Feinstein's Defense of Her 'Assault Weapon' Ban: I Feel, Therefore I Legislate

Senate Judiciary CommitteeSenate Judiciary CommitteeThe exchange between Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) about the constitutionality of her proposed ban on "assault weapons" at yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee meeting nicely illustrated a familiar pattern in which people who favor new gun restrictions respond to challenges with emotion-laden non sequiturs. Feinstein, who admonished Cruz for treating her like "a sixth-grader," later told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "I just felt patronized. I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it." If you watch the video at the end of this post, you can judge for yourself whether Cruz seemed patronizing or arrogant. But the question he posed was perfectly fair: Given that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms, just as the First Amendment protects an individual right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, isn't telling people they may not possess certain guns analogous to telling them they may not possess certain books? In both cases, people retain most of the right guaranteed by the Constitution, but in the First Amendment context that has never been deemed enough for a restriction to pass muster. Feinstein proudly cites the list of more than 2,000 gun models specifically exempted from her ban as evidence that it does not violate the Second Amendment, which Cruz suggested is rather like publishing a list of officially permitted titles as evidence that a book ban does not not violate the First Amendment. 

Feinstein could have responded by citing a constitutionally relevant distinction between the guns she wants to ban and the guns she would allow, but since there is no such distinction she resorted to bluster:

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

Look, there are other weapons....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 if 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'm reasonably well-educated, and I thank you for the lecture.

Incidentally, this [bill] 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 use 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.

Respecting Feinstein's views is a tall order, given the disjointed, utterly illogical way in which she defends them. Much of her response was not a response at all; it merely reiterated Cruz's point that her bill prohibits (yes, prohibits) certain guns while exempting others. His question was why that approach is acceptable in the Second Amendment context when it wouldn't be in legislation impinging on First Amendment rights. As for explaining the distinction between prohibited and permitted weapons, Feinstein simply repeated the long-running lie that there are functionally important differences between the two categories, when in fact her criteria are mainly cosmetic, having little or nothing to do with a gun's usefulness to a mass murderer or ordinary criminal. She also falsely asserted that semiautomatic "assault weapons" are the same as the machine guns carried by soldiers and even suggested they are akin to bazookas.

It is not clear what "three exceptions" Feinstein had in mind when she referred to District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia did say that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Those are three things, but Feinstein's bill has nothing to do with any of them. Scalia also mentioned "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" But so-called assault weapons, which are among the most popular rifles in America, are not unusual, and Feinstein has never explained in what sense they are especially dangerous—why, for example, a perfectly legitimate gun become an intolerable threat to public safety when you add a barrel shroud or an adjustable stock. In fact, a general principle endorsed by Heller—that the Second Amendment applies to weapons "in common use for lawful purposes"—implies that Feinstein's bill, as Cruz suggested, is unconstitutional.

The rest of Feinstein's argument takes the following form: I've seen people shot; therefore my bill is constitutional. Or as she put it to Blitzer, "When you come from where I've come from and [seen] what [I've] seen, when [you've] found a dead body and put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons." A legislator who considers such experiences and feelings to be a sound and sufficient basis for passing any law, let alone a law that abridges a fundamental right, is a public menace. Which is why this was the scariest thing Feinstein said during her scolding of Cruz: "I've been on this committee for 20 years."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    When both law and facts are not on your side, you pound on the table. I guess she's pounding on the table.

  • Mr Whipple||

    I think her ass needs a good pounding. I think the other Senators should all chip in for a nice male prostitute for her.

    Or maybe a mean ol' Diesel with a 12 inch strap on.

    Inb4 "MISOGYNIST!"

  • Xenocles||

    You aren't a WMAL listener by any chance, are you?

  • CE||

    Dianne: "Mr. Constitution, of course I'll respect you in the morning -- I have great respect for you. Now bend over."

  • Hugh Akston||

    Feinstein, who admonished Cruz for treating her like "a sixth-grader," later told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "I just felt patronized. I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it.

    Man that's gotta be frustrating. To be treated like a child by some arrogant asshole like that. I wonder what that's like.

  • Randian||

    I mean even a sixth grader can understand what "shall not be infringed means", but it's too hard for DiFi.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, comparing Feinstein to a 6th grader is an insult to 6th graders everywhere. I knew more about the constitution and about guns by the 6th grade then she'll ever know.

  • CE||

    I think "infringed" is more like a seventh-grade word, but yeah.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    No shit. What a clueless nanny.

    it exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn't that enough for the people in the United States?

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • bmp1701||

    How about a ban on abortions, with a special exemption for 2,271 named women? Isn't that enough for the people of the United States?

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Or 2271 newspapers.

  • ||

    http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/.....9147_n.jpg

    I might have to get one. Just for Feinstein.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Nice. I like that variation on the theme.

  • Copernicus||

    "Man that's gotta be frustrating. To be treated like a child by some arrogant asshole like that. I wonder what that's like."

    Exactly. Amazing how often the old adage, "when you point your finger, you have three more pointing back at you" applies.

    They only people being patronized are U.S. citizens by nanny Firesteen.

  • Acosmist||

    What military is using semi-auto weapons in combat? I really want to know - we could organize a trip there, The Man Who Would Be King style, with a few dozen AKs and conquer the place.

  • Randian||

    What military is using semi-auto weapons in combat?

    Uhhhh...the United States?

  • Calidissident||

    I'm by no means a gun expert, but it does seem like a large number of people don't realize how wasteful and inefficient full auto is a lot of the time

  • ||

    Suppression fire is pretty cheap considering what would happen during combat without it.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Perhaps someone who has served can elaborate further, but it's my understanding that the majority of trigger pullers are using aimed, semi-auto shots. Unless you're running the SAW or M240, they discourage full auto fire, and even with the LMG's they prefer you use controlled bursts most of the time.

    That being said, suppressing fire does indeed have its place, and is often used during maneuvers, for instance in order to pin down the enemy while your team flanks them. Modern combat techniques absolutely require that capability.

