Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Young Gunz: Cruz 3/14/13 (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/young-gunz-cruz-3-14-13-a-86551/)

BigByrd47119 03-14-2013 07:01 PM

Young Gunz: Cruz 3/14/13
 
Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein had this explosive exchange at a Senate Judiciary Hearing on guns earlier today:

Quote:

"The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is," said Cruz to Feinstein, "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?
More at this link: http://drudgegae.iavian.net/r?hop=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.weeklystandard.com%2Fblogs% 2Fexplosive-exchange-gun-hearing-between-ted-cruz-and-dianne-feinstein_707602.html

The title sugguests there is more or that there will be more. Essentially I wanted something that can be easily identified as a part of a group of posts. You can find another Young Gunz post at this link under the politics/religion/controvery by Sen Paul: http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f13/young-gunz-rand-paul-3-13-13-a-86548/#post1175963

CrazedJava 03-14-2013 08:08 PM

Good for him.

What ticks me off is the whole point of the Judiciary Committee is that it is supposed to make sure bills are Constitutional. The straight party line vote means no one gave a crap about the Bill of Rights.

Instead, Dems are going to push on a bill that if passed will more than likely get overturned. Unfortunately, it will take years of legal proceedings, millions of taxpayer dollars, and also millions of dollars of private industry and private money adapting to changes while also making law abiding citizens less safe.

For once I wish the politicians would stuff their damn platforms and remember they represent us the people. Frankly, I am glad for the Republican primary challenges that keep happening. Too bad the Dems don't have their own version of the Tea Party trying to clean house.

BigByrd47119 03-14-2013 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazedJava (Post 1176074)
Good for him.

What ticks me off is the whole point of the Judiciary Committee is that it is supposed to make sure bills are Constitutional. The straight party line vote means no one gave a crap about the Bill of Rights.

Instead, Dems are going to push on a bill that if passed will more than likely get overturned. Unfortunately, it will take years of legal proceedings, millions of taxpayer dollars, and also millions of dollars of private industry and private money adapting to changes while also making law abiding citizens less safe.

For once I wish the politicians would stuff their damn platforms and remember they represent us the people. Frankly, I am glad for the Republican primary challenges that keep happening. Too bad the Dems don't have their own version of the Tea Party trying to clean house.

Good points.

I find it funny how many say "vote for the republican reguardless of his record" and at the same time promote the Tea Party movement. You simply cannot do both! Internal strife is what will eventually make the party stronger as it evolves towards the views its constituants have (much like the human immune system and how it over comes illness).

If the republican party makes the right changes it will make the democratic party irrelivant much as the republican party was until about two weeks ago.

Your frustration is shared. The Constitution does not bend to suit EITHER parties individual political goals...their political goals are supposed to be to support and defend the Constitution.

How is that confusing or do they simply choose to ignore it?!? :confused:


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:43 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.