The best quote I can think of, for this time, is from Admiral David Glasgow Farragut "Damn the torpedoes full steam ahead"
Posted on 03/17/2013 7:28:53 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
Texas Senator Ted Cruz's question to California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein on the Second Amendment in a March 14 hearing forced MSNBC hosts into conniptions,
At the heart of the congressional debate are the questions: Does the Second Amendment prohibit the federal government from passing laws related to firearms, leaving the role exclusively to the states? Or does the Second Amendment grant Congress the authority to pass laws banning guns whenever it believes it appropriate?
The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The term, “the right of the people,” when the framers included it in the Bill of Rights, they used it as a term of art. That same phrase, “the right of the people,” is found in the First Amendment: “the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances.” It's also found in the Fourth Amendment, “the right of the people to free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” And the question I would pose to the senior Senator from California [Feinstein] is, 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 the 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 First Amendment?
The Harvard Law School-educated Cruz's question sent MSNBC's Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough into an on-air meltdown, where Scarborough essentially argued that it doesn't matter what the Second Amendment says.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
I understand. However, even with all your support, as well as others, he was still in last place.
Sarah changed that. Cruz gives her credit from taking him from the back of the line, to the front.
That comes from Cruz himself.
Of course, without support from you, I and others, our new WARRIORS will get no where.
Together we stand, divided we fall.
Unfortunately, I believe politics will soon become a blood sport.
as in moldy oldies? Senile Senators and the like? Dottering old dimwits who feel they have the right say anything they damn well please and tell any spin or lie because they have earned it by virtue of being in the eighth decade? I had an old aunt who would freely hand out abuse.... Because she earned that right she figured
Of course lots of nice older people and I’m headed this way myself but these power hungry oldster Senators are the kings of DC. Everyone smooches your arse and defers to you when you are a US Senator and the longer you are there the more it goes to your over-medicated head. Like Diane Feisnstein whose husband is worth 300 million plus from doing business in China years ago.
So gun grabbing DiFi could care less if you are left unarmed while she always travels with body guards and 99% of the time is in places where no thug could get to her anyways. She could care less because for years everyone has been telling her how brilliant and how fantastic she is and what a great servant of the people she is.
Feinsteinian liberal double-speak gobbledegook:
The proposed gun control bill doesn’t “prohibit” the guns it prohibits.
It simply “exempts” the 2,271 it doesn’t prohibit.
So in her mind there is no prohibition.
The bill just doesn’t exempt the guns she decided we shouldn’t have.
That makes it perfectly clear and acceptable - to a word twisting, constitution stomping liberal.
A brilliant argument and question from Cruz. Inasmuch as the Nazis (and Feinstein is ostensibly Jewish, if not a Jew) burned banned books.
Equal treatment of the concept of the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE... used in other Rights.
Feinstein was too dumb for the question, didnt’ answer it, then when she did, had to change her answer. Because the answer is... she is a tyrant... and believes that our Rights
and the Bill of Rights are a Bill of “suggestions” malleable to any current times. She showed her arrogance, petulance,and willful stupidity in her reply— and the left is left to call it sexism-— no honey, it’s f’n stupid and we GOT YOU dead to our Rights!
Cruz’s argument will be underlined in the Senate... because Congress has never established “banned books” in session, or banned speech in the same fashion as delineating specific firearms to be “prohibited”.
Even firearms that ARE so called prohibited (by the NFA or 1934 Acts) have conditions for the exercise of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (with a special license classification provided for, for the citizen who wishes to own one— another arguable point as to its constitutionality).
Semper Fidelis et Semper Paratus!
The best quote I can think of, for this time, is from Admiral David Glasgow Farragut "Damn the torpedoes full steam ahead"
He was being nice. This was his race from day one.
Sarah was correct when she said you don’t need a title to affect change.
Cruz is a shining example of that!
Cruz has had titles...the current, "Senator."
pushback against the liberal agenda
******
If you ever look at the post-article comments on stories that are published by liberal oriented sites like Yahoo or left leaning outlets (e.g., CBS affiliates), you may be surprised at the preponderance of anti-Obama comments. More than a few comments are downright nasty. Just this week I read through some comments on a particular story that were, incredibly, 100% against Obama! Every single one.
This constantly surprises me and provides anadotal evidence of a broad based pusback forming within the country. I think lots of people are growing weary and suspicious of out of control statist policies. A certain level of fatigue appears to be setting in.
Answer is, "It depends." As with any Constitutional issue, this one is an issue of original understand and intent of the framers.
