse has left the barn. Good luck. All it will accomplish will be to make millions of legal gun owners outlaws. It may not be legal anyway since it would deprive citizens of their property without compensation.


Except that it is unlikely that a new AWB would be Constitutional. Or, at least not until a couple of Justices turn over. Heller said that the 2nd Amdt. required a heightened level of scrutiny. A lot of people think that that should mean strict scrutiny, like with much of the 1st Amdt. But the Court explicitly did not say. It is just higher than rational basis. That means that, at a minimum, the government needs some strong interest and there has to be some corrrelation between the law and the problem that the law is supposed to address. Possibly much higher.

So, here we have a weapon that may be used in low double digits of murders a year. If that. Not many rifles used, and only a small number of those are currently "assault weapons" (yes, there are plenty of illegal assault rifles smuggled into this country along with drugs in the hands of gangs, but they are already illegal under the 1934 NFA et seq.) The number of murders every year by the weapons that are currently legal, but would be illegal under DiFi's bill, is miniscule. Nearing drowning in mop=bucket territory, in a population of 300+ million people. The legislation would have a hard time surviving a rational basis test, given the almost total disconnect between any actual harm and the proposed legislative solution. But we know from Heller that the level of scrutiny is higher than that, just not how much higher. The DC gun law invalidated by Heller at least somewhat addressed the weapon that causes so many deaths in this country. DiFi's bill bans millions of weapons that are used in almost no murders every year (ok, unless you are a PETA member, and then your definition of "murder" may be a bit different than for the rest of us).

Throw in the fact that the general press, and even DiFi, are calling these "military-style" weapons. This would seem to be an admission that these weapons are as close to the types of weapons used by the military as you can get. Don't any of the opponents using this terminology remember the Miller case and the Militia clause of the 2nd Amdt? Private ownership of "military-style" weapons (esp. those that share some parts with actual military weapons, as the AR-15 does) would seemingly get more, not less, protection under the 2nd Amdt. than the handgun in Heller.

I don't think that there is much chance that DiFi's bill would survive Constitutional muster. Less chance than pretty much anything else they could have proposed.

Methadras said...

Andy R. said...

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


I think you are confusing yelling about a fire in a theater vs. yelling about that very fire in your crotch that you got at a theater. It's easy to do, honey.

Unknown said...

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

Mossberg and Bennelli sell quite a few shotguns to the the USMC, Army and the various National Guards. And then there are the millions of 92fs that Beretta ships to the US military.

Historically, militia, partisan and guerrilla forces are more likely to be armed with shotguns than other long arms.

Anonymous said...

Andy R,

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

You do realize that his saying came about during the case that upheld using a law to convict a man speaking out against the draft during WWI.

Additionally, yelling fire in a crowded theater would have zero affect. No panic would occur. People aren't the idiots, the way that the evil Justice Holmes thinks they are. That you quote this quite heinous of individuals approvingly only shows how uneducated you are about US history and the man who mouthed that sentence. You should keep in mind that if it were up to Justice Holmes you would be sterilized.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Feinstein's bill is dead in the water in the open senate.

Suck it leftards.

Bruce Hayden said...

An interesting theory: Liberals use gun control to claim cultural superiority:

Gun control efforts are largely a culture-war offensive by liberals who dislike the parts of America that own guns and love guns. This meddling motivation shines through in the rhetoric of gun control advocates and in the laws they push.

To some real extent, we have Ted Cruz arguing Constitutional law, while DiFi is instead fighting a culture war. She may know, deep down, that her proposed legislation is highly unlikely to fail Constitutional muster, and if she doesn't, other Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee voting for it yesterday surely do. But, according to that article, that isn't the point of the legislation. Rather, it is to further the cultural debate and to paint gun owners and enthusiasts as troglodytes.

Bruce Hayden said...

Sorry, accidentally got a double negative in my last post. Should have read:

She may know, deep down, that her proposed legislation is highly unlikely to pass Constitutional muster, and if she doesn't, other Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee voting for it yesterday surely do.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

virgil-- ugh. just shoot me!

Ken said...

