98 votes

Explosive Exchange at Gun Hearing Between Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein

Via the Weekly Standard:

http://youtu.be/NYI3MEhegvQ

"The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is," said Cruz to Feinstein, "Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment's protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

"I'm not a sixth grader," said Feinstein.

Continue reading at: http://www.weeklystandard...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyril's picture

Sen. Feinstein isn't just at War on Guns. Her biggest war is...

Thing is, the "senior senator from California" named Feinstein isn't just at War on Guns.

Her biggest, principal ongoing war is...

... The War on Reason :

Feinstein's War on Reason : A Study

http://www.dailypaul.com/279473

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

i think a lot of the

i think a lot of the arguments congress has with things like this are mute. She was correct stating congress is in the business of passing laws, however they are not suppose to be in the business of passing laws which force morality. regardless of what i might do with a bazooka, it is my right to have one. Same with the child pornography reference they made, as morally reprehensible as it is, congress should not be making laws to ban it.

There is no way a morally corrupt entity such as the government should be telling us what is or is not acceptable.

If ignorance is bliss, Washington DC must be heaven.

It's time for us to start limiting THEIR rights!

Term limits and loss of benefits!

Put them on the ACA, take away their retirement (term limits does that effectively), and subject them to a reduction in wages the rest of us face!

Forced retirement for the career criminals and fossils like this old hag!

If you can read this thank a teacher. Because it's in English thank a soldier!

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
- Alexis de Tocqueville

And what about the Constitutionality of Unreasonable Search

and Siezure? We do seem to have exceptions with all of the Forfeiture Laws where hapless people are carrying around large amounts of cash to buy a car in a distant city and the money is simply taken from them when found in a search.

When is the Constitutionality of THAT going to be taken care of?

Saturday Night Live?

This is one their funniest skits.

Gene Louis
http://www.survivaloftheslickest.com/
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

Boy he ruffled that old hen's

Boy he ruffled that old hen's feathers.

Southern Agrarian

"I have great respect for the

"I have great respect for the Constitution, BUT..."

We all knows what follows.

The answer is yes,

a) she doesnt' favor the fourth amendment. She favors the NSA spying
b) she doesn't favor a full 1st amendment. I read just today that she proposed to some amendment that gives a specific definition of what a journalist is (she wants it defined as only salaried individuals apparently)

That bitch can't die of old

That bitch can't die of old age soon enough.

When one leaves, another

When one leaves, another replaces them. It's like weeds growing in a field. There aren't enough defenders of liberty to go around.

Why...

does no one bring up the fact that most of these so called "assault weapons" are chambered in 5.56 NATO, a round designed to be less lethal and cause injures rather then certain death.

And furthermore how are people so stupid to not see Feinsteins obvious pandering to emotional rhetoric rather then logical discourse.

hmm

Maybe, because that is not what 5.56 NATO was designed to do?

Yeah...

You're right... I was wrong on that.

I don't remember

where I got that info that it was "designed" to be less lethal.

But it if you look at it's performance it's not a great round for dropping people. If you look at the Criticism of the round here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO

you will find that it has a lack of wounding capacity in modern M4 rifles which essentially is what they are trying to ban.

"In recent lab testing of M855, it has been shown that the bullets do not fragment reliably or consistently from round-to-round, displaying widely variable performance. In several cases, yawing did not begin until 7–10 in of penetration. This was with all rounds coming from the same manufacturer.[24] This lack of wounding capacity typically becomes an increasingly significant issue as range increases (e.g., ranges over 50 m when using an M4 or 200 m when using an M16) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5 inches (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine generates considerably less initial velocity than the longer 20" barrel found on the M16, and terminal performance can be a particular problem with the M4."

So my point is that in effect this "assault weapon" is not even good at assault.

Jefferson's picture

I think

where the confusion comes from is that they decided to go with a "full metal jacket" projectile as opposed to a hollow point. The FMJ round does not expand like the HP and theoretically does less damage.

Kind of miniscule considering they are bombing people with white phosphorus and depleted uranium. (radioactive half life of approx. half a billion years)

"I'm not a sixth grader,"

"I'm not a sixth grader," said Feinstein.

Yeah thats what tends to happen when you are consistantly being kept behind, dont worry though, im sure youll get there

Old stuff

This is old.

