If You Don’t Support The “Assault Weapons” Ban

…you hate children and want them to die.

Plus, Ted Cruz gets a scolding, not an answer:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California wants us to know that she is “not a sixth-grader.”

Anyone who saw the recent exchange before the Senate Judiciary Committee between Feinstein and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas over guns and the Constitution might speculate that the reason she said this is because she couldn’t pass the entrance exam.

As for Cruz, a friend of mine for a decade, it turns out that the most important of the “Senate rules” is unwritten: Thou shalt not embarrass a fellow senator – even one in the opposing party – by making him or her look unprepared, uneducated or uninformed.

That’s not always an easy thing to avoid. The rulebook doesn’t say what to do when a Senate colleague who wants to ban certain guns dodges a tough question and then goes on the attack – thus embarrassing herself.

Nevertheless, Cruz, 42, is headed to the principal’s office. His infraction was asking the right question. What Cruz wanted to know was this: Why do liberals cherish the First and Fourth Amendments, but trash the one in between – the Second Amendment?

That’s a brainteaser. Why does the left play favorites with different parts of the Bill of Rights?

Experience teaches that the better the question, the less likely you are to get a straight answer.

That’s what happened here. Feinstein went on the offense. Abandoning reason for emotion, she scolded Cruz for daring to “lecture” her. After all, she said, she had seen the bodies of people killed by gunfire.

The illogic of these people defies description. They run on pure, grade-A unadulterated emotion.

12 thoughts on “If You Don’t Support The “Assault Weapons” Ban

  1. Paul Milenkovic

    No, Senator Feinstein, I am not treating you like a 6th grader, I am treating you like an L2 (bah-doom boom!).

  2. Larry J

    Let’s face it, Feinstein wouldn’t dare go on a show like “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?” because we all know she isn’t. What that says about the people who keep electing her is a matter for another discussion.

    As for this: “Why do liberals cherish the First and Fourth Amendments, but trash the one in between – the Second Amendment?”

    They don’t really care that much for the First Amendment when it applies to respecting the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion of conservatives. Liberals in academia punish free speech by enacting punitative speech codes. Liberals in the media demonize conservatives when they peacefully assemble at Tea Party events. Liberals in general don’t seem to have much respect for the religious views of conservatives, either. Some liberals (as in Washington state recently) don’t seem to show a lot of love for the 4th Amendment, either.

    1. Leland

      Some of the “Progressive” responses I saw in regards to Cruz’s comments: “Hasn’t Cruz heard that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theather?” In other words, didn’t Cruz know that there already are limits to free speech, what’s a few more abridgements of rights?

      And to be clear, yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is not a prohibited act. You are free to do it and encouraged to do so if the theater is indeed on fire. If the reasoning for yelling “Fire” is not to save lives, but to endanger lives by having people panic in response to the fraud, that is illegal. The equivalent for the 2nd Amendment is keeping and bearing arms is not prohibited, but harming a person with those arms without sound defensive reasoning is illegal everywhere in the US.

      1. Paul Milenkovic

        Actually, the “shouting Fire! in a crowded theatre” trope was part of a bona-fide restriction on the First Amendment — it had to do with political speech opposing President Wilson waging war against Imperial Germany in WW-I, which the right-thinking people of the day wanted to restrict in violation of the Founders’ intent of the First Amendment.

        So people using “yelling Fire!” as justification of limiting the First Amendment don’t understand the Constitution and don’t understand the historical context.

        My favorite analogy of not-protected speech, however, is whether someone is free to say, “That leaking faucet has been repaired . . . Mr. Gotti.”

        In the right (or wrong circumstances depending on your point of view), that speech is not illegal inasmuch Mr. Gotti had a legitimate plumbing business or I am prevented from making that remark as a joke because it is offensive to persons of Italian heritage of some such thing.

        I am perfectly free to say “The leaking faucet has been repaired” whether I am Paul Milenkovic or John Gotti or anyone else. It is just if that speech incriminates me in a criminal conspiracy — if it can be proven in a criminal court that my uttering that sentence was evidence that “repairing the leaking faucet” meant “entering into a criminal conspiracy to silence a witness or informant by extra-legal means”, such evidence can be used against me for participating in the criminal conspiracy, not for saying what I said.

      2. M Puckett

        You CAN yell fire in a crowed Theatre provided it is actually ON FIRE!

        Correspondingly, you can carefully fire into a crowded Theater provided you are trying to stop an active shooter hell-bent on slaughtering the patrons.

        The act of prohibiting the yelling of fire in a non-threat environment does not ban the word fire for all uses and users.

        This is a ridiculously simplistic, moronic analogy on the part of the left and it falls to threads at the slightest intellectual scrutiny.

  3. Jehu

    She’s not ignorant of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. She just doesn’t give a damn when it gets in her way. But the optics of asking
    Are you an ignorant bitch or just a garden-variety oathbreaker (of her oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, which includes its amendments)? just don’t sell well to the public.
    This is why things are going to end in blood.

  4. wodun

    “Lupica suggests that children’s lives “could have been saved that morning if Adam Lanza had only been firing away with a handgun.” In reality, handguns are the weapons favored by mass killers, including the one responsible for the deadliest shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, at Virginia Tech in 2007. A handgun (a revolver) was also the weapon that San Francisco Supervisor Dan White used to assassinate fellow Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone in 1978. That is the incident that Feinstein, who was a supervisor at the time and succeeded Moscone as mayor, cites to explain her persistence in pushing an “assault weapon” ban. ”

    Oh don’t worry the effort to ban handguns has been around a long time and wont be going away anytime soon. After all, their goal is the total elimination of guns in the hands of citizens.

    1. Ed Minchau

      Don’t you see, any weapon used for assault is an assault weapon. The “assault” part is sort of an extraneous adjective, like “hot sun”. /sarc

  5. George Turner

    Cuomo is trying to undo part of his sooper-important gun law now that he realizes that seven-round magazines don’t actually exist, making most of the guns in New York either illegal or useless and almost certainly violating Heller. So he wants to fix that and just make it illegal to have more than seven rounds in a magazine.

Comments are closed.