  • Adam.||

    it's true that the majority of fire is semi-auto because it allows better control at range, but every issued m16 has burst fire and is used. i will say personally i always hit better when on semi-auto. when we were training with burst fire it was always at close range reactive fire ie. ambushed.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "Burst" gave me a really warm and comfy feeling, thankee very much.

  • Drake||

    It was a nice feeling for about 2 seconds - then my bolt would lock back on an empty chamber and the feeling went away.

    I love full-auto, but only when it's fed by a nice long belt.

  • BuSab Agent||

    On full auto, only the first shot is aimed. The rest is chucking a shit ton of ammo in the general area (maybe) of your target. So yeah only useful when you got a bunch of mobs right on top of you.

  • dinkster||

    Suppressive fire is the reason I believe they switched to the smaller cartridge post Vietnam. So they could carry more rounds with the same weight.

  • Professional Target||

    Suppressive fire is the reason I believe they switched to the smaller cartridge post Vietnam. So they could carry more rounds with the same weight.

    Smaller round post-Vietnam?
    The M16 was designed in 1956 and went into service in 1963 and fires a .22 caliber bullet. By 1969, the M14 was essentially gone. It fired a .30 caliber bullet. The Vietnam war didn't end until 1975.
    The M16 was designed from the start to be lightweight for a highly-trained professional, as opposed to the AK47, which was designed to be dependable for an untrained amateur.

  • dinkster||

    Post Korea then. I'm sure you have a pedantic response to that as well.

  • Drake||

    The M16 was designed as a survival rifle for downed pilots. McNamara and Curtis Lemay thought it looked cool - so they forced it on the highly trained professionals who wanted nothing to do with it.

  • Cavpitalist||

    Unless they're crew-served, automatic weapons are shit in combat. They're killers, because they waste the ammo you need to stay alive.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I got served by a crew from East Philly one time. Worst serving I ever got. Their moves were so complex and innovative.

    I was so pissed off that I bought their community center and had it bulldozed.

  • Sudden||

    *tips top hat and winks with non-monocled eye in appreciation of true libertarian genius*

  • fish_remote||

    I got served by a crew from East Philly one time. Worst serving I ever got. Their moves were so complex and innovative.

    You won't have to suffer this indignity again Hugh....these guys are on Feinsteins list too.

  • Paul.||

    actually, no they're not.

  • Coeus||

    Then I guess...it's on.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    What?! You didn't dance back at her, did you? Did you?!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    This will be reported as Part XVIII of the War on Women (TM).

  • Juice||

    Maddow's already been there.

  • juris imprudent||

    Because any intellectual challenge thrown down at a woman is anti-woman in the eyes of a progtard.

  • Brutus||

    Someone get DiFi a fainting couch.

  • jester||

    I am guessing that she got involved in politics in the first place because she sucked at baking pies.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Well as a girl if she sucked at baking pies she better be good at sucking dick.

  • ||

    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 use to kill in close combat? I don't think so,

    And yet she is complaining about being patronized and treated like a child...

  • Sigivald||

    Yeah, you'd think someone might have pointed out to her that bazookas are already so regulated as to be effectively banned, under the National Firearms Act.

    I guess maybe she hasn't gotten the news - after all, the NFA was only made law in 1934.

    (And I want her to explain, in plain words and without resorting to her feelings, exactly what's so "high-powered" about an AR-15 compared to a pump shotgun.)

  • UCrawford||

    She'd probably just say that the answer to that is that we should ban pump shotguns too.

    I don't get why she's so anti-gun. Frankly, the best thing that ever happened to her career was her boss and Harvey Milk getting shot so she could move up the political ladder. Absent that and the sympathy she's been banking on for decades, she's just another idiot second-tier local politician who doesn't sniff a Senate run.

  • SKR||

    Oh noes a weapon that has been out of service for 50 fucking years!!!111!!

    There will be dog and cats living together if anyone is allowed to own a bazooka. Fucking anarchy I tell ya.

  • Juice||

    Incidentally, this does not prohibit—you used the word prohibit—it exempts 2,271 weapons.

    This is my favorite part of her bullshit.

  • Xenocles||

    It's like "Oh, I must have misunderstood why everyone is calling it an assault weapons ban, or why you wrote it in response to calls for the same."

  • CE||

    Okay, so change the title of the bill to "Dianne's ban on some semi-automatic weapons" and let the lawyers figure out how that could ever by Constitutional then.

  • H. Protagonist||

    The gun used to kill Moscone and Milk was a .38 revolver. Why is Senator Anecdote going to propose banning those?

  • Professional Target||

    She's getting there... She's getting there.
    She keeps having to work around the Bitter Clingers.

  • AlmightyJB||

    This is what people don't get. Their tactic is incrementilism. They won't admit that but it's true. Their going after AW's because they can convince woman and pussies that there evil because they look so scary. Handguns will be next. And onward from there.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I tried to read part of the transcript posted here yesterday. Maybe it's an artifact of some sort of machine generated transcription, but it made both of those people sound like victims of severe head trauma. Like Gabby Giffords level head trauma.

    We already knew how stupid crazy Feinstein is, but Cruz?

  • Generic Stranger||

    Off the cuff speech rarely translates well into text.

  • ||

    Nah I think the transcript was made by a speech to text bot.

  • SKR||

    It's because they interrupt one another and the autotranscript is crap. If you listen to it, they don't sound quite as retarded.

  • KevinP||

    Watch the video. Cruz is calm, collected and direct. Feinstein dodders and yammers nonsense.

  • UCrawford||

    That's par for the course for her. That's the really sad thing about Dianne Feinstein...her idiotic ramble is how she actually talks all time and her idiot supporters are too stupid themselves to realize that it's not because she "courageous" or "assertive" but because she's a hypersensitive imbecile.

    I, for one, will heartily enjoy California's economic implosion. Couldn't happen to a more deserving group of assholes.

  • Dweebston||

    *implosion* might not mean what you think it means, senator.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    a familiar pattern in which people who favor new gun restrictions respond to challenges with emotion-laden non sequiturs.

