wmcb’s Favorite Senator Rocks And Rolls


Via Ace of Spades HQ:

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a ban on the sale and manufacture of more than 150 types of semi-automatic weapons with military-style features Thursday in a party-line vote.

The 10-8 vote came after a heated exchange between Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who Feinstein scolded for giving her a “lecture” on the Constitution.

[…]

Feinstein became furious at one point with Cruz, who she saw as lecturing to her about the meaning of the Constitution and why the framers of that document used certain language.

“I’m not a sixth grader,” she told the freshman Tea Party favorite. “I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it … it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.”

Cruz responded by asking Feinstein if she also thought she had the power to interpret the First Amendment by deciding what books people could read.


DiFi took office back in 1992. I voted for her but my esteem for her has diminished over the years.

I never much cared for the Senate’s seniority rules. If I vote for a new Senator and he/she wins, I don’t want to have to wait a couple decades for them to start being effective. Apparently Ted Cruz agrees with me.


Advertisements

About Myiq2xu™

Peaceful coexistence or mutually assured destruction. Your choice.
This entry was posted in Congress, Gun Control and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to wmcb’s Favorite Senator Rocks And Rolls

  1. HELENK says:

    brought this up from downstairs

    http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2013/03/video-senator-cruz-educates-senator.html

    the republicans have a group of youngsters that are going to have great impact on their party and I think for the better.

    Paul Ryan — Rand Paul — Ted Cruz and a few others seem to understand that at this time in the history of our country you have to stand up and be counted, not just go along to get along

  2. DandyTiger says:

    Cruz responded by asking Feinstein if she also thought she had the power to interpret the First Amendment by deciding what books people could read.

    Love that.

    • jeffhas says:

      This response is the first specific argument I can take for why ‘all guns’ should be protected.

      Once you say, “not this gun, but that one’s OK”… it starts to make you shiver when you consider, “Not this book, but that one’s OK?”

      Up until now, I wasn’t a fan of Assault-Style rifles – I personally will not have a gun in my house… but I have no problem with someone else owning whatever weapons they want, I can always choose not to visit, and there are plenty of laws against using those weapons when not protecting oneself.

      I voted for DiFi, and have always been a staunch supporter – and will likely be a supporter in the future, but this argument is moot for me. I don’t have to agree with her on everything, but I can call her out when I disagree.

      thanks for posting this.

      • wmcb says:

        jeffhas, there was a time when I would have dismissed such hypothetical concerns with, “Oh, don’t be silly, it’s not like any administration would ever actually *do* that!”

        There was a time when I had an underlying trust that whoever we elected, from either party, had a basic respect for the Bill of Rights. That even if they kinda sorta might fudge it here and there for practical reasons, the bedrock of belief in our Constitutional limitations remained. I believed that while our elected officials might sometimes fail at guarding those ideals, and blur the lines slightly, they at least *had* those ideals, and knew where the lines truly were, even as they sometimes snuck a toe over them.

        After Bush and Obama, I no longer have that trust. I no longer have confidence that those we elect will not trash any damn principle they please, and leave any right in the dust, if they think it expedient and necessary and for the good of society.

        It is THEIR behavior that is pushing me toward being a hardline constitutionalist with no exceptions, period.

        • myiq2xu says:

          I could live with a sensible assault weapons ban. We live with a ban on automatic weapons that makes just as much 2A sense as an AW ban would.

          But they the gun-grabbers wouldn’t stop there. They would just keep coming back and coming back for more. Meanwhile they would hire armed guards or police to protect themselves and their families in their enclaves and gated communities.

        • wmcb says:

          Exactly, myiq. They are on tape saying quite openly that the only reason they are not seeking to ban hand guns, etc right now is because they know it wouldn’t fly. But many of them want to. They admit as much.

          And if we accept the legal reasoning of the “why” this ban needs to be done, then we haven’t a leg to stand on when they move to the next one.

