Comment

Comment by Craig Lonquist on March 19, 2013 at 8:15pm

Comment by Craig Lonquist on March 19, 2013 at 7:25pm

Comment by donp on March 15, 2013 at 8:30pm

 

    Thanks for DiFi’s accurate translation.   Her reply follows closely the Politian’s advice - dodge the question, (though not a real terrific question at that), and inform the committee and the world that she isn’t really a sixth grader, ‘cause she’s just six years old mentally.  She further berates Cruz for not knowing what SCOTUS thinks about firearms in the Washington DC area, though it's under Congress’ exclusive jurisdiction.   She then worries that Cruz isn’t paying enough respect to her views. 

     Since when is any politician’s opinion something to respect?  That attitude needs correction.  This weary old battle wagon is but our embarrassing agent, not our principal.   We the People are the principal, agents are our servants.   Being that she has dual citizenship with that irritation in the Middle East, we presume that should BB launch a war on Iran, DiFi doesn’t want Americans capable of interrupting the rogues running this government by restraining our standing army from murdering a lot more Middle East innocents without cause.   It’s worth viewing the Marine Corps training in “Full Metal Jacket” to see how these zombies see other humans.  

    Finally DiFi pleads that her bill “exempts 2,271 weapons”.  So she asks, “Isn't that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons that military people used to kill in close combat?” 

    YES, that is exactly what and why Americans need bazooka’s and high powered combat weapons - deflect and control the rogue standing US Army which poses an enormous risk to our liberties.   I don’t find any place in the Statute of ’76 or the USC where agents have a power to decide when We the People have “enough” defensive weapons.  Anyone with a child’s understanding of facts would see that we can’t protect ourselves from a rogue standing Army without having the identical modern weapons used by these government-issue people.   Furthermore, We the People also need Article-One tactical training, which DiFi forgot to mention.   

    Oh well, she really just wanted Cruz to pay some respect to her aged government opinions.

From Edwin Vieira’s Sword and Sovereignty, page 15.

As a generality, the “Soveraignty” that “always march[es] hand in hand” with “the Sword”, or the “‘[p]olitical power [that] grows out of the barrel of a gun’”, can be either good or bad, depending upon circumstances. In the hands of Mao Tsetung—indeed, in the hands of each and every Führer, Duce, Vozhd’, or other psychopathological “leader” of the Twentieth Century—it proved to be uniformly malevolent. Conversely, qualified in the manner set out in the Second Amendment, “‘[p]olitical power grows out of the barrel of a gun’” is a formula for obtaining and preserving the rarest and best of all political goods: self-government “of the people, by the people, for the people”. For, under that interpretation, the aphorism becomes: “political power for the defense of freedom grows out of the barrels of * * * guns held in the hands of the people themselves”. And nothing is “so essential to the liberties of the people” as “plac[ing] the sword in the[ir] hands”—this is “a real security” and “the greatest of all”.

Comment by Craig Lonquist on March 15, 2013 at 4:06pm

Cruz- It seems to me that all of us should begin as our foundational document, with the Constitution. And 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 in the bill of rights they used it as a term of -- that same phrase the right of the people is found in the First Amendment, the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition their government for redress of grievances, it's also found in the Fourth Amendment, the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

And and the question that I would pose to the senior Senator from California 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 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 such 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?

Unk- Will the Senator yeild for a question?

Feinstein- Let me just make a couple of points in response. One, I'm not a sixth grader -- Senator, I've been on this committee for twenty years.

I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot I've looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I've seen the bullets that implode. In in Sandy Hook youngsters were dismembered.

Look, there are other weapons. I'd been up cl-- I'm not a lawyer. But after twenty years I'd been up close and personal to the Constitution.

I have great respect for it. This doesn't mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions.

Two of which, are pertinent here. And so I -- You know,... its fine you want 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 study the constitution myself -- I'm reasonably well educated. And I thank you for the lecture. Incidentally. Incidentally,this does not prohibit- you used the word 'prohibit' it exempts 2,271 weapons.

Isn't that enough for the people in the United States? Do they  need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons that military people used to kill in close combat? I don't think so. So I come from a different place than you do.

I respect your views I ask you to respect my views.

[Translation- I've been here a long time, how dare you challenge me?]

I believe she was completely trapped in her response to Cruz...If she said 'No' to the initial question posed, she would have to spend the remainder of her time attempting to disconnect the 2nd Amendment from the 1st and 4th. By responding in emotional and unitelligble jibberish, it gave her enough time for her collegues to dig her out with a red herring of comparing 'common use' weapons with 'child pornography'- And then slide out with an assertion that there are 'different tests' for each amendment.(Even though all three cited use the same wording.)

Anyone remember Feinstein's debate with Elizabeth Emken? If you say you do, you're lying. There wasn't one. The above video is exactly the reason why. With every question asked, her repsonses would have revealed the decomposing intellect and single-minded socialist I-Know-What-Is-Best-For-You mentality.

Comment by donp on March 15, 2013 at 11:44am

DiFi needs a retirement break.  DiFi replies like the attorney,  P Huldah, who pontificates freqently on the web.  Nobody but nobody knows what this woman knows because she's a retired lawyer and knows blah blah blah.  Like Feinstein, PH never responds to the substance of a question, only the form.