Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Senator Ted Cruz was the Texas Solicitor General prior to his new career in the Senate. For those that don't know, he defeated the establishment Republican in the Texas primary to replace Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and then won the general election in November. Here's his exchange and reasoning when dealing with Gun Ban Dianne and her dithering response.

Explosive Exchange at Gun Hearing Between Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein | The Weekly Standard

Cheers,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,176 Posts
He just said what I've been saying all along,and instead of answering his question she goes on to babble about everything except what he asked her
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Another benefit of his election (to me, anyway) is that he's pulling our Senior Senator, John Cornyn, to the right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
"Imploding bullets"?

Wasn't long ago another anti ranted about "exploding bullets".

To my knowledge, both types are unavailable to the general public. The latter due to restricted sale of HE rounds, and the former due to not existing in reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I think I'd much rather be hit by an imploding bullet than an exploding bullet. An imploding bullet might actually close the wound up...:image035:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
963 Posts
Feinstein = complete idiot

She even gives California a bad name,,,, if it can get worst.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
I am LOVING how NOTHING is bothering Cruz, and how he is getting teamed up on and doesn't lose his cool.

Does no one see it as funny that she says the Supreme Court interpret the law? Didn't the Supreme Court rule that "weapons commonly used by the military at the time" are protected against 2A infringement? If this is the case, go ahead and ban my semi-autos. I'll go pick up my m14 with it's "commonly used" 30 round magazine. HA! I win this loophole battle!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
She's perturbed that she's being lectured (as she calls it), when in reality her hypocrisy (IMO) is simply being called out. She is (a) presuming constitutionality of the infringements to the uninfringeable 2A, and she (b) cannot explain the justification for why the 2A's infringeable in a manner in which the 1A and 4A are not.

Hm. Obfuscation, anyone?

Sad that others were jumping to defend her by disclaiming a need to discuss "books." :rolleyes:
 
1 - 20 of 76 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top