Saturday, March 16, 2013

Overlooked snippet from Dianne Feinstein's evasive response to Ted Cruz reveals her true agenda

An observation related to Senator Ted Cruz's interrogation of Dianne Feinstein regarding her gun-ban bill

When Feinstein was asked whether the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment could similarly be limited, for instance by prohibiting certain books, the (very) senior senator from California responded not with law but with hysterics and violins.

Let me just make a couple points in response. One: 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 and 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 were other weapons.

I'm not a lawyer, but in 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 that 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... Incidentally, this does not prohibit—you use the word "prohibit"—it exempts two thousand two hundred and seventy one weapons. Isn't that enough for the people of the United States? Do they need a bazooka?

Let me repeat: the Feinstein bill "exempts two thousand two hundred and seventy one weapons. Isn't that enough for the people of the United States?"

In other words, Feinstein is banning all firearms, but then allowing us to have some, at least for now.

Which just confirms her earlier statement, around the time of the first assault weapons ban: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in."

It's like the Constitution doesn't even exist for these would-be tyrants. The oath they took to uphold the nation's highest law was a joke, a prank -- the victims of which are we, the people.


10 comments:

Joe Mudd said...

Does the Govt. need bazooka's?
if they have them we should too.
See Dianne we're all on the same team
so WTF.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately,a bazooka wouldn't move this cow out of her seat.Does she 'need' all the cars in her ample garage?Does she 'need' all the money her husband has been paid by his chinese government handlers?We can make up our own minds what we 'need'.First thing,we need a new senator from the lunatic left coast.

Anonymous said...

Brick walls. Blindfolds. Some assembly required.
Rope. Tree. Some assembly required.
Sniper.

Reliapundit said...

congressmen who introduce bills that violate the bill of rights ought to be impeached.

Buttercup said...

She also said that she basically doesn't concern herself with whether something is constitutional or not - that is for the courts to decide. WTF? Really, DiFi? Because if you're not trying to destroy the rights carefully detailed in the Constitution, then the courts probably wouldn't have that much to say about a bill you pass.

Reaganite Republican said...

If Cruz was so silly, why can't she just answer the question and retain her composure?

And he's onto something: These libs know how to come across reasonable and likable on TV- but they're not what you'd call 'happy warriors': it's important to get in their face and provoke as often as possible: most are thin-skinned to challenges and can't defend their policies. They flip-out easily, and the public needs to see this telling behavior.

This is where Krauthammer, McCain, et. al. don't get it... WE NEED fighters, dammit

Anonymous said...

Which brings us back to Colorado. We must see a voluntary stop to all hunting in CO till Gov. Hickenpooper is gone. Also the boycott of Coors and everything exported from Colorado - by Sportsmen - will bring the dope smokijng granola munchers to their knees.

The Captain said...

Feinstein: "I walked in and 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."

Please tell me how this comes from a sane person?

Imploding bullets?
Kids at Sandy Hook Elementary that were dismembered?

And we trust her to say she knows the constitution? Does no one in the media read what they print any more?

Anonymous said...

She begins with a short resume and veers off to this:

"I walked in and 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 were other weapons."

Is she trying to qualify for PTSD disability income, or is she just senile, or just afflicted with leftism?

How benevolent of her to grant us the right to 2271 weapons. Apparently, in her world, rights don't come from Our Creator, they come from DiFi.

Bill Sanford said...

"I walked in and 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 were other weapons."

And she is never taken to task for the real lie in the above statement. The weapon used to kill Harvey Milk and the SF Mayor was a .38 revolver,not her assault weapon darlings. A .38 by the way that isn't on her list. A weapon that the killer reloaded from loose, extra bullets in his pocket.