    "Well, you know, a lot of heroin addicts are musicians, so we should outlaw guitars. Or at least restrict their possession and use. Because a child strung out on heroin is a terrible terrible thing."

  • jester||

    Or as a Kiwi once told me:'You may have noticed that I don't drink alcohol. You see, when I was 16, a drunk driver killed my best friend.'

    ...and no the drunk driver wasn't himself (because that would make some sense.)

  • Sudden||

    See, there's the thing. The more accurate analogy here would be that he doesn't drive because a drunk driver killed his friend. The car itself is just the object of the person with agency. In the case of the gun, the gun:car::sociopath:drunk.

    Yes, I realize this is a bit anal. But I put the anal in analogy (not like, Warty style anal though).

  • Generic Stranger||

    So...you use lube?

  • jester||

    The only logical thing for him to conclude would be, 'so that's why I don't mix alcohol and driving.'

  • Generic Stranger||

    This.

  • Xenocles||

    +1

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Simple venn diagram case: There's your drinking and then there's your driving and then there's your drinking and driving. You can quit drinking and address the issue, as the Kiwi did. Or you can quit driving. Or you can quit both drinking AND driving. Or you can quit drinking WHEN driving. The latter would seem the minimally expensive and disruptive approach.

  • C. Anacreon||

    a Kiwi once told me:'You may have noticed that I don't drink alcohol.

    Birds really shouldn't drink alcohol in the first place. Look at how drunk they get just from pyracantha berries.

  • Professional Target||

    The first time I saw drunk birds, crows were eating the fallen fruit under a plum tree. Some of them couldn't stand, much less fly. Bizarre sight.

  • Paul.||

    No one needs more than six strings in a guitar.

  • Juice||

    She also falsely asserted that semiautomatic "assault weapons" are the same as the machine guns carried by soldiers and even suggested they are akin to bazookas.

    To be fair the whole point of bringing that up is that there are already whole classes of arms that are prohibited and their argument is that they would just like to cast the net a little wider. The argument, and it's a valid one, is that the "absolute" right already has restrictions, so what's a few more.

  • ||

    Because the current restrictions are illegitimate. We don't accept their validity, so why should we accept a few more.

  • Juice||

    I don't care if you own a bazooka or a Howitzer or a Stinger missile, but most gun fans and NRA types actually think there should be restrictions on civilians owning these things. And, it's very easy for a gun-ban advocate to dismiss you as a kook when you suggest that it's ok for the Crips and Bloods to possess grenade launchers.

  • Brendan||

    Troll somewhere else.

  • Juice||

    I'm not trolling. I'm just saying that it's pointless trying to argue along those lines because it's not going to convince anyone that the newest and latest ban is a bad idea.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Those other classifications that are banned have common charactoristics applicable to the functionality and more importantly lethality of the weapons. This ban does not. It arbitrary and based on what "looks scary" to gan banners who know not a damn thing about guns. I'm not defending existing restrictions but pointing out that there is a major difference between banning bazookas and banning a gun because it has a pistol grip. Feinsteins rational is that a pistol grip makes it easier to shoot from the hip as opposed to you know using the fk'n sites. She's an idiot and has no business even being in a gun legislation discussion much less writing it.

  • General Butt Naked||

    We'll be painted as kooks for owning a bolt action .22.

    How about everyone stand up for just enough of their rights that they won't be thought of as kooks, and maybe in a few years we'll be happy to be able to buy a sugar-free soda with the 5% of our earnings we're allowed to keep?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Unless you're a stormtrooper in the Imperial Army, why do you need a gun or a knife with a blade over 2" at all?

  • SKR||

    right, the reason the bloodsand crips don't use grenade launchers is because there's a law.

    .

  • Juice||

    Well, honestly it's probably because it wouldn't be that useful to them, but I don't know. Ok, then maybe they could use an RPG to take out a rival's living room or car or something. I don't really see it happening, but maybe it's just because those things are really hard to get inside the US, most likely because it's not really legal.

  • C. Anacreon||

    "If I had a rocket launcher, some sonofabitch would die."
    -Bruce Cockburn

  • dinkster||

    The mexico cartels use grenades. Your whole fucking point is completely invalid.

  • CE||

    The counter-argument is that the banned classes of weapons were wrongly banned, and a literal or historical interpretation of the Constitution leaves no room for argument.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "Dismembered children"? "Close quarters combat"?

    Sounds like we need a ban on Claymores.

  • ||

    Bouncing Betty!

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I wonder what she thinks a shotgun, even with birdshot, would do to a child.

  • ||

  • bmp1701||

  • bmp1701||

    Are you talking about right-wing explosive devices, or weapons of Scottish terror?

  • Sudden||

    No need to ban the Scottish claymore. While it may be a weapon of terror, it has pretty rigid controls on the lethal aspects of its use. There can only be one Highlander.

  • bmp1701||

    So, logically, there only needs to be one legal Claymore at one time!

  • LarryA||

    Except AFAIK claymores are pretty much banned, in Scotland.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_.....788881.stm

  • ||

    Illogic, beguilements, fallacies, unfiltered horseshit. When a hoplophobic prohibitionist is confronted with moral and practical arguments, the only thing they can do is bitch about how unfairly they're being treated. What else is there for them? Reality itself stands counter to their fucktarded stupidity.

    Liberty is liberty. The Second Amendment admits of no exceptions.

  • CE||

    And even without a second amendment, human beings would have the basic human right to defend themselves as they see fit, and a just government (if one could exist) would respect that right.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Man that's gotta be frustrating. To be treated like a child by some arrogant asshole like that. I wonder what that's like.

    Yeah, really.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    or weapons of Scottish terror?

    Very good. You win a cookie.

  • ||

    "I just felt patronized."

    Because there's nothing patronizing about restricting gun ownership, mandating health insurance, regulating food ingredients, etc. Not at all.

  • GILMORE||

    fEELINGS...

    NOTHING MORE THAN....FEELINGS

    TRYING TO FORGET...