For example, freedom of speech doesn't mean you can go into a schoolroom and start yelling whatever you want. That is not what the framers meant by "freedom of speech." The essential intent in freedom of speech was freedom to express one's opinion, especially political opinion without government interference, as long as the method of your expression doesn't interfere with another's freedom.
Obama's socialist government is nowhere near this kind of careful, pro-Constitution, limited government approach to Constitutional interpretation. But it's the kind of analysis that should take place whenever there is some legitimate question about how to apply the Constitution to a situation, guns included.
I like the fact that Mr. Cruz is challenging the loose cannon socialists in their attempt to put aside Constitutional rights, but his questions are not answered in such back-and-white terms as some would like.
I have a lot of friends who don't like Sarah and were supporters of Cruz from day one.
Cruz was "known" in TX before he ran for the senate.
BTW, you will be glad to know that Cruz proves you can fight the good fight and remain a nice person. He is the son of a Southern Baptist minister...who learned to speak English.
Ted is very bright...and exceptional debater.
***It simply “exempts” the 2,271 it doesn’t prohibit.****
Those of us who have been around since the first demand to register only handguns (1962) know that if they get a ban on the assault rifles, the day the bill is signed into law, the next day they will start clammering for a ban on the “protected” firearms.
It has always been about handguns. Assault rifles are just a decoy to try and get their anti-gun foot in the door.
Once they get a ban on AWs then they will use the same reasons to go after handguns.
John Kennedy killed with a 5 shot bolt action rifle.
Charles Whitman, killed 14, wounded 32 others mostly with a bolt action 6mm hunting rifle. Also used a shotgun and an m1 carbine.
Medgar Evers, shot with a 5 shot 1917 bolt action Enfield rifle.
Martin Luther King, shot with a 4 shot Remington 760 pump action Gamemaster rifle.
Bobby Kennedy with a .22 Iver Johnson Cadet revolver.
George Wallace wounded with a 5 shot Charter Arms .38spl revolver.
Howard Johnsons shooter killed nine, wounded thirteen with a 4 shot RUGER .44 mag Deerslayer rifle.
Gerald Ford attacked with a 7 shot 1911 semi auto.
Edmond OK post office with two National Guard 7 shot 1911 pistols.
John Lennon murdered with a 5 shot Charter Arms revolver.
Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady with an RG-14 .22 revolver.
What do they all have in common? NONE over 7 rounds, yet after each one came a cry of panic to ban all of them.
Answer is, "It depends." As with any Constitutional issue, this one is an issue of original understand and intent of the framers.
For example, freedom of speech doesn't mean you can go into a schoolroom and start yelling whatever you want. That is not what the framers meant by "freedom of speech."
See what you just did? The question was, what books (objects) can the government ban, and you went on about yelling (an action) in a schoolroom. I submit that shooting a gun in a schoolroom is against the law. The object in question is legal, the action is what is illegal. The proper analogy then is, as with books, which ones can the government ban? Can the government limit the number of books, or number of pages withing each book that a person can own?
The problem with trying to use a free speech analogy to guns is that any law to regulate guns is an infringement. And the right to keep and bear arms is the only one which specifically proscribes any infringement.
Thank you for that post, Ruy.
I don’t follow this stuff like I should. ‘Pod.
DiFi’s husband has benefitted fom her insider knowledge! She isn’t a defender of ethics!
Creeping incrementalism.
“There are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. “ James Madison
For example, it might be worth researching whether there was some clear way to distinguish between the meaning in the 1700's of "arms" and things like cannons. Did the framers mean cannons when they spoke of the right to bear arms? Stuff like that. (Again, NOTHING, like what the socialists are doing because they generally don't seem to care what the Constitution says or means.)
Semi auto rifles with extended magazines have been around since at least 1906.
http://www.guns.com/2012/11/27/rifles-shoot-before-die/
They did not become a “problem” until 1984 when the anti-gunners found them to be the perfect shill to get Federal laws passed over an ignorant public.
Josh Sugarmann
Violence Policy Center Director
“Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
-Josh Sugarmann, “Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation”, March 1989
“The NRA is right...handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns.”
-Josh Sugarman, former communications director for the Coalition Against Gun Violence
Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.
“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest.
Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.
So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.
My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”
-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58
“Yes, I’m for an outright ban [on handguns].”
-Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., 60 Minutes interview
HCI, around 1984, came out in favor of a ban on semi-auto rifles and shotguns.
"A PPP poll found Dewhurst leading Cruz 36 percent to 18 ... The latest poll was conducted April 19-22"
It is beyond idiotic to diss Sarah Palins' contribution to the Cruz campaign in threat after thread. Sarah made the difference in Texas and in other races all over the country. Arguing she did not play a major role in helping elect Cruz just makes you look like an ungrateful fool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.