MadMan,

After two shots from your double barrel you will definitely need more. Event after event shows that under stress it's easy to miss even with a shotgun. I guess you can use the shotgun as a club after your two shots, where as I and all other prepared citizens will comtinue to shoot at our attackers.

Rosalyn C. said...

I thought Cruz came across as pompous and condescending. He doesn't win points for that in the Senate or in any elected position. Sure his background is impressive, but ultimately he appears immature:

Ted has authored more than 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued 43 oral arguments, including nine before the U.S. Supreme Court. During Ted’s service as Solicitor General, Texas achieved an unprecedented series of landmark national victories, including successfully defending:

U.S. sovereignty against the UN and the World Court in Medellin v. Texas;
the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms;
the constitutionality of the Texas Ten Commandments monument;
the constitutionality of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance;
the constitutionality of the Texas Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment law; and
the Texas congressional redistricting plan.

The National Law Journal has called Ted “a key voice” to whom “the [U.S. Supreme Court] Justices listen.” Ted has been named by American Lawyer magazine as one of the 50 Best Litigators under 45 in America, by the National Law Journal as one of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America, and by Texas Lawyer as one of the 25 Greatest Texas Lawyers of the Past Quarter Century.

Ted graduated with honors from Princeton University and with high honors from Harvard Law School. He served as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court. He was the first Hispanic ever to clerk for the Chief Justice of the United States.
from: tedcruz.org/bio

Andy Freeman said...

Right after the Milk/Moscone murders, Feinstein got a CCW. That's almost impossible in SF.

It's good to be the mayor.

Jim Bullock said...

First (actually toward the end of her comments) the assertion that we're here to make laws. Notice the absence of reference to an overriding charter limiting those laws, or any concept of intrinsic rights of the governed, or limitations on the governing. Also lacking - useful, relevant, appropriate or beneficial qualifying "laws." We're here to make laws, because that's what we're here for.

Next, the "fire in a movie theater" analogy is specious. I hope Cruz is waiting for an opportune time to make this point to a broader audience, say when they're being shot up on some talk show. We don't ban the word "fire", we ban using that word in "inappropriate" ways. The *tool*, which has legitimate uses, isn't the point. Certain *misuse* is banned, for speech along with certain *uses* being specifically, strongly protected.

That's an analogy between speech and guns that I can live with. Also, it's accurate.

In the end the anti-gun folks want to restrict the scope of action of independent people. You are not allowed the independent, autonomous use of force at your own discretion, subject to penalty for specific abuse. Substitute the right to contract into the anti-gun arguments to get the idea. Really why should people have the general right to contract when so many use it foolishly, and more abuse others through its use. I've seen the bodies, and contracts never serve to protect or enable people.

I'm hoping Cruz or someone else is waiting to lay this out in the right moment on some talk show. The problem is patience. You have to wait for the other side of the argument to set up the premise, or you look all tinfoil hat-y. Let them go there, then point out the scope and reach - "extremism" even - of their position. The tell is the word "permitted."

Cruz wasn't obnoxious. Obnoxious would be to respond: "Well, since the 2nd amendment seems to be in the way, let's fix that as we have many times before. 'Resolved: The second amendment to the constitution is hereby repealed.' I'll be proposing this in the appropriate legislative form for this chamber in this session. I'll be looking to the distinguished Senator as a cosponsor."

Known Unknown said...

, by pointing out the disparity in killing power between a book and a gun, she might have carried the argument, or at least presented a reasonable rebuttal.

What in the wrong hands could kill more people ... an AR-15 or a copy of Mein Kampf?

Guildofcannonballs said...

Look you idiot subjects, Congress does what the fuck they want and the Supreme Court says if it is okay.

Congress isn't responsible.

The Supreme Court says the people must decide the tough ones too, not just the easy ones.

The Supreme Court isn't responsible.

Obama claims responsibility for everything he has affected in the slightest degree across the entire universe, and none of the things he has affected are bad.

It is Bush and the fucking bigot bastard Republicans killing our country.

They are responsible for it* all.

*It refers here to bad stuff.

And Lydia I agree Cruz came across as the meanest, jerkiest, crudest and rudest thing (I won't call him a man) I have ever seen.

