Check out the debate yesterday with Republican Senator Ted Cruz vs. Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein over the Second Amendment o

[Gary Devine]

Check out the debate yesterday with Republican Senator Ted Cruz vs. Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein over the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Everyone knows that Senator Feinstein is the sponsor of the bill that will ban many semi automatic firearms across this great county. The link below has the video. Do you have any comments on this video debate? www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/14/sen-cruz-feinstein-tangle-over-2nd-amendment-as-panel-approves-assault-weapons/

[Gary Devine]

This is the link with the video of them locking antlers.


www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/14/sen-cruz-feinstein-tangle-over-2nd-amendment-as-panel-approves-assault-weapons/

[Gary Devine]

Sorry, this is the correct link that shows the entire debate. I should of checked first. Sorry again.

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/14/fireworks_ted_cruz_vs_dianne_feinstein_on_gun_righ ts.html

[Ga hunter]

All I can say is that she's a total moron.

[Bioguy01]

Feinstein is a delusional, emotional, and power hungry hypocrite.

[labrador12]

A school librarian was stabbed to death last night and her 10 yr old daughter was raped. Coumo's gun law helped the perp out. Way to go NY Democrat Party. She was at a local gym at a Clay NY mall.

[Treestand]

Again~ You cant FIX STUPID!!!

[Sourdough Dave]

Cruz makes a very valid point. Why is the second amendment on the chopping block while the first amendment remains untouchable? All the Bill of Rights must be untouchable except through the amendment process. If Jesus on the cross submerged in urine is free expression protected by the first amendment, then law abiding citizens owning semi-auto rifles with large capacity magazines must remain protected under the second amendment. We already have laws on the books to deal with the non-law abiding citizens. Start using them before dreaming up new ones.

[RJ Arena]

You may get into an argument from a left leaning person regarding the second amendment and they will bring up the classic"you can't yell fire in a crowded theater' argument, saying it is OK to limit the 1st, why not the 2nd?(we are going to put aside the "shall not be infringed" for an other rant)
To start off with, their premise is a false one, you can yell fire in a crowded theater, if there IS a fire, the prohibition is when you yell fire when there is not a fire, and people are hurt in the process of leaving the theater. This is not a limit on the 1st, but only holding someone accountable for their actions if they cause harm. Which is exactly what is done today regarding firearms, If I cause harm with my revolver, i.e. I shoot someone, I am libel, unless I can show it was in self defense of myself or others.
So to make laws that limit my ability to own a weapon based of the possibility that I may in the future harm someone with it is a violation of my 2nd amendment right, just as making a law that prohibits me from righting a letter because it may libel some unknown person in the future.
The founding fathers wanted us to be free men that would be held accountable for our actions.
That is a simple argument.

[99explorer]

Prohibition against the ownership and possession of firearms goes beyond holding people responsible for their actions. It is a prior restraint.
A similar prior restraint in the case of the First Amendment would be a prohibition against the ownership and possession of a printing press or broadcasting station.

[Gary Devine]

Diane Feinstein stated and I quote “Do you need a Bazooka?” Who in God’s name is asking for a Bazooka? She also kept using those ugly words like “assault weapons” and “weapons of war.” What I worry about are all the neutral people sitting on the fence, which are neither pro gun or anti gun. Feinstein saying those scary words can put fear into those masses, who do not understand that they‘re semi auto firearms. The Public thinks they are machine guns!

[Clay Cooper]

Yes Senator Diane Feinstein, you do sound like a 6th grade (brat), you need constant reminding of the Constitution & the Bill of Rights and that place you came from you say, you do need to back to your place of origin and stay there!

[Clay Cooper]

I listen to those who oppose concealed carry, open carry including just flat out against having a firearm.

What is obvious is, their beliefs are not at all based on facts and definitely ill informed. They have no practical experience or they must carry the tune from higher up with malicious intents.

But most of all, they believe you must share in their own sickness (hoplophobia) and beliefs, there is no other way but there way.

To own, to carry or not to own or not to carry should be left to one’s own choices. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position.”

As one Luby Massacre Survivor to Senate: “I’m Not a Victim of Guns, But of Lawmakers Who ‘Legislate Me Out of the Right to Protect Myself and My Family’”

As for myself, I’ve been a victim once, never again!

[Clay Cooper]

Treestand, CAN'T FIX STUPID, BUT YOU CAN SEDATE IT!

[Hoski]

I'm no fan of Fienstien nor her proposed ban.
However, you guys better take a good look at the Heller decision handed down by Scalia (SCOUTUS).
Govt absolutely does have the right to restrict, any of you own a Tommygun?
Cruz, as a Harvard law grad and past SCOTUS law clerk should've known better. A better question to have asked might have been "is the proposed ban stictly for military weapons or their civilian lookalikes"?