    MY FEELINGS OF .... DERP

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oKyPE8P-d4

  • Anonymoose||

  • Sidd Finch||

    when [you've] found a dead body and put your finger in bullet holes

    I wonder if those Milk movies include Feinstein fingerbanging his bullet holes. That seems newsworthy.

  • jester||

    Honestly, I think she is referencing (frequent?) trips to the morgue.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Just to fingerbang? Kinky!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yeah, WTF
    Sounds like interfering with a police investigation and tampering with evidence.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'd rather she spends her days fingerbanging corpses than spend them screwing us over.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I really hope Feinstein doesn't die before that glorious day when we the chance to tie a hemp rope around her neck and hang her from the closest lamppost.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I suspect she will long be in Satan's Ashtray before anyone gets the chance or the gumption, to have her dance at the end of a rope.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Perhaps, though I suspect her mastery of the dark necromantic arts will give her at least 130 if not 150 more years of life.

  • juris imprudent||

    It isn't life as we know it.

  • SIV||

    hemp rope

    Fuckin' Hippie

    Piano wire

  • AlmightyJB||

    Hey, I'm not picky. Whatever gets the job done.

  • Brutus||

    I knew there was a reason you're my favorite poster here.

  • A Serious Man||

    Leave it to the LA Times to make an even more idiotic defense of their darling in the Senate.

  • ||

    But the better answer is that every "right of the people" has been interpreted by the courts to be limited when one individual's exercise thereof tramples the rights of another individual.

    There is no 1st Amendment right to assemble in a public hospital's emergency room to protest healthcare cuts. There is no 1st Amendment right to petition the government by deliberately flooding a federal website with enough traffic to bring the site down. There is no 4th Amendment right to stop police from searching the trunk of your car when there's blood dripping out of it onto the street. And there's no 2nd Amendment right to own a bazooka.

    Stupid fucker just defeated his own argument. How exactly does owning a bazooka trample the rights of another individual?

  • GILMORE||

    it does raise a question again as to whether Feinstein is a typical irrational, emotive, cranky and self-absorbed older woman who thinks she's entitled to tell everyone what Right and Wrong are without having any rational basis for anything (and if asked for one is treated as though you slapped her like some drunken misogynist lover)...

    ...or, contrarily, is a typical politician who when asked a question they don't want to hear, answers a question that wasn't actually asked, and pretends you've said something really offensive and disrespectful, because they are evil calculating emotionless self-protecting scum whose emotions are simply tools to be used to project an image to the media and voters in order to empower themselves and further entrench themselves in some power-niche.

    And then you wonder which is actually worse.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    How are those two options mutually exclusive?

  • GILMORE||

    Well, "irrational & emotive" and "cold-blooded and calculatingly deceptive" are usually fairly exclusive.

    I think in my previous musings on lefties, I asked a question which *was not* mutually exclusive. It was the "Evil or Simply Incompetent?" one.

  • prolefeed||

    Dredging up past irrational and emotive feelings to get a desired tone of voice for cold-blooded and calculating words is not mutually exclusive, though that combo is indicative of a sociopath.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Is a time honored tactic in the typical female arsenal of the emotional terrorist variety.

  • lap83||

    Usually exclusive categories, but if there is a line separating them, progressives live on it. Take some corrupt politically motivated behavior (black thug voters tweeting murderous threats about Romney/Democrat senator saying we can't make social security only available to poor people because they'll lose votes/anything Biden or Pelosi says/Democrat voters admitting to voting several times), add an apathetic shrug or forgiving rationalization "Oh, that Biden! *cue laugh track*" and you describe pretty much everything those people do. It almost makes you wonder if they're secretly complimenting conservatives when they refer to them as stupid and evil.

  • jester||

    Apply Occam's razor. She's an inept, irrational, emotion-mongrel.

  • dantheserene||

    I read that first paragraph and thought, "Do you know my mother?"

  • CE||

    You mean like Michael Bloomberg?

  • GILMORE||

    I come from a different place than you do.

    "I am a feeling human. You are a right-wing mexican terrorist."

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

    "I have ignored and deflected your question, insulted you, and asked why you want children to be killed with bazookas. Now you must apologize for making me cry for just even thinking about how horrible you are"

  • C. Anacreon||

    Way back in medical school in the mid-80s -- so long before a lot of this approach had taken hold -- I learned my lesson. We had a minor debate on an issue relevant to our class, in front of our classmates, where it was me against a fellow student who was a militant feminist (and adored by some of the class because she had gone to Harvard.) She said her piece, then on my turn I calmly and factually refuted her argument completely. The militant feminist then loudly burst into tears.

    That was the end of it. Suddenly it was not us arguing a point anymore, I was a big bully who made a girl cry. End of argument, everyone goes with her side.

  • GILMORE||

    every 2yr old knows that pretending to be mistreated and abused is instantly rewarded by sympathy and concern

    its just that most people, if they keep doing it past puberty, get the shit beaten out of them or just laughed at for being such a whiny pussy.

    This is partly why I am a big advocate of teenagers beating each other up as often as possible

  • Coeus||

    its just that most people men, if they keep doing it past puberty, get the shit beaten out of them or just laughed at for being such a whiny pussy.

    FIFY

  • An0nB0t||

    Yep.

    I think it goes something like "men's (feigned) strength is their weakness, and women's (feigned) weakness is their strength." Parentheticals mine.

  • ||

    every 2yr old knows that pretending to be mistreated and abused is instantly rewarded by sympathy and concern

    Won't get it from me. I think it would have been priceless if when she got done with her tirade if Cruz calmly said, "Just answer the fucking question, you statist fucking cunt."

  • juris imprudent||

    Some part of that would have been consider unsenatorial language - at least outside of the senate cloakroom.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    He did respond that you never answered my questions which is cut out of most media clips of the incident.

  • Irish||

    I like when feminists lose their shit over something incredibly minor. Because basically what they're saying is: "I'm an adult who deserves to be taken seriously and shouldn't be controlled by patriarchy! Also, I have the emotional control of a 5 year old!"

  • juris imprudent||

    Cruz's best reply would've been "I wouldn't accuse you of being all the way up to sixth grade".

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Or say that Jethro Bodine weeps at the thought of what social promotion and grade inflation have done to dilute the value of his education.

  • Brutus||

    FTW!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I come from a different place than you do. I respect your views; I ask you to respect my views.

    Allow me to help-
    "I come from a different place than you do. I reject your views; now, do as you're told."

  • CE||

    Or this:

    "I come from a different place than you do. I've listened to your views. Now hold your applause as I express my utter contempt for them and the concept of a republic of limited powers that your beloved Founders envisioned."

  • cw||

    Feinstein sure was acting like a sixth-grader in that exchange. And her attitude toward Cruz's question stunk of hubris; the whole "I've been up close to the Constitution" and "I've been on this committee for 20 years" sound like she's claiming the Senator from Texas is too inexperienced to debate the likes of a senior member such as herself.

    Oh, and her bill does prohibit what she deems "assault weapons." Why pretend otherwise? What do exemptions have to do with denouncing the word "prohibit"? Does she not want to stop people from legally owning a made-up class of firearms?

  • GILMORE||

    the whole "I've been up close to the Constitution" and "I've been on this committee for 20 years" sound like she's claiming the Senator from Texas is too inexperienced to debate the likes of a senior member such as herself

    Classic "appeal to authority" fallacy

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    And she said this to a former Supreme Court clerk!

  • UCrawford||

    And her admission "I'm not a lawyer" while whining about how an actual lawyer who has argued cases in front of the Supreme Court asked her a legal question.

    I realize the Senate has rules on professional courtesy, but just this once it would have been nice to see Cruz tell Feinstein to grow the fuck up and pull on her big girl panties if she wants to play Senator.

  • juris imprudent||

    Jezebel and Feministing would be a warm nuclear glow if he had.

  • Brutus||

    It's worth it just to see that.

  • Tman||

    I wish someone would ask Feinzilla whether or not a citizen can buy a tank. A real tank with guns and everything.

    Watching her lose her mind to the answer would be pretty damn awesome.

  • CE||

    The answer is yes, actually.

  • prolefeed||

    Incidentally, this [bill] 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 use to kill in close combat?

    Did the militias prior to 1776 need the same weapons the British soldiers had? Why couldn't they be content with muskets and knives?

    Oh, and usually the guns used in close combat do not use high-powered projectiles compared to the ones needed for firing at distant targets -- at short range, you want a lot of metal in the air, not comparatively few high velocity bullets.

  • GILMORE||

    Did the militias prior to 1776 need the same weapons the British soldiers had? Why couldn't they be content with muskets and knives?

    I suspect you're being cute... but...uh. "muskets and knives" were in fact what they all had.

    I think many or most Americans used something equivilent to the Brown Bess musket the brits used.

  • Sigivald||

    You forget cannon.

    (And one of the advantages the American troops had was a greater proportion of rifled arms...)

  • phandaal||

    And look what happened there! They beat back their government's troops when the government tried to kill them for not following the law.

    We can't have a repeat of that, can we?

  • AlmightyJB||

    One of their biggest advantages was the Kentucky long rifle which gave them more range.

  • prolefeed||

    I suspect you're being cute... but...uh. "muskets and knives" were in fact what they all had.

    Muskets are smooth bored -- rifles have rifling. Muskets had the advantage of being quicker to reload, but rifles are more accurate at longer distances because of the spin the rifling gives the bullet.

  • GILMORE||

    i should have known never to comment here again re: firearms

    the pedants expolde into action

    guys: i know the fucking difference between a musket and rifle. i know that kentucky long rifle was significant in the Rev. War even if only used by comparatively few units. i know they both had cannon. i was in the military, and my father was in the marines for 20yrs and taught military history briefly. for the love of fucking john browning, please dont assume every comment needs to be an edutainment to an assumed ignorant public.

    freud probably suspects guns are not just guns in your case

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    They must be losing their little minds over at Jezebel. Seriously, are feminists that fucking fragile that they cannot take being asked to compare one Amendment to another? That's almost as bad as Rand Paul asking the AG if the pres can kill American citizens on American soil. I'm going to be particularly sexist to every feminist I meet from now on. I'm officially joining the "war on wimyn." If you're a normal, rational, human being (who happens to be female), you're cool. For the rest, it's all broads, dames, and skirts from me until the war is over.

  • UCrawford||

    Liberal feminists cannot tolerate being asked questions based on logic because they assume the world revolves around their emotions. Basically, they're narcissists who expect everyone else to cater to their emotional happiness by not asking them difficult questions they don't wish to answer.

  • 16th amendment||

    Mrs Feinstein, with all due respect, no democrat has respect for the constitution. So please spare ME the lecture.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I want to marry this article.

  • GILMORE||

    typical male desire to enslave The Other though patriarchy. your phallocentrism betrays you

    /Jeze-derp

  • General Butt Naked||

    As long as we're paying for people's medical treatment guns should be banned. I'm sorry but we can't have weapons of mass destruction on the street and a welfare state at the same time.

    /conservo-tard

  • juris imprudent||

    Interesting thought - who would be the party more grossed out by waking up next to the other: Gerson or Feinstein?

  • General Butt Naked||

    I was referring to the Ann Coulter article from earlier where she said that drugs should be illegal until the end of the welfare state.

    John, posting from his government paid job, defended this position.

    I just think that to be consistent, conservatives should view guns, automobiles, fried chicken, cigarettes, skydiving, etc as the same as illegal drugs.

    Also, a Gerson-Feinstein-Coulter threesome would probably blind satan in its horror. A common human being would, in an evolutionary defense mechanism designed to lessen an organism's pain, just explode in a blinding cloud of light, dust and blood before even recognizing the sight. A mind shouldn't have to endure such things.

  • dinkster||

    I lol'd then dry heaved.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Gerson?

  • np||

    Isn't that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka?

    Sure, why not? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIIw8ZTPJio

  • ||

    I fucking LOVE that guy!