Texas isn't just another country, it's another fucking planet people.

Good God Almighty.

Revenant said...

Rev, well if my ass is so fat, why do you keep grabbing it?

I like big butts and I cannot lie.

Revenant said...

Mossberg and Bennelli sell quite a few shotguns to the the USMC, Army and the various National Guards. And then there are the millions of 92fs that Beretta ships to the US military. Historically, militia, partisan and guerrilla forces are more likely to be armed with shotguns than other long arms.

I phrased this really badly the first time around, I think. :)

Yes, the military uses shotguns, but you would want a civilian militia to be equipped with rifles. An even vaguely well-trained modern army would make mincemeat of an opposing force that had shotguns or handguns as their primary armament.

Thus, I think it is possible that courts could allow a ban on those weapons, since (unlike "assault weapons") they really ARE frequently used in crimes and have comparatively little military value. No military has ever lost a war because it lacked pistols and shotguns.

RonF said...

Andy R:

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

No, he doesn't know that. Because what he does know is that you're wrong. You CAN yell "fire" in a crowded theater IF there's a fire. Which, in those cities dominated by Democratic legislatures and executives, there are. I live near Chicago. We don't have a gun violence problem. We have a gang violence problem. We just had an 18-month old baby killed last week when someone shot at her father while he was changing her diaper. Five shots hit him but didn't kill him. One shot hit her. She survived a couple of days before she died. He was shot 5 times because he was a gangster. If he had not been, that girl would be alive today.

Let's face it - people who have tried to live their lives in a law-abiding fashion don't have a lot of patience for politicans or anti-civil rights activists who are trying to take away their self-defense choices because a criminal class whose morals and culture has been encouraged by the very laws those people passed cannot control itself.

Fred Drinkwater said...

Cruz was either uninformed about DiFi's actual stance toward the 1st amendment (yes, the first), or he was deploying a subtle trap for her.
Based on years of listening to her talk about the 1st amendment, I believe she has as little respect for it, as for the 2nd.
Any guesses what she thinks about the others, and the document they amend?

Bruce Hayden said...

Which, in those cities dominated by Democratic legislatures and executives, there are. I live near Chicago. We don't have a gun violence problem. We have a gang violence problem.

This cannot be said too often. The gun grabbers, often elected officials for large inner cities, are using the excuse of their gun violence as an excuse to deprive law abiding citizens of their 2nd Amdt. rights to keep and bear arms. But, it is an inner city gang violence problem, and they most often use illegally acquired handguns to wreck their damage. And, sometimes, they use their even more illegal fully automatic weapons that have been smuggled into this country along with drugs and illegal aliens.

But, there is a major disconnect here. Pretty much all of the statistics they cite include all that inner city gang violence, and if removed, the U.S. is really not that dangerous, as compared to, for example, much of Europe. Most legal gun owners live places where there isn't all that much gun violence, and, of course, most of the law abiding people living in the gang infested parts of those big cities have been stripped of their guns, so that only the criminals and the police are armed there.

Their theory, is that if all the guns were removed from the law abiding citizens, then the criminals would not have anywhere to steal them from. That of course ignores smuggling, and the reality that countries with some of the more draconian gun laws have a lot of armed criminals and police, just no one else is armed. And, then there is the reality that there are about as many guns in this country as there are people, and a lot of the gun owners here are not about to tell the government about what guns they own, naturally worrieed that that information would be used for confiscation. Which means that there would be plenty of guns for the criminals to steal here if all new gun purchases were outlawed for decades to come. In other words, an ultimately silly proposal.

Anonymous said...

Cruz is perfect. He and his yahoos all but assure that Republicans will never get elected to any national office.

Great to watch the GOP marginalize itself before our eyes.

Unknown said...

I happened upon this blog by accident and I'm astounded by the hatred and vitriol that passes for public discourse here. Sorry all you heartless souls feel the need to characterize everything with such cynical and vulgar banalities. I'll leave you to it.
Yet be hopeful! For though you now wallow in the muck
of fear and loathing, it is and always has been within your power to get back to being the human beings you truly are underneath all the bullshit.
Peace

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 294 of 294   Newer› Newest»