During a hearing on the assault weapons ban in the Senate Judiciary Committee (which was approved along party lines) Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had a few questions about the Bill of Rights for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who reminded the junior senator from Texas that she is not a sixth grader.
Watch the video of the exchange below:
The automated transcript of the exchange is below via ABC news (I have added the names of Cruz and Feinstein to indicate who was speaking but have otherwise not altered the transcript):
Cruz: 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—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 which—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. Which 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 is deemed.
Outside the protection of the—— he'll never question.
Feinstein: Let me just make a couple of points in response. One I'm not a sixth—Senator—been on this committee for twenty years.
I was a mayor for nine years I walked—I saw people shot I've looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons.—seen the bullets that implode. In in sandy hook youngsters were dismembered.
Look there are other weapons. I'd been up I'm I'm not a lawyer. But after twenty years I'd been up close and personal to the constitution.
I have great respect for. This doesn't mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision. Clearly points out three exceptions.
Two of which are pertinent here. And sell—You yet you know army is flying while lecture me on the constitution. I appreciated just know I've been here for a long time.
— passed on a number of bills a study the constitution myself—reasonably well educated. And I thank you for the lecture incidentally. This does not prohibit.
You used the word prohibit it exempts. 2271. Weapons.
Is—add enough for the people in the United States.—mr.—and 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. Senator—want to apologize to you he sort of got my dander up. And that happens on occasion.