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...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Yes, 3 times

In the primary, in the primary run off, and in the general election.

Good one

I didn' t see them take her into custody though.

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

More video of the exchange? Anyone?

I would like to continue hearing Dick Durbin's remarks and hear how it all ended.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

I don't think he lambasted her enough!

What part of the "rights of the people" does she not get? The Constitution never quoted the "rights of Congressmen" who are bought & paid for Federal Reserve shills!

Feinstein is beneath contempt!

She also is the one during the Banking Bailout Bill debate who said, "We know better than them"...meaning the plebes!

I'm not sure if he had any backup

She on the otherhand was surrounded by flying monkeys

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

Patrick Henry didn't have any back-up when he first spoke

Because he had something better - the courage of his convictions!

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

That two snickers in a row!!

Celeste I love how you think! LOL!

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Its only

Begun !! Theres no fate but what we make.

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

Love that guy Cruz.

He's a warrior.

I think he needs more

I think he needs more "vetting" honestly, not saying, i wouldnt kiss the man for making that impact, i dont know, jury's still out

In the mean time, i celebrate with you brother ....whooooooo.......IMPACT :)

I'm thinking

So.

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

Im thinking.....you go girl

Im thinking.....you go girl

Traditional View Needed

I firmly believe that our main problem with arguing for the 2nd Amendment (and Liberty in general) is that we've lost the traditional view of the Constitution. The Constitution, as written by the Founders, was a limitation on the Federal government. Their powers were few and "enumerated". The words "Congress shall make no law" meant exactly that.

Did this mean that citizens may be in danger of their states violating their "unalienable" rights? Yes. But let's consider how this would work in relation to the issue of gun rights. Suppose Minnesota - for the sake of example - passes tyrannical gun laws. Should the Federal government intervene? No. Under the traditional view, citizens would have two choices. One, they could work to change the laws in Minnesota. Second, they could choose to move to a state without tyrannical gun laws like Texas - for the sake of example.

Some may cringe at the scenario described above, but it is a far superior view than that wielded about and implemented today. In today's world, the U.S. Congress meddles in the business of guns, and by so doing they don't affect one state...not two states... BUT ALL 50 STATES!!! What options do we have under the current view? One, we work to change the laws (a far more difficult task than changing state laws that are oppressive). Second, we can move to another country. Canada? Mexico? Are you beginning to see which view of the Constitution is better? It is far easier to maintain and protect Liberty with the traditional view of the Constitution with "checks and balances", "enumerated powers", a small and "limited" Federal government, and states rights.

We need a return to the traditional view of the Constitution. Gun owners should demand it... Americans should demand it. The Constitution really wasn't a complicated thing. "Comgress shall make no law" is very simple and easy to understand. We simply allowed mis-guided and evil politicians/judges/justices to hijack its true meaning. We've allowed our rights to be compromised away. We need to stop compromising Liberty.

When it comes to the issue of guns...as it is with so many issues, it is a state issue, not the Federal governments issue. We should demand that that's where it be left...to the states and them alone. After all, that's why the states wrote their own constitutions which included their own protections for various "unalienable rights". Would have they had to have done this if the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights applied to the states? Of course not. Thus, we see the proof that the U.S. Constitution was written to limit the Federal government, not the states.

For Liberty,
Justin

Great post. This is the simple truth:

The Traditional View is the correct view.

It's the meaning of the contract that the States originally signed.

It's the meaning that the people alive at the time understood it to mean.

The current view is an imposter, a perversion, and a violation of the oath that ALL of them take when they take office.

Great post. It's important that this simple truth is not lost.

Excellent thoughts

Justin

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

Why is it that if Sandyhook

Why is it that if Sandyhook did in fact go down the way they say it did,nobody brings up the fact that they already said that only hand guns were used in the killings and not the "assult" weapons that they want to ban?
She talks about dismemberment,if that's the case then that was from a handgun.
Maybe I missed something in the confusion of the Sandyhook story,correct me it I'm wrong.

You know RonPaul

I feel like I missed something too. Can somebody do a quick synopsis of the weapons used at the Sandy Hook tragedy? I didn't think so.

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

Yes

I always tell progressives, when they ask, "so should we be able to own bazookas"? I always say, YES. Then there argument falls flat. My answer is simple - if the government can own it and use, then so shall we. This also includes nukes, but of course that would never happen. People OWN tanks today but you don't see people getting steam rolled on a daily basis. Give them an inch and they take a mile. This is one of the reasons I sometimes feel that this country is so far gone that our liberties have so been eroded with incremental-ism that we'd be better off if it just collapsed. In some ways the liberals were right - the courts have little by little violated all of our so-called unalienable rights to such a degree that now they have the necessary arguments to encroach upon each and every one of them until they're virtually useless.

Senator Durbin is an AssWipe and Feinstein is a Witch

Both are about as Anti-American as you can get. This Cruz fellow is a crafty one, and has a quick clear mind.

One term limit for all Congressmen & Senators unless their last name is Paul

"You Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come"

If I may...

One term limit for all Congressmen & Senators unless their last name is Paul or Cruz or Amash, etc. Term limits mean nothing if you keep getting a-holes in there for 2yrs or 6yrs etc. If they stand for what is right, I say let them stay if the people vote them back in. The more citizen that wake up, the more sane and consitutional our representitives will be. It's the whole 'reflection' thing

Enonesoch

This reminds me

..of similar scene with regards to questioning :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zUtnsNPci4

donvino

in summary

CRUZ SHOULD ALREADY KNOW feinstein doesn't care what the constitution says.

little kids were torn apart YO !!!

watching these dems talk
so far i have seen it from BLUMENTHAL , SCHUMER , FEINSTEIN

EACH ONE WHILE SPEAKING ALWAYS BRING UP SANDY HOOK OR AURORA REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT ..... ALWAYS

THE FACT IS THEY DONT WANT HANDGUNS IN PEOPLES HANDS EITHER , WE ALL HEARD FEINSTEIN SAY IF THE VOTES WERE THERE, TURNEM IN MR AND MRS AMERICA.

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

Stick

To the script. You are right.

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

Feinstein knows what the Constitution says

The self-righteous biddy just believes the language is flawed and she knows better than Madison and Jefferson how "shall not be infringed" must be interpreted.
I'm glad Cruz got under her skin.

Did he

Ever, they were all stuttering.

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

Correct me if Im wrong

But cases of porn is illegal only when another crime is taking place, like child sex abuse? Meaning, you can't sell video of child sex abuse.

That seems similar to how you can't use a gun to shoot someone, but not to specifying which guns can be purchases and even possibly never used.

ted crus should apoligise

for indirectly insulting 6th graders. He really should have defended their intelligence when fienstien suggested she was as smart as a sixth grader. I doubt she (or most of the senate) is as smart as retarded 6 year olds.

Will this be banned too? - Hank "Needed a Bazooka" Paulson, US $

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

I dont think the constitution

I dont think the constitution or bill of rights comes any where close into any kind of decision making feinstain makes, if this is anything to judge by, she cant even give a constitional based argument into why this does not exceed the powers given.

you've been there for years, and what is it you've been doing, that culminates you into exceeding your power , ignoring the constition, the bill of rights and its defenders, to infringe upon persons who have every right to say no, if they have respected the rights of others.
it doesnt give you the right to pre emptively acuse people before an actual bonefied, past tense crime, inocent until proven guilty in the courts by its peers, a check and balance to the wrongfully accused and more importantly, a check and balance on trump up charges that are'nt for the purposes of keeping peace, but to illegally detain or to INTIMIDATE into submission, through threats of detainment, monetery ruin and offcourse the laughable attempt of public shaming, where you manipulate the 1-51% of the population into bullying everyone else into accepting LESS rights

You are bypassing the constitution, you are bypassing the bill of rights,, you are hoping people wont notice,, you are hoping the flys that do wont put up much of a fuss, and then you will call them terrorists when the swarm has grown to big, not for criminal activity, but because they are messing with your agenda........that will be the crime of future terrorism, the complete and utter obedience to the whims of those who come and go, or pre emptive intimadation backed up by force

If you trully respected the constition you would quit in disgust over the unconstitional bill you are proposing, seing you continue to argue for the bill is a contradiction to that statement

You obviously, DONT care about the constitution, and you obviously DO need to be lectured,

the moment you think you know everything is the moment you dont

"None of these rights are absolute"

Your right, the rights expressly given to the federal government are not absolute, they are indeed absolutly limited

deacon's picture

feinstein??

so who was the homely man in the blue outfit?
sooooo,what's next? we can't fish with dynamite anymore?

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence