CAINTV.COM 9 Hours Ago
Ted Cruz brings the Consitutional fight to Dianne Feinstein over gun control
By ROBERT LAURIE - Things get testy when Cruz dares to question Feinstein's Constitutional knowledge
Central to the arguments made by gun control zealots is the notion that your rights are not absolute - that they can be limited by the whims of the federal government. Dianne Feinstein's proposed gun ban takes this idea and runs with it, outlining a list of weapons she feels should not be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
This morning, during a committee hearing on her proposed ban, she ran into Senator Ted Cruz.
Cruz first informed Ms. Feinstein about the definition of the phrase "the right of the people." Then he asked her if the same logic applied to books. Specifically, he asked if Feinstein believed the government could create a list of books that it felt were not covered by the 1st Amendment.
Howdarehe ask such a thing?
“I'm not a sixth grader,” she shot back. “I'm not a lawyer, but after 20 years I've been up close and personal to the Constitution."
Clearly, proximity matters if you intend to shred something.
"I have great respect for it," she continued. "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.”
When Cruz pressed her, noting that she failed to answer the question, the assembled gaggle of elderly Democrats brought up child pornography. They argue that it's not covered by the 1st Amendment, so obviously free speech has limits.
First, Yes. Dianne Feinstein just compared legally owning a gun tophotographing the rape of a child.
Second, the child porn argument is a tired canard used to gin up emotions. It's a false premise, since the very act of creating underage porn represents a felony. This is not true of manufacturing or owning a gun. Firearms can be used for perfectly legal, ethical, reasons. No crime takes place until someone uses the weapon for a specific criminal purpose. There is no non-criminal purpose behind the manufacture or ownership of child porn, thus its illegality.
Dems who make the child porn comparison are suggesting that law abiding citizens who own guns are - regardless of the fact that they've never used them in an illegal fashion - committing a crime on par with the sexual molestation of a minor.
A much more accurate analogy for Democrats would be between guns andcameras. Because someonemightuse a camera to create child porn, we should ban camera ownership, just as, because someonemightuse a gun to commit a crime, we're supposed to ban guns.
This comparison does nothing to temper the foolishness of gun control, but at least it makes sense.
Ted Cruz brings the Consitutional fight to Dianne Feinstein over gun control
By ROBERT LAURIE - Things get testy when Cruz dares to question Feinstein's Constitutional knowledge
Central to the arguments made by gun control zealots is the notion that your rights are not absolute - that they can be limited by the whims of the federal government. Dianne Feinstein's proposed gun ban takes this idea and runs with it, outlining a list of weapons she feels should not be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
This morning, during a committee hearing on her proposed ban, she ran into Senator Ted Cruz.
Cruz first informed Ms. Feinstein about the definition of the phrase "the right of the people." Then he asked her if the same logic applied to books. Specifically, he asked if Feinstein believed the government could create a list of books that it felt were not covered by the 1st Amendment.
Howdarehe ask such a thing?
“I'm not a sixth grader,” she shot back. “I'm not a lawyer, but after 20 years I've been up close and personal to the Constitution."
Clearly, proximity matters if you intend to shred something.
"I have great respect for it," she continued. "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.”
When Cruz pressed her, noting that she failed to answer the question, the assembled gaggle of elderly Democrats brought up child pornography. They argue that it's not covered by the 1st Amendment, so obviously free speech has limits.
First, Yes. Dianne Feinstein just compared legally owning a gun tophotographing the rape of a child.
Second, the child porn argument is a tired canard used to gin up emotions. It's a false premise, since the very act of creating underage porn represents a felony. This is not true of manufacturing or owning a gun. Firearms can be used for perfectly legal, ethical, reasons. No crime takes place until someone uses the weapon for a specific criminal purpose. There is no non-criminal purpose behind the manufacture or ownership of child porn, thus its illegality.
Dems who make the child porn comparison are suggesting that law abiding citizens who own guns are - regardless of the fact that they've never used them in an illegal fashion - committing a crime on par with the sexual molestation of a minor.
A much more accurate analogy for Democrats would be between guns andcameras. Because someonemightuse a camera to create child porn, we should ban camera ownership, just as, because someonemightuse a gun to commit a crime, we're supposed to ban guns.
This comparison does nothing to temper the foolishness of gun control, but at least it makes sense.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment, just make sure they are not vulgar or they will be removed.