Feinstein Snaps At Cruz: ‘I’m Not A Sixth Grader’

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

Republican Ted Cruz, the junior senator from Texas, rankled the nerves of Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Thursday during a contentious hearing on legislation, introduced by the California Democrat, that would reinstate a federal ban on assault weapons.

Cruz, a former constitutional law professor, began by reciting portions of the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, and asked Feinstein whether the power of government to restrict certain types of guns would be equally appropriate given those provisions.

"Let me just make a couple of points in response," Feinstein shot back at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. "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 have been shot with these weapons. I've seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I've been up -- 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."

Feinstein continued: "It's fine 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 am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture. ... I come from a different place than you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views."

-snip-

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/feinstein-snaps-at-cruz-im-not-sixth-grader?ref=fpa

[Tempest]

1. Schumer made Cruz look like a fool

"In reference to the question my colleague from Texas asked, would you limit books? Would you name specific books? Yeah. It’s constitutional within the ambit of the First Amendment to eliminate child pornography. And we have lots of laws that are very explicit about that. Very explicit. That are constitutional, that have been upheld as constitutional. Similarly, you can’t falsely scream fire in a crowded theater. Similarly, we have libel laws. Every one of these is an impingement on the sacred First Amendment, upheld as constitutional. There are reasonable limits on each amendment, and I think it is anomalous, to put it kindly, for either side to interpret one amendment so expansively and another amendment so narrowly that it just doesn’t add up because your interpretation of the Constitution should be consistent."

[Paladin]

4. Thank You, Sir.

Talk about a finely-worded, well-deserved public humiliation of that little shithook, Cruz.

"....to put it kindly...." God, that's good. I think Cruz is losing friends and influence by the hour. Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

[progressoid]

10. +1

[Jack Rabbit]

21. Making Senator Cruz look like a fool sound like

. . . a trick you can teach a smart dog. It's doesn't sound that difficult.

In his short time in the Senate, Cruz has made a complete ass of himself.

[JDPriestly]

22. Where was Cruz when police attacked the Occupy camps that were peacefully petitioning

their local governments?

[bossy22]

25. just because we have limits on rights, doesn't mean all limits are constitutional

that is the key. No one is arguing that there aren't constitutional limits on gun ownership- the issue is that the statement is used to defend "every proposed limit". The question is, where does it end? No, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre- but neither can you shoot guns in the air for celebration in an urban environment. I'm willing to hear people out on what constitutes reasonable, but atleast come with a credible logical argument- Don't come with stupid catch phrases.

This equally applies to those stupid comments made by many gun control proponents such as "there are laws limiting hunters to 3 rounds for deer, but no laws on hunting humans with 100 round magazines". How could anyone accept this kind of statement? Last time i checked if you hunt a human- you go to jail FOR A LONG LONG TIME. arent laws against murder the strongest laws on our books?

The gun control debate always gets hijacked by people who prey on low information voters.

[Phillip McCleod]

51. well.. the important thing is..

[SunSeeker]

2. You tell him, Diane!

Just because he was a lawyer/Con Law Professor does not mean he understands the Constitution. On this issue, he does not. Oh, and he is a massive douchebag.

[vlyons]

14. Sen Cur Dog

is a low down, dirty, good-for-nothing, vicious attack cur dog.
Oh, and did I mention that Sen Cur Dog is also an opportunistic asshole?

[whathehell]

3. Good -- This guy, especially as a junior senator, is WAY ahead of himself

I hear that many in his own party dislike him.

[perdita9]

9. The GOP should dislike Cruz

He makes them look like ignorant buffoons a role previously provided by Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

[The Wizard]

17. what do you mean

"look like ignorant buffoons." It's in their DNA.

[whathehell]

52. True, that. n/t

[yurbud]

5. Democrats need to talk like this consistently. There's no point in pretending you're having a tea

party with Charles Manson when he's shitting in your teapot.

[BlueManFan]

6. As A Progressive Living in Texjezustan

I die a little bit every time this stupid piece of tea bag shit opens his mouth. He represents all that is wrong with Texas teabaggery.

[OrwellwasRight]

33. Is there anything right with Texas Teabaggery?

[BlueManFan]

49. Absolutely--The Laugh Out Loud Effect

and the fact that the farther the right they move Texas, the less relevant this shithole state becomes.

[CBHagman]

7. I'd have to read the transcript and/or see more video...

...but I notice Cruz left off parts of the Second Amendment, namely the section concerning a well-regulated militia and its purpose.

[perdita9]

8. Cruz: Proof that stupid people go to Harvard

This guy has an ego as big as Texas but doesn't have the education or knowledge to back it up.

The Democrats made him look like a fool -- not that he's smart enough to realize it.

[Ter]

20. He's an ideologue, but he's far from stupid

He's exactly the same as Mike Lee, only louder.

[Inuca]

27. Agree

Probably (and unfortunately) true about Lee as well.

[Ter]

30. For some reason, Lee gets away with must more than Cruz or Rand Paul

He's the same type of libertarian/conservative/tea bagger too. My guess is it's because he's much less in-your-face than the other two.

[leftynyc]

11. You just know it chaps his ass

to get that kind of a beatdown by a woman. I can only imagine the disgusting things he's calling her in his head.

[sheshe2]

12. IMHO

That was a Touchdown! Best smack down ever!

Please Proceed Senator Feinstein!

[DRoseDARs]

13. A junior male senator "mansplaining" to a senior female senator... what could go wrong? nt

[HangOnKids]

19. His Entire BIO Is Barf Worthy

Wifey is a Goldman Sachs executive. He is a spoiled over pampered twit.

[EC]

15. A Canadian lecturing Dianne Feinstein on our Constitution?

He asked for it.

[Coolest Ranger]

16. Gamers will appreciate my response

Last edited Thu Mar 14, 2013, 07:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Flawless Victory

[John2]

18. Well, people have different views on

the interpretation of the Constitution and what it intended. That doesn't mean one interpretation is more right than the other. The senator makes a good point. Cruz is no more an expert than she is. They just have different interpretations. My holistic interpretation of the intent of the Constituition was it powers are invested in the people that agree to it. It is not set in stone. It can be amended, just like the provision on slavery and giving every American citizen the right to vote. The right to bear arms is not being prohibited but regulated for unlawful purposes. The only purpose for military style assault weapons and ammunition would be for armed conflict. That is the very purpose for a militia also. Hand guns and hunting rifles are not assault weapons. Those type of weapons are sufficient for personal protection also. Military style assault weapons are used for mass killings. They have no use in a civil society, unless you plan on having mass killings.

[bossy22]

23. the problem is the definition of "military style"

There is no set definition, no agreed upon standard. Every law is different and the weapons they ban/allow are radically different depending on how the law is written.

Why is a semi-automatic "hunting rifle" a-ok but if you stick a pistol grip on it its now a military weapon. Why are handguns ok? Aren't they used by the military? What about the pump action shotgun- the essence of a home defense gun is also present in many military arsenals. The fallacy here is the belief that all military weapons are designed for one single purpose- to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible- essentially they are all designed with a machine gun in mind. That is not the case. A military sniper rifle is picked because of accuracy at long distance and its ability to drop a 150lb man. Why are those requirements any different from a deer hunter, who needs a weapon that is accurate at long distance and can drop a 150lb deer? The weapon that they choose will be almost identical in function and capability.

also just listen term "military style". why does the "style" matter? For example, when you think of a sports car you think of things like a BMW M3, Lamborghini, Ferrari etc. My mother owns an Acura TL with the sport package- It is a "sport style" car with many features that are common in sports car but it is by no means considered a sports car. The same is with many guns that are banned under this legislation. what makes an AR-15 functionally different from a Remington 7600? Nothing. Or a benelli M4 and an M3 with no stock? nothing.

And why do you need to ban these weapons if you limit the magazines? 10 rounds out of an AR-15 isn't any quicker than 10 rounds out of a semi-auto "hunting rifle".

It comes down to this, the ban itself makes no sense and worst of all its- its a farse. It's sole purpose is to move the goal post incrementally. My feeling is if you want to institute a strict gun control regime like they have in UK then come out and say it- don't lie to my face and say its not about handgun bans and prohibition of self defense weapons- because it is.

[Thinkingabout]

29. What does not make sense is a weapon on the streets which are capable of blowing up people and

operators who are incapable of handling the right to possess one. Either they are allowing access to people who are not capable of handling or they just don't care. It is not about the hunting rifles it is about AR15, AK47, bushmaster and the like, even handguns with high capacity capabilities which are used in mass killings. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!! You can go off on these side roads but NOTHING has been offered to curtain the senseless killing which is reasonable except to ban these weapons.

[bossy22]

32. what is an AR15/AK47/bushmaster etc...

that is the key question. The public perception is that they are "killing machines" that spray super high powered armor piercing bullets everywhere. The simple truth is- that is just not true. They are medium calibre semi-auto firearms that look like full auto military weapons. So why can't an AR15 be a hunting rifle? What makes an "hunting rifle" different from an AR15/AK/bushmaster type weapons?



There isn't anything except that they have a "military style". The bullets aren't anymore powerful (actually in many cases the AR15 fires a weaker bullet than most hunting rifles) and they don't fly out as fast. They have black plastic stocks instead of wood stocks. They don't possess any special qualities that are "better" for mass killings. In fact VT massacre was committed using a Glock 19 9mm handgun with 15 round magazines- and the VT report actually concluded that if he had 10 round magazines the death toll wouldn't significantly change.
"The panel also considered whether the previous
federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 that banned
15-round magazines would have made a differ-
ence in the April 16 incidents. The law lapsed
after 10 years, in October 2004, and had banned
clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. The
panel concluded that 10-round magazines that
were legal would have not made much difference
in the incident. Even pistols with rapid loaders
could have been about as deadly in this situation. "

And the Northern Illinois shooting was done with a standard 12 pump action shotgun- a weapon that is commonly used for hunting and self defense.

So if you want to do something about statistically rare events there are other more effective avenues.
-allow private sellers to access the background check system
-fully fund initiatives to get states to report mental health data to the background check system
-National Safe storage law that still allows a ready weapon for self defense

Now if you want to do something about gun violence in general
-National 1 handgun a month law with exceptions for those with collectors licenses
-National Lost and stolen reporting requirement

on edit: we all want to prevent gun violence, but just because it sounds good doesn't mean it will work or is good. Assault weapon bans are silly distractions- they represent less than 5% of all guns used in murders and mass murders can easily be accomplished through other means just as easily

[Thinkingabout]

35. Maybe we should expend the ban, include all high caliber weapons, would that make your happier?

[bossy22]

38. no, because it wouldn't be feasable

any firearm that is good for self defense or hunting is probably going to be good at killing a human being. That is the truth. That is why i made those suggestions on the bottom. If we implemented those, that would make me happier

[Thinkingabout]

40. Then accept sensible weapons and get the weapons used in mass killings ban, we don't need our

children and our friends gunned down.

[bossy22]

42. You are missing my point

You are seeing a causation from a correlation. IF you ban those guns its not going to change the dynamics of mass killings. You aren't going to reduce the carnage.

The problem is "what is a sensible weapon"
this weapon below is a very common home defense shotgun and variations are used while hunting

it was also used in the northern Illinois campus shooting

[Thinkingabout]

46. If the shooter is limited to firing only 10 rounds instead of 33 and more in other cases it would

reduce the carnage, why would you hunt with a weapon which would destroy a large portion of the game you are hunting. If this is your desire then you should not be wasting game. If the argument is you need to have the weapons they are seeking to ban to protect your family, a well placed slug would kill and protect your family. Sensible, this is the word you should be using. It is not about banning sensible weapons but if those who argue Oh we can't do this because they will continue to come after your weapons then you are listening too much to the likes of NRA.

[bossy22]

47. so why not just go after magazine capacity

that is my point
Banning assault weapons is a stupid route to go down. If you limited the magazine capacity it wouldn't matter what weapon was used.

[Thinkingabout]

48. High capacity capabilities is on the table also but when the ammo explodes it is another problem.

I don't have any friends I am willing to give up to gun violence so I just may be different from those who do.

[beevul]

59. What ammo "explodes"? N/T

[OrwellwasRight]

37. That is what laws are for, to set standards.

Likewise, petty theft, trespassing, assault, robbery, second degree murder, neglident homicide are definined differently state to state.

Even the word "state" has various meanings under federal law. Most times it means 5- syates + DC. Sometimes it also means Puerto Rico. Sometimes it also means "tribal lands." Sometimes it also means American Samoa and the Marianas Islands. So you write a law and define what a term means and that is that.

You have raised a non-issue.

[bossy22]

39. No I haven't

Yes, statutes are different state to state, but there is a generally agreed upon definition of those offenses. A person who kills another person during a robbery might be charged with Murder 1 in state A, and murder 2 in state B- but I don't think you would have a situation where one state charges such an individual with murder 1, and the other charges them with 2nd degree manslaughter.

Their is no logic behind the definition- that is the core of the issue. It is a catch-all term for whatever anyone wants it to be. For example, the weapons featured below are assault weapons under new york statute, but by no other state's statute.

[OrwellwasRight]

43. There is no logic in calling the Marianas Islands a state either.

Many people think income taxes are illogical. So what? Laws create definitions. That is what they do. They say, this is illegal racial discrimination, or prohibited sexual harassment. They create definitions from scratch when there was mo "generally agreed upon definition" before. I still don't see that you are making a point that is relevant to anything.

[bossy22]

44. the marianas islands are not a state IIRC

Yes, we do arbitrarily define things, but that doesn't make it okay. People have legitimate gripes when it comes to arbitrary definitions.

[OrwellwasRight]

45. Lots of people think they have legitmate gripes about a lot of things.

Again I say, so what?

[Kingofalldems]

50. Can you take your gun pics to the Guns Department?

Thank you.

[closeupready]

24. No, Ms. Feinstein, you're not. You are a war profiteer, however.

And frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Funny how that works - you are fine with investing in the military/industrial complex and the entities that profit from arming our military, but somehow, that doesn't count in considering your personal character, or your record as a Senator, when it comes to taking arms away from law-abiding Americans.

>>Feinstein plugged the nation-building strategic doctrine now being pushed by the Pentagon’s best and brightest, as well as the Democratic "national security" crowd over at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), where the theoreticians of COIN hold court. The timeframe of this strategy went unmentioned by the senator, but it is measured in decades. Also unmentioned: the costs, not only in lives but in tax dollars.

Feinstein has personal knowledge of those expenditures, not only as former chairwoman and ranking member of the Senate’s Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (2001-2005), but also as the spouse of one of the biggest war profiteers in the business. Reporting in one of our excellent local northern California papers, The Bohemian (yes, as in Bohemian Grove), Peter Byrne notes:

"Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee.

-----------------------

Blum and Feinstein are laughing all the way to the bank as URS Corp and Perini grow fat on the military appropriations gravy train – the only sector of the U.S. economy that seems to be thriving. Perini, in which Blum owns a controlling interest, is the Democrats’ Halliburton – indeed, Cheney’s old corporate digs is Perini’s chief competitor. Blum bought it when it was nearly broke in 1997. In 2005, Feinstein’s membership on the subcommittee was "routinely" rotated, as the Soros-funded shills over at Media Matters made sure to point out, contrary to Byrne’s assertions that she might have resigned under pressure. By that time Perini was raking in $1.7 billion in annual income. <<

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/10/11/dianne-feinstein-war-profiteer/

[RBInMaine]

36. Either you are a TeaPublican troll or a TeaLeftist extremist purist. Either way, sell it elsewhere.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

41. Truth hurts doesn't it?

Sorry.

[24601]

55. Please refute the content rather than attack the poster. It's far to easy to say, I dislike what

you say, so you must be a troll.

Either his/her information is accurate or it isn't. If it's wrong, show why. If it's right, why isn't your anger aimed at the Senator instead?

[bossy22]

26. the more and more I see of this

the more I miss Russ Feingold. He was the only person in that entire building who wasn't a BS artist like everyone else.

That being said, Cruz is an idiot, Feinstein is a liar, and Schumer is a publicity hog.

[derby378]

28. Interesting how Feinstein rebuked Cruz without really saying anything

It sounded more like "Back off, sonny, I've been at this longer than you have."

[Thinkingabout]

31. Cruz is running true to form, you elect a TP candidate and you get stupid statements and run from

sensible ideas. It is not about Taxed Enough Already to just being dumb on governing. I did not vote for Cruz and never plan to do because of his dumb actions.

[RBInMaine]

34. GOOD ! Now THAT is how you deal with a TeaCRAZY FUCKING BASTARD like Cruz.

[davidpdx]

53. She should have walked up to him and smacked him

for being such a pig.

[24601]

56. Because violence solves everything?

[davidpdx]

57. No, violence doesn't solve everything

but the pig did deserve it for treating a woman like crap.

[24601]

60. OK, I understand - it's OK escalate words to violence when you disapprove of the words. And you see

nothing wrong with describing people in animal terms. I can understand that too. Sportscasters have. over the years, denigrated the accomplishments of minority athletes with similar comparisons.

[http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=pocpwi2&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dannouncers%2520compare%2520black%2520athletes%2520to%2520animals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D5%26ved%3D0CEsQFjAE%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1022%2526context%253Dpocpwi2%26ei%3D6sJFUZy5J7en4AOOxoCACQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGF6L4w4v2mZoh16nahM5lk1HAxPQ#search=%22announcers%20compare%20black%20athletes%20animals%22]

[davidpdx]

61. Welcome to ignore

[24601]

62. Better to have open exchange of information.

[Paladin]

64. Get Back To Us When You Have Information To Exchange.

There's a big difference between offering information, as opposed to promoting a thinly-veiled agenda.

[LanternWaste]

63. It's also OK to realize many visceral responses are just that...

It's also OK to realize many visceral responses are just that... visceral responses. The visceral comes from the emotional reaction and occurs immediately and almost spontaneously prior to conscious thought kicking in.

I'd imagine anyone who truly believed the poster you responded to actually thinks and wishes that violence is a solution in this case is either simply attempting to score an argument where none really exists, or (more likely) is rather sub-literate.

I can understand that too...

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. Meh. Teabagger squabbling with a Vichy Democrat.

Color me unmoved...

[Tom Ripley]

58. +1000