        • HELENK says:

          me too

  3. wmcb says:

    My favorite part? When he thanks her for acknowledging that Texas even has books. I think that bit of snark flew right over her head, but it cracked me the hell up. He should have followed up with “We have indoor toilets, too!”

    But yeah, regardless of whether you think there is an argument for any limits at all on various rights, Feinstein didn’t want to argue it. She just wanted to tell the young whippersnapper to get off her seniority lawn, and show proper deference to his elders.

  4. jeffhas says:

    DiFi: “Do they need a bazooka?, Do they need other High-powered military weapons that are used in close combat?”

    I just can’t stop thinking…

    Do we need War and Peace?… Do we need Mein Kampf?… Do we need Gone with the Wind?

    Chilling to me. Totally changes my perspective.

    • wmcb says:

      Is there any need for that anarchist website? Or that communist one? It does no public good, and may actually incite harm. You know, people who commit masscres often surf sites like that.

      Let’s ban it. For safety. For The Children.

      • jeffhas says:

        I do love how they go to “certain types of Pornography” (ChildPorn)…

        Yeah, but there are already laws on the books outlawing the exploitation of kids, and taking pics of them in the nude, etc.

        • wmcb says:

          It still gets back to individual rights. Child porn is illegal because children can’t consent, therefore any porn done with them is a violation of their rights. Duh. I have no prob with adult porn, at least not in the criminalize-it sense.

    • votermom says:

      It is an excellent analogy – one that could have been in a SCOTUS hearing.

  5. myiq2xu says:

    BTW – The gun that Dan White used to kill George Moscone and Harvey Milk would not be affected by this proposed bill. He used a .38 revolver, not an assault rifle.

  6. myiq2xu says:

    John Nolte:

    What a clown car BuzzFeed politics is. We’re more than six-hours into CPAC; according to Twitter, BuzzFeed has about four “reporters” there, and their only story thus far is this:

    Marco Rubio Avoids Talk Of Immigration Reform In CPAC Speech

    You think this represents the way BuzzFeed will cover all of CPAC?

    Rand Paul didn’t talk about cream-filled donuts.

    Sarah Palin didn’t talk about Arthur Murray dance lessons.

  7. wmcb says:

    What’s funny is that most gun-owners I know are all for coming down like a ton of bricks on actual violent gun crime. Anyone can have any gun they want, but if you rob or murder with it, you go away for a long, looong time if not forever.

    And why don’t the people so concerned about accidental gun deaths push for more publicly available or even FREE training in gun safety and handling? Give tax credits for gun safes and safety courses? Of course not. Because it’s really about the control, not about the guns.

  8. wmcb says:

  9. Lulu says:

    These Dems don’t understand who Cruz is. He is a shark. He was an incredibly successful corporate trial lawyer. He was appointed state solicitor general because he wanted to enter politics. He went to Princeton AND Harvard. He is rich and made his own money. His father is from an elite Cuban family who left during Castro. His mother is from Baltimore. Both parents worked for oil companies in Houston. These slimy Obama enablers are pissed off that a “Hispanic” is not a Dem. Yes he is Hispanic in the same way that Juan Carlos of Spain is. And he is EXTREMELY conservative.

    • wmcb says:

      The man argued before the Supreme Court 9 times. And won some. He did private work for multinationals navigating treaties, tariffs, etc. And was veeery very good at it.

      Feinstein sneeringly implying that he might have a few vague ill-informed thoughts or minor “bumpkin” experience re: constitutional law was asinine.

    • swanspirit says:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

      Cruz earned his Bachelor of Arts from Princeton University and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School. He was an editor of the Harvard Law Review, an executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review.[12] While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society’s Debate Panel as one of North America’s top-ranked parliamentary debaters, winning the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship.[13] In 1992, he was named Speaker of the Year and Team of the Year (with his debate partner, David Panton) by the American Parliamentary Debate Association.[13] In 1991 he and his partner came in second to Austan Goolsbee and partner David Gray. Cruz was also a semi-finalist at the 1995 World Universities Debating Championship.[14]

      Cruz’s senior thesis on the separation of powers, titled “Clipping the Wings of Angels,” draws its inspiration from a passage attributed to James Madison: “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Cruz argued that the drafters of the Constitution intended to protect the rights of their constituents, and the last two items in the Bill of Rights offered an explicit stop against an all-powerful state. Cruz wrote: “They simply do so from different directions. The Tenth stops new powers, and the Ninth fortifies all other rights, or non-powers.” [15][16]

      Jeebus and there is more

    • I’d love to see him and Obama in a constitutional debate. The AA faux constitutional “professor” versus the hispanic experienced litigator.

    • Karma says:

      Cruz has the career that Obama always claims he gave up to go community organize in Chicago.

      As if, Obama would ever work that hard or was actually selfless enough to serve the poor, graft free. 😆

  10. swanspirit says:

    Hey , wait a minute … You mean we actually know what Ted Cruz actually did in school and his records aren’t sealed? “faints”

    • wmcb says:

      Refreshing, ain’t it? I’ll bet you could also find tons of fellow-students who knew him back in the day as well. We still have no idea who Obama hung out with, or where.

      • myiq2xu says:

        Imagine if you were applying for a top job and they asked for your school transcripts but you refused to produce them.

        They would automatically round-file your application.

      • swanspirit says:

        I don’t know how much more refreshing I can take 😉 , This could get so much more interesting . Passes the popcorn ..

      • myiq2xu says:

        Let’s see, he had 2-3 composite girlfriends, and his Pakistani roommate who won’t kiss and tell.

        Then there was . . . uh . . . .

  11. foxyladi14 says:

    I love seeing the old guard getting all shook up. 🙂

  12. OT-
    http://gma.yahoo.com/white-house-launches-being-biden-series-190008123–abc-news-politics.html

    “Hey folks, I want to tell you about this picture you’re looking at,” Biden said about the picture. “These are a couple of guys in their hunting shirts that I’m serving a meal to, along with the folks you see in the back gourd and the occasion is once a year the Whitehall Neck Sportsman Club holds a dinner.
    “I’ve been attending it for over 30 years. It’s called a wild game dinner and they go out and they hunt for wild game that they then cook up and serve at the Leipsic fire hall, as you see in the background and all the money goes to charity and then there’s an auction and they auction off guns and bows and all that money as well goes to originally went to [defray] the costs and expenses of a buddy of theirs who was injured in a hunting accident years ago and now it goes to help people in need.”

    Go read the rest- responsible gun ownership, blah blah blah, Second Amendment, blah blah, Sandy Hook, yada yada yada

    Seriously though- The White House launches a “Being Biden” series?
    Snark takeover in 3,2……..

  13. yttik says:

    The thing about gun laws is that the only people who follow them are going to be law abiding citizens who care about the law. I don’t know what the statistics are, but I doubt most mass murderers go through the gun permit process. The Sandy Hook murderer stole his guns. So do most of the gang bangers in my area, they either steal their guns or buy them illegally on the street.

    What I don’t understand is why we don’t really nail people who have illegal guns and commit crimes with them? I get so tired of hearing about some 30 year old who gets out of jail for multiple gun crimes…and shoots a bunch of people. WTH did we let him out of prison for? Or the kid with rape, manslaughter, and armed robbery charges, who just robbed another store. WTH was he back out on the street?

    It seems like we always put all our effort and restrictions on law abiding citizens while completely ignoring criminals.

  14. SHV says:

    “I could live with a sensible assault weapons ban. We live with a ban on automatic weapons ..”
    ********
    Full auto weapons can be legally owned in many states; lots of Fed. rules about what type but basically back ground check and $200 Fed tax for permit. “Back in the day”, I owned a .45 cal sub-machine gun with a silencer….$200 tax for the gun, $200 tax for the silencer.

  15. myiq2xu says:

    • yttik says:

      That might be close to the truth. He’s such a narcissist,I think he only does things for his own gain. I’m not sure he has any politics beyond himself.

Comments are closed.