The Independent Sentinel (a member of the invaluable Watcher's Council) provides us with the transcript and some needed perspective (video here).
[Their Q&A] can only be described as a perfect example of a very legitimate and pertinent question, followed by a totally evasive and self-glorifying, political non-answer.
CRUZ: 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 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?
FEINSTEIN: I’m not a sixth grader. Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 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 Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve 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, 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.”
Yes, Ma’am, you’re most all of the things you stated... but you didn’t answer the question...
One other very important point... [most] of the weapons you’ve listed in this legislation have been proven NOT to have been used at Sandy Hook. You are using the horrible deaths at Sandy Hook to promote a political ideology and playing on the heartstrings of Americans in the process. That’s despicable.
When a legislator is forced to use emotion and insults -- rather than the law -- it is a tacit admission that her argument is a sham.
Tell me, Ms. Feinstein: which "military-style assault weapons" used at the time of America's founding were banned by the Framers?
Hat tip: BadBlue 24-7 News.