Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has only been in the US Senate for less than three months, but already is gaining a reputation as a modern version of Senator Joseph McCarthy, and also as a total lunatic on the subject of guns!
Yesterday, Cruz “lectured” Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein of California about his concept that the Second Amendment has absolutely no limits, and compared that amendment to the First and Fourth Amendments, claiming that Feinstein would not want limits on those two amendments, so why so on the Second Amendment.
Feinstein responded by saying she has been in the Senate for 20 years, and was Mayor of San Francisco for nine years, and inherited that job by the assassination of Mayor George Moscone and gay Supervisor Harvey Milk, which she walked in on, and saw the dead bodies and carnage.
She asked why it is necessary to have bazookas, and all other types of assault weapons, and that no one is trying to take away all guns, just large magazines of ammunition and weapons that one would never use for hunting.
And she pointed out to Cruz that there ARE limits on the First and Fourth Amendments, and that any sane person has to understand that there needs to be limits on the Second Amendment!
Cruz showed total lack of respect and deference to Feinstein, and comes across as totally arrogant, reckless, loony, and very dangerous with his rhetoric and his extreme right wing agenda.
And this man has interest in being President, although he was born in Canada, and the constitutional question, therefore, would arise if he became a serious candidate.
This man would be a danger to our civil liberties and our sanity were he to become a serious player for the Presidency. But there is no way that he would ever be elected President of the United States! But every effort to weaken his appeal must be made by progressives, who realize that he is a long range threat to our political stability!
Ron: Have you ever heard of the case District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago? Do you have any idea who assembled a coalition of thirty-one states in defense of the principle that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms? Do you know who presented oral argument for the amici states in the companion case to Heller before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit? Have you ever heard of the case Medellin v Texas? Do you know who litigated that case before the SCOTUS? I bet you don’t. Otherwise you could not possibly believe for an instant that Senator Feinstein has any idea of what she is talking about and who she’s talking to. I think it’s Feinstein who owes respect and deference to Senator Ted Cruz. Finally you state as well as she does that “that no one is trying to take away all guns” LOL Good luck with that one. Rep. Jan Schakowsky doesn’t seem to think so, according to her “this is just the beginning” and the “taking away all your guns is not precluded”. As always here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BVz2lHODQvs
Cruz asks a legitimate constitutional question, Feinstein refuses to answer, gets mad and comes back with an idiotic reply. Feinstein is the perfect argument for term limits.
You have a right to your opinion, of course, but I totally disagree, Dave. I think what happened is an example of how extreme RIght wing Texas has become, electing a Joseph McCarthy type demagogue who is out to make America a society with no limits on violence, including bazookas and many other assault weapons that NO ONE, except police and the military, need.
If Cruz had witnessed the carnage when the Mayor of San Francisco and the Supervisor were murdered, and Feinstein witnessed it and had to deal with the aftermath, one would understand her position. IF Cruz was ever unlucky enough to be involved in such a tragic scene as that or at Sandy Hook personally, he would be restored to sanity from demagoguery!
Yes I totally disagree, Cruz is a Constitutionalists, who asked a constitutional question and got garbage as an answer.
Feinstein witnessing carnage has absolutely nothing to do with stealing the Constitutional 2nd amendment rights from legal law abiding US citizens, her job is to defend the constitution not usurp it. She should rather be impeached for her efforts to do so.
Ron: Have you ever heard of the case District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago? Do you have any idea who assembled a coalition of thirty-one states in defense of the principle that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms? Do you know who presented oral argument for the amici states in the companion case to Heller before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit? Have you ever heard of the case Medellin v Texas? Do you know who litigated that case before the SCOTUS? I bet you don’t. Otherwise you could not possibly believe for an instant that Senator Feinstein has any idea of what she is talking about and who she’s talking to. I think it’s Feinstein who owes respect and deference to Senator Ted Cruz. Finally you state as well as she does that “that no one is trying to take away all guns†LOL Good luck with that one. Rep. Jan Schakowsky doesn’t seem to think so, according to her “this is just the beginning†and the “taking away all your guns is not precludedâ€. As always here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BVz2lHODQvs
My only answer to you is “whatever”, but know a vast majority of the American people disagree with your extremist stand for ALL kinds of assault weapons when they are not needed to defend oneself or for hunting! But again, “whatever”!