  • An0nB0t||

    Money
    to
    burn

  • Xenocles||

    What Cruz should have said:

    "If the Senator from California would answer my question, I would happily get off her lawn."

  • Irish||

    Cruz should have said: "I'm not treating you like a sixth grader. You haven't reached that level of maturity yet."

  • Brutus||

    He pretty much did. He told her the response she gave was non-responsive. That's when the rest of the gun-grabbing contingent, all men, stepped in.

  • SKR||

    Thats a great pearl clutching pic btw.

  • Tony||

    Bullet-ridden children are non sequiturs in a debate over the scope of access to guns!

    Feinstein's point is perfectly legitimate. No constitutional right is unlimited, least of all the right to own arms. Everyone draws a line somewhere, and that line is based entirely on the potential level of destruction of the weapons on either side of it. If you believe everyone should have access to nukes, you're insane. Disagreeing with the most radical people on this issue on where to draw the line doesn't.

  • Irish||

    The fact that you think 'I've seen things MAN! Things you wouldn't even believe!' is a legitimate argument in regards to gun control tells me so much about you.

    I already knew you couldn't make a rational argument on any topic, but now I see that it's not your fault. You're actually incapable of recognizing a rational argument. I wouldn't mock a color blind person for being unable to see green. So I guess I shouldn't make fun of you, now that I know you just have some mental disorder that makes distinguishing good arguments from bad ones impossible.

  • Tony||

    I just think that rates of deaths by guns is relevant in a debate about gun access. If you can prove that the widespread proliferation of guns has nothing to do with the large rate of gun deaths in the US, be my guest.

  • C. Anacreon||

    What percentage of gun deaths in the USA are street-gang related? That would be a good first piece of info to have to answer you.

  • Coeus||

    I just think that rates of deaths by guns is relevant in a debate about gun access.

    Fine. What does that have to do with all that bullshit she spouted?

    If you can prove that the widespread proliferation of guns has nothing to do with the large rate of gun deaths in the US, be my guest.

    The argument has never been about "gun crime". The argument (despite the desperate attempts to reframe it) has always been that gun ownership reduces crime. Crime. Parsing it into "gun crime" is a dishonest argument and you know it.

  • Brutus||

    Meet Tony, Coeus, he's like this all the time.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Given that it seems like a lot of those deaths are in pretty concentrated areas, "widespread" proliferation of guns doesn't seem to be the issue.

  • Irish||

    Not to mention that 'I've been here for a long time!' is an idiotic argument from seniority. By that logic, if you sent me to college and I remained there for 37 years, I would be the greatest genius the world has ever seen.

  • Tony||

    She's saying she doesn't need to be lectured to by a newbie on primary school-level civics. I disagree with Dianne Feinstein on some constitutional issues. But the way libertarianish Republicans and libertarians in general approach constitutional issues is certainly as if they stopped in primary school and then decided they know all they need to know. Of course it wasn't school that taught them that, it was right-wing media.

  • Irish||

    Doesn't need to be lectured by a newbie? Ted Cruz is a former lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court. Dianne Feinstein is a career politician. Which of them is likely to have a better understanding of the law?

    I like that you're so obsessed with credentials but when a career politician argues with a man who was an adjunct professor of law, an Associate Deputy Attorney General and a Domestic Policy Adviser to a president, all of the sudden those credentials are irrelevant and he's just a newbie.

    I also seriously doubt Ted Cruz, having graduated from law school and argued cases won cases that were argued before the Supreme Court, got all of his ideas from the right wing media conspiracy that only exists in your mind.

  • Irish||

    Wow, I fucked up that last sentence badly. Clearly it's meant to say 'I seriously doubt Ted Cruz, having graduated from law school and won cases that were argued before the Supreme Court...' yada yada yada.

  • ||

    She's saying she doesn't need to be lectured to by a newbie on primary school-level civics.

    And the reason she's saying she doesn't need to be lectured to by a newbie on primary school-level civics. Is because she doesn't have a legitimate answer to the question.

    AND you know it you mendacious immoral pig.

  • juris imprudent||

    DERP!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    She's saying she doesn't need to be lectured to by a newbie on primary school-level civics.

    A question isn't a lecture.

  • CE||

    I don't listen to the right-wing media. The meaning of the Constitution is pretty clear from reading it. Even a sixth grader could understand it. To pretend the words don't mean what they say they mean is to advocate lawless government that respects no written bounds.

  • KevinP||

    Wait, the bullet-ridden children were killed by nukes? Which the NRA wants to be freely accessible to everyone? I'm confused.

  • GILMORE||

    its the false equivilence fallacy = apparently arguing flash hiders and pistol grips and 10+ round magazines are OK is akin to endorsing bazookas and atom bombs for free citizens.

    or its just reductio ad absurdum to the nth degree

  • ansible||

    hang on. the point of bringing up nukes is simply to show that everyone recognizes that the government can and does limit what arms you may have under the 2nd amendment.
    this is about where we draw the line, not whether it's constitutional (because it is)

  • Paul.||

    Feinstein's point is perfectly legitimate. No constitutional right is unlimited, least of all the right to own arms.

    You're practically on your knees, begging the question, Tony.

    It's true because it's true!

    If you believe everyone should have access to nukes, you're insane.

    Drink! Whenever you point out the sheer illogic of the anti-gun argument, they go for the NUKES! response.

  • dantheserene||

    "Nukes": the Somalia of RKBA arguments. (I'm relatively new here, so I'll explain that I think they are both idiotic so no one gets the wrong idea)

  • Tony||

    What's illogical about it? Nukes are a form of arms. My only point is that every sane person draws a line somewhere. Where do you get off saying your line is drawn in the absolute perfect place?

  • Paul.||

    Because Nukes are not "in common use". Patrol rifles are.

  • dinkster||

    The potential level of destruction from fucks like you reading books by Marx should not be ignored.

  • CE||

    Everyone draws the line somewhere on banning books. To ban nothing is INSANE!

  • Tony||

    Of course books aren't machines designed to make people's heads explode.

    If the constitution says we can regulate toothpaste then we can regulate those types of machines.

  • Brutus||

    Constitution says you can't.

  • GILMORE||

    If you believe everyone should have access to nukes, you're insane

    and what about "flash hiders, pistol grips, 10+ round mags, barrel shrouds, etc" ?... which is actually what this debate is about, and NOT "nukes and bazookas", which is the reductio ad absurdum argument posed in response to any disagreement about current proposed legislation.

    creating a straw man argument that your opponent is an "extremist" only works for so long. sooner or later you actually have to defend the idiotic idea that banning flash hiders is going to save lives. or trying to justify why a mini 14 is ok but a standard AR is not

    why i bother, i dont know. the Tony-retard depths have never been measured

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    Here's what we, as libertarians, need to understand about what Dianne Feinstein was saying: from her perspective, it was completely on-topic, and millions of progressives agree with her. (Not just because they're dumb.)

    DiFi and her fellow travelers see the Constitution as a living document, where the actual text is only the starting point. The real Constitution is the accretion of interpretations over the centuries in the form of legislation and court decisions agreed to by those in power.

    The actual text of the Constitution and its original intent are of historical significance only, and to just read it without taking its interpretive history into account is facile, worthy of a sixth grader's first civics class.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    She completely rebutted Cruz from her point of view. All she had to do was prove that the 2nd Amendment is no longer interpreted in the original sense, and by citing relevant, recent case law, she did so. The fact that this just sounded like "I'm not stupid! We've been ignoring that thing for a long time! We just did it a few years ago!" in Libertarianese is, frankly, not her fault.

  • Paul.||

    You do realize that the 'living document' argument makes the constitution utterly irrelevant, right? Right? You understand that. That once you veer off into maleable interpretation land, the constutition just becomes another political racket to be gamed by power brokers like Feinstein. Right? Which means the shorter version is: Me today, you tomorrow.

    For instance, the next time a progressive cites abortion as a sacred constitutional right, can someone say, "Oh, that old thing, that's an outdated interpretation before we had the technology and support systems we have today. A woman can have a child and with the global adoption system, can easily give up her baby to an adoption system with little impact to her life beyond a few hours in labor."

    What's that? A ridiculous argument? Good, I'm glad we're back in agreement as to how utterly fucking stupid the living document credo is.

  • Tony||

    It's a living document whether you want it to be or not. Heller was a complete revision of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. You presume that there is some alternative, when people who claim to be chained to the "original" interpretation are just giving their preference extra credit for nothing. "I'm right because I'm right" is what it means. Figuring out how the constitution applies to novel situations is what the court is for.

  • Brutus||

    As usual, you're full of shit.

  • ansible||

    constitutional amendment. the key is in the second of those words.
    the constitution has been a living document from the very start.

  • ansible||

    when you walk down the path that claims that a document is not a living document, you end up with biblical literalism... i.e. shellfish is evil

  • Paul.||

    And just FYI, I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to your example Progtard.

  • Irish||

    What's bizarre is that she used the Heller case as her cite, when by all accounts the Heller case actually EXPANDED gun rights from where they'd previously been. The case she was trying to use as evidence to support her point doesn't even support her point. That's what's so unbelievable.

  • ||

    Yes, but your average prog has no idea what Heller did.

  • juris imprudent||

    Nor Citizens United - it just did something evil.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    DiFi was saying that Heller allowed certain types of restrictions on what kinds of guns people can own. I'm not super familiar with Heller so I defer to others, but it sure sounds like the Supremes left a loophole big enough to keep from overturning the NFA, and Feinstein wants to use that to cram her assault weapon ban though.

  • Irish||

    I'll agree that this section:

    Scalia also mentioned "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    could be used for an awful lot of gun bans. Here's the problem. There's no way assault rifles would meet even this criterion. There are 4 million legally owned 'assault weapons' in the United States. They were only used in something like 200 murders last year, which means that virtually all gun murders in this country are committed by handgun. So how can you argue the gun is unusual with 4 million of them in circulation, and how can you argue it's more dangerous than other guns when the vast majority of murders aren't committed with assault rifles? Under 'dangerous and unusual' I can't imagine an assault rifle ban could be considered legal.

  • ||

    Assault "rifles" /=/ assault "weapons".

  • UCrawford||

    It's not bizarre if you remember that Feinstein does almost no research on her opinions.

    This is a politician who thought that tech companies were all in favor of SOPA...despite the complete opposite being true. She's consistently among the most grossly uninformed politicians on the planet.

  • ||

    Why should she bother to be informed when she already knows what's best for you?

  • AuH2O||

    See I could accept their logic that the Constitution has a common law system that has been built up that makes tradition just as important as text. But that isnt their philosophy. The constitution is a "living document" that means that it should approve of whatever current political goal you want and stop tue ocky goals of the other side like banning abortion because to be in the modern world means to be in lock step with progrwssives and not with some idiots in the 30s ( unless those idiots gave you the power you need)

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    If the real Constitution is whatever compromise the powers that be have currently agreed to, even if that runs counter to the known original intent, then all it takes is a few inappropriate compromises on the part of the right to functionally erase the 2nd amendment in the minds of Democratic legislators and jurists. (It's already gone from the thinking of progtards, but I'm talking about the more moderate and thoughtful ones who we should be trying to approach.)

  • Ted Levy||

    I'll go you one further, Jacob. I'd be shocked if Feinstein weren't lying when she said she's "put [her] fingers in bullet holes." In a country with a less credulous news media, someone would be investigating that...

  • Irish||

    Why would she ever do that? I heard that line and my bullshit detector went wild. Why would anyone put their fingers in a bullet hole unless they're a doctor?

  • The Sherriff of Fistingham™||

    "Why would anyone put their fingers in a bullet hole unless they're a doctor?"

    Ummm...Because she's a creepy, sadistic, morbid, twisted, lying, disingenuous, power hungry bitch, that's her fetish, and that's how she gets off. Science is just now perfecting the fire hot enough for DiFi to properly die in.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Are you sure she meant in a body, as opposed to in a wall or something?