Do your best have no expectations

Dick Durbin- "None of these Rights are Absolute"

WTF?

200 years ago that asshole

200 years ago that asshole would have been hanged publicly. If he would have even made it to that point without the rest of congress smashing in his face.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Garan's picture

So called "Assault" Rifes do not equate with Child Porn

It would have been nice if the "Child Porn" cheap shot was sternly rebuffed.

It think the argument is that Child Porn implies a victim with every single instance. Nearly all Assault rifles never produce a victim.

The porn reference was purely an emotive punch and is a terrible discredit in the eyes too many (gullible) people.

Garan's picture

"Congress is in the Business of Making (Unconstitutional) Law."

Feinstein: "Sir, congress is in the business of making law.
The supreme court interprets the law.
[if] they strike down the law, they strike down the law."

I so wish that Cruz would have asked if it was o.k. for congress to pass unconstitutional law until a time where the supreme court strikes down that law.

She saw the kids bodies for sandy hook?

Not even the Parents saw the bodies of there kids! But here is is old Feinstein talking about how and AR-15 "dismembered" them. She is SO fear mongering & lying.

she is a Liar

High treason. She is the patsy that we, as gentlemen, will not prosecute. Tell me feminism is not part of the dismantling of men's and women's rights. This is just the beginning. Get smart people. forget the old world and look at how they are exploiting us for being "civilized" or "well mannered" . these issues will only grow by ignoring them. Learn about the federal governments influence on the feminist movement. Please learn, before it is too late.

Feinstein's admission that she is familiar with the Constitution

should be enough to leave her "painted in a corner". She has no out after admitting she is violating her oath to defend and preserve the Constitution. I doubt even she, with her doublespeak, could find a way to define preserve or protect which wouldn't incriminate her actions or words. Time for impeachment proceedings to be instituted and any Representatives who stand in the way should be considered as accessories to the fact. Oh...wait a minute, for a moment I thought I was in America.

If not us than who?

ecorob's picture

I love the way that Senator Cruz...

Looks at feinschtein as if she were a sixth grader!

Expect no quarter from these den of vipers, Senator. And also, give none.

March onward for the rights of the people, Senator Cruz. We stand firmly beside you.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

He didn't get time to speak but there's an easy way to shut

whore up when they start talking about "not absolute" concerning child pornography and the like.

The ONLY time YOUR rights are ever diminished are when something YOU'RE doing infringes in some way on the rights of OTHERS.

Child pornography? Absolutely... You're exploiting others.

Guns... Absolutely but ONLY on an INDIVIDUAL case by case basis and in many cases only for the duration of your CRIME against your fellow men and women might call for. And even still, not for life.

Huge difference in those things.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Extreme constitutionalist question...

Child pornography? Absolutely... You're exploiting others.

Unless you were involved in MAKING this admittedly very SICK entertainment... how exactly are you exploiting others?

You get decades in prison if caught with a FILE like that on your computer. Regardless of how the file is made how can you be protected against some cop planting this on your computer? I go to the extreme when it comes to rights because I feel if you give them even the really DARK shade of grey they will take every shade all the way up to white.

Rights IMO - are a black and white issue... anything less gives an inch in preparation for the miles they will take. How does some sick demented individual VIEWING anything - regardless of what it is.. how does that infringe on the rights of anyone if he/she had no involvement in making it?

That is easily answered

Do you have the right to drive a stolen vehicle, just because you didn't steal it? No. Why? Because you cannot claim legal title to the vehicle.

Liberty is the concept of owning legal title to one's self. Did the child in the pornography grant legal title to those pictures? Of course not, since such a grant would constitute a contract - which minors are not able to enter into. As such, a person in possession of child pornography is in possession of stolen material. And since it is KNOWN stolen material, they are KNOWN to have violated the rights of another.

And that doesn't even touch upon the distribution of such material.

well

1. if you know the vehicle is stolen, no
2. if you don't, for the duration of your drive you are innocent

child porn

1. if it somehow magically ended up on your property outside of your will (by accident, someone framed you, etc), and the prosecution cannot prove otherwise, innocent
2. if it was you, knowing what is was, who got hold of the stuff, and the prosecution can prove this, guilty

.ro

ConstitutionHugger's picture

What a den of vipers.

Cruz didn't get much time to speak. These people could use an hour or two in school.