Yes, Juan, I know the cases, but just because one Congresswoman says what she said does not mean that is what will happen, as it most assuredly will NOT. Cruz is a demagogue, and if YOU personally witnessed carnage like Feinstein did or like at Sandy Hook, you would move away from a lunatic position that ALL weapon types have to be available and lead to mass murder. It keeps on happening and you and Dave are not perturbed, until and when GOD FORBID people you love or know are victims. That would wake you up, sadly!
And Juan, you have misinterpreted the Heller case incorrectly, as EVEN Justice Scalia said there are limits to the Second Amendment, and that one is not entitled to any weapon he wants. Only a lunatic would think there should be no limits, and despite demagogue Ted Cruz’s arguments that we would not want any limits on the First Amendment, there ARE limits on that and any amendment, unless you are a Tea Party fanatic, and I did not think you were that!
Ron: The fact that you are using the term “assault” weapons shows you seem to have no clue what you are talking about!Technically, and I have said this before,there are no “assault” weapons! Try assaulting Omaha beach with an AR15, you would get creamed!! Cruz, who actually litigated the issue before the SCOTUS, is not saying there are no limits, of course there are, that’s why you can’t buy an M-16 machine gun or a tank. But there is no difference between a semiautomatic so called “assault weapon” like the AR15 and a semiautomatic rifle /shotgun that is being not banned! What they are doing is totally incoherent. They then say they are banning “military style” weapon! In other words they are banning looks not performance. Its like free speech, there is a difference between yelling fire in a theater full of people (the machine gun) and writing a political editorial on the NYT (the semiautomatic weapons),but you could not pass a law that prohibits political editorials on Talk radio (the AR 15) and allow them on cable news ( the semiautomatic rifle/shotgun)! They are exactly the same thing except for they appear! Finally where does it say in the Second Amendment is there for one to defend oneself or for hunting?NOWHERE! That is not the reason we have a Second Amendment and you should know that.
And as for “carnage” as you say, I have unfortunately seen it up close when a friend of mine and his 15 yo son where shot dead by 2 criminal murderers right outside their homes in Argentina. The murderers, a man and a woman, had followed them home, then robbed them and killed them in front of the wife/mother and left. The older brother who was 23 at the time was not home but on vacation. He found out about the death of this dad and younger brother on TV. I lived about 10 blocks from their home and when I arrived I say the “carnage” of my friends. Rodolfo did not have a gun to defend himself and family due to gun laws restrictions in Argentina that make it a bureaucratic hell to buy one. The criminals of course got theirs in the black market, as all criminals do everywhere. The first thing Miguelito did after his fathers and brothers funeral was apply for a gun permit and buy one. He now had a valid reason to buy one, self-defense. He had proven he needed to protect himself. Too bad he had to wait for his dad and brother to get murdered to prove it. So when I listen to the idiotic Dem. Rep Jan Schakowsky confess that this is just the beginning and that they will push for the ban of handguns, I just think of the millions of law abiding citizens who’s Second Amendment right will be flush down the toilette along with their lives. So here we have it again, left wing progressive liberals always seem to have a way of protecting criminals, either directly through the manipulation of the criminal court system or indirectly with “gun control’ laws, but never through “criminal control” laws.
I feel for you with that experience, but there is still no need for high capacity weapons that are primarily for cops and military. I am not against guns, but the use of high capacity weapons that kill large numbers of people very quickly. That is a rational stand, while yours, having NO limits, is totally insane and ludicrous! I do not call for ban on guns, but controls on which types are available!
Since I never learn I will make an attempt to explain Heller and why Sen. Feinstein is wrong. I know you will totally ignore the facts, the opinion of the SCOTUS and stand by Senators Feinstein ignorant talking points. But what the heck, in the end I enjoy it. It’s good exercise. She says she believes the Second Amendment wouldn’t protect the right of American’s to keep so-called “assault weapons,” however, Feinstein’s bill would face serious constitutional challenge. The government is empowered to ban “dangerous and unusual weapons,” like machine guns and surface-to-air missiles, but not weapons “in common use at the time.†This would include so-called “assault rifles. The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.â€
Supreme Court Justice Scalia, writing the majority opinion in the landmark case, D.C. vs. Heller, goes into great detail about the historical precedent, legal history leading up to the writing of the Second Amendment (as well as providing legal comparison’s in the early state’s constitution’s, early American law and law pre- & post-Civil War), and the historical context for the words used in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is a personal right. Justice Scalia notes, “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to “the people†refer to anything other than an individual right” (p.6 of the Opinion) . He further says that it is a natural right to self-defense that is “clearly an individual right,having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia” (p.20). The Court states that the Second Amendment is not unlimited: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited … the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” (p.54).
Notably, the Court states that “dangerous and unusual weapons” may be lawfully limited, “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.†(p.55). The key word is “unusual;” all weapons are inherently dangerous. Weapons that are unusually dangerous are lawful to limit under the Second Amendment. This is why we can’t all own rocket launchers. However, there is more to it than just being unusual. Weapons that are in “common use at the time†are protected under the Second Amendment: “The sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time†(p.55). Scalia also states that “modern developments … cannot change our interpretation of the right†(p.56). This also precludes the sometimes proposed argument that only muskets and single-shot pistols are protected by the Second Amendment; Scalia addresses this directly, calling the suggestion “frivolous,†noting other rights are not interpreted in this manner (this is the point Senator Cruz was making to Senator Feinstein, which of course she didn’t understand) and stating “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” (p.8). The Supreme Court also cites prevalence and popularity as relevant factors, specifically as they relate to handguns, “Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid” (p.57-58). Also noting that an entire class of arms may not be banned, “The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms†that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose” (p.56).
The preempted argument that as long as other classes of arms are not banned, the ban of one class is permissible, “It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed” (p.57). It is clear from the Court’s remarks, that it is not permissible to ban an entire class of weapons that are popular and in common in use at the time.
Why is this relevant? Because semi-automatic rifles have been on the U.S. commercial market since 1903 (from Winchester and Remington) and are in broad use among law-abiding citizens for self-defense, target shooting, and sport. They accounted for about 40% of rifle sales in 2010. The AR-15 is the most popular model in America – accounting for 5.5% of all U.S. guns manufactured in 2007 alone. There are millions in circulation. It has been popular since it was created in 1958. The semi-automatic civilian versions of AK-47’s have been popular for decades (Kalashnikov invented the rifle in 1947). FN FAL’s have been around since the 1950’s. Semi-automatic, so-called “assault rifles†are a very popular class of rifle. There are literally millions of them in the various proposed ban of more than 150 named models (AR-15, AK-47, Mini-14, FN FAL, HK-91, AR-10, etc.)
Therefore the Feinstein ban would be unconstitutional. The Second Amendment protects popular classes of arms that are in common use at the time. So-called “assault rifles†fit that description. The fact that gun violence is a problem doesn’t justify violating the Constitution. The Court ruled “we are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many … who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution … But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table” (p.64). Feinstein doesn’t think that her proposed ban would be unconstitutional. As Justice Scalia has explained in great detail, the Supreme Court rationale in the D.C. vs Heller case shows that she’s wrong and Senator Ted Cruz is correct. This should surprise no one that has any idea of who Senator Ted Cruz is. He is one of the most important constitutional litigators of our time before the Supreme Court. He is not a lunatic nor an extremist as the ignorant media tries to portray him, but one of the most intelligent and accomplished constitutional attorneys in the bar. As always the source, enjoy the reading: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
The point is that it is not the federal a government to administer these laws. It should be left to the state of which you choose to reside. The point of the constitution and the 2nd amendment is to protect you from those who are trying to take it away. The government is overstepping its boundaries on the left and right. The right to bear arms is to protect yourself from tyranny which we are beginning to experience. Like I said if you have a problem with guns then move to a state with stricter gun laws if that is high on your priority list but by no means should the CENTRAL government ever impose these sort of laws. State means country and these stated were meant to be individual countries united with open borders and a central government to ONLY deliver the mail and protection against foreign threats. Everyone just needs to go read the constitution and learn a little but about history and the progressive movement which started with Lincoln but really kicked in to effect under FDR. Wake up people.
Plus the Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional as the Supreme Court was never meant to make laws based on a case so all that crap is bs too.