  • dinkster||

    Yeah she might be that stupid. I've personally done some weird things with ballistics jelly, therefore I am an expert on impact trauma. (Even that is too technical for where Feinstein is coming from)

  • Michael||

    ...and put your finger in bullet holes...

    This has to be some Doubting Thomas dog whistle shit aimed at the more liberal among Catholics just in time for Easter. Is it possible that DiFi really is that clever?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "Is it possible that DiFi really is that clever?"

    No, I suspect she may have seen a corpse, at an inquest or autopsy before, no more. It is a similar BS arlarm that should go off when you hear people claim they had someone "die in their arms"...

  • ||

    It's fucking bullshit. I've been shot at, been in shootouts, my best friend was shot dead, I've seen PLENTY of bullet riddled flesh. Heck, I had a guy blow his head off while standing 2 feet from me. Big fucking deal. It doesn't mean I get to come in here and propose stupid and arguably unconstitutional "assault weapons" ban bullshit. She's not a fucking street cop. She's trying to gin up "i've seen dead bodies" cred, and it's fucking stupid.

  • GILMORE||

    Fienstein = "death? what do you all know about death?"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cyXO5tO6kw

  • sloopyinca||

    Fuck Feinstein. Why, I bet if she tried to enter the Reason Hit & Run Superdrone College Basketball Tourney Pick-Em.

    Just like last year, the winner gets absolutely nothing except bragging rights. The loser gets mocked relentlessly.

  • AuH2O||

    None of you have have posted the Jez link? And you wonder why I keep posting them?

    http://m.jezebel.com/5990677/s.....ty-senator

    See Feinstein is right because she plays for the right team and that is all the Jezzies should learn from this

  • Paul.||

    I hovered over the link and got everything I needed from the story.

  • The Sherriff of Fistingham™||

    The Jezzbians are vile creatures.

  • GILMORE||

    "patronizing" = asking direct questions?

    "matronizing" needs to be used more often to clarify actual human behavior. the Jezztards seem to think that "dismissive, arrogant, disrespectful" behavior is monopolized by males

  • Brutus||

    "Patronizing" = asking direct questions they don't have a canned answer for.

    Cruz was well on his way to doing just what Sullum posits above: Proving how irrational and arbitrary DiFi's ban is. It's why DiFi's amen corner filibustered and ran out the clock on Cruz's time.

  • califernian||

    . I've passed on a number of bills.

    Oh, ok then. Nevermind.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    "This doesn't mean that weapons of war— ... Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high-powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don't think so." -- Dianne Feinstein, 2013

    "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." -- US Supreme Court, "US v. Miller," 1939

    Who's right?

  • The Sherriff of Fistingham™||

    Well, the military and police both use SBS as universal keys in breech and entry all the time, and the SBR is the weapon of choice for close quarter sweep/combat as well. So then "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" doesn't seem to hold much water nowadays.

  • ||

    Whatever one thinks of the legality arguments and the Miller case, a short barreled shotgun is an AWESOME home defense weapon.

  • The Sherriff of Fistingham™||

    I would assume as much.

  • Brutus||

    But only when you shoot the rounds into the air off your balcony or through the door at an unseen foe.

  • Josua||

    Americans should have access to those weapons necessary to defend themselves from paramilitary tough-guy wannabes with badges.

  • ||

    WOW. She sounds like a petulant, whiny bitch. And if anybody is in need of a lecture on the constitution, it's DiFi. I guarantee I've seen more bullet riddled bodies than DiFi, and unlike her I've even had bullets coming my way from "assault weapons" and it doesn't cause me to propose unconstitutional at worst and meaningless at best stupid-ass "assault weapon" legislation. What makes her so fucking special?

  • GILMORE||

    she's old and knows better than you, whippersnapper

  • CE||

    She's seen things.

  • ansible||

    what the poster has forgotten its that we DO have limits on first amendment rights with regards to owning "books". you can't own a book or file or article containing child pornography for example. the entire argument is bogus, unless you're in favour of lifting the ban on child pornography.
    so with respect: the government has the power to regulate both of these domains, child pornography and weaponry. all that remains to discuss is where the line is drawn, not the constitutionality of it!

  • Brutus||

    So the federal government can ban cameras, lenses, strobes, etc. that child porn makers use?

    Makes about as much sense as banning guns criminal use.

  • ansible||

    "So the federal government can ban cameras, lenses, strobes, etc. that child porn makers use?"

    yes, the gov might be able to do that. exept the "line" with regards to the first amendment has been drawn such that those things are in fact legal.

    and notice that i said the gov _might_ be able to do that. i don't think it actually would, since that certainly would infringe on a free press.

    but back to the 2nd am: you agree with me, that there is a line in the sand with regards to what weapons we should be able to bear (handgun ok, bazooka not ok). so you agree that the gov DOES have the power to draw that line (as per the whole "well _regulated_ militia" bit in the 2nd am.

    that's the whole point... claiming that a ban on assault weapons is somehow unconstitutional is bs.

  • Brutus||

    The weapons in DiFi's list are in "common use." That means protection frokm the 2A.

    Personally, I think the federal government doesn't have the power to draw that line, but if it's going to be granted one by the SCOTUS, it should have that power greatly constrained by compelling state interest.

  • ansible||

    "The weapons in DiFi's list are in "common use." That means protection frokm the 2A."

    what's your precedent for that conclusion?

    btw scotus has already ruled on the issue of gun control laws (Konigsberg v. State Bar). the 2nd am does not protect against gun control laws, be it federal or state legislation. laws prohibiting gun sales to felons or convicted domestic abusers are perfect examples.

    state interest is a straw man. if federal law says "no can do" then no can do. as everyone knows, federal law trumps state law.

  • Brutus||

    And your camera statement is bonkers.

  • ansible||

    i'm not the one who claimed that banning cameras was a good way to tackle child pornography... that was you.

    [sarcasm]while we're at it we should probably tackle high inner city congestion by taking away everyone's cars.[/sarcasm]

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement