And yes, it was a question which I thought I'd never see a U.S. Senator put to another Senator - especially one like California's Diane Feinstein who has attacked the Constitution and the Bill of Rights over the years.
Though the Senate Judiciary Committee passed Feinstein's gun-grabbing bill that bans over 150 different types of guns, it didn't pass without a fight from Republicans.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz grilled ultra-liberal California Democrat Senator Feinstein on the Constitutionality of her gun ban, reminding her that the same "right of the people" applies equally to the Second Amendment as it does to the First and Fourth Amendments.
He asked her if she thought it within the purview of the federal government to ban certain books because it didn’t like them as say in violation of the First Amendment or claim that certain citizens are not protected against unlawful searches and seizures as in say violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Cruz contended that this is what she and her Democrat friends are doing with the 2nd Amendment and semi-automatic weapons.
Liberals have simply deemed those firearms “assault weapons" and have arbitrarily decided, all for political reasons, that they can be legally banned.
But no, Feinstein didn't like being asked about how she viewed the Constitution saying, ”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. And so I — you know, 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.”
After her rant, she strongly objected to Senator Cruz’s use of the term “prohibited.” She said that nothing is being prohibited because there are 2,271 exemptions.
Imagine that, I guess those other guns don't count as being prohibited for some reason? But who knows why? Who can really gauge how Liberals think, they are such devious cowards.
She said, “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.”
Since she didn’t answer Senator Ted Cruz’s question, he asked it again, to which Feinstein reluctantly responded, “No.”
Later, she backpedaled when other Democrat members of the committee chimed in to remind her of child pornography.
She then changed her answer and said that child porn books can be legally banned because they are not protected under the 1st Amendment.
As a side note: The USA Department of Justice coordinates programs to track and prosecute child pornography offenders across all jurisdictions, from local police departments to federal investigations, and international cooperation with other governments.
Efforts by the Department to combat child pornography includes the National Child Victim Identification Program, the world's largest database of child pornography, maintained by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the United States Department of Justice and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) for the purpose of identifying victims of child abuse.
Police agencies have deployed trained staff to track child pornography files and the computers used to share them as they are distributed on the Internet, and they freely share identifying information for the computers and users internationally.
So though they were right in coaching her to say that the government does have the authority to ban certain books and publications like child porn, the government does not have a right to violation the First Amendment by banning books for political reasons.
You see, Feinstein equates so-called assault weapons with child porn. Not with say banning Mark Twain, which is a more appropriate comparison to what she and other Democrats are trying to do.
Her fellow Democrats failed to mention that besides Child Porn, which is justifiably banned, the works of 19th Century American Writer Mark Twain is unjustifiably banned in schools around the country.
Samuel Langhorne Clemens, (1835 to 1910), is better known by his pen name Mark Twain, was an American author and humorist. And yes, America's greatest writer.
He is most noted for his novel The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876) and its sequel, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), the latter often called "the Great American Novel."
Twain was a master at rendering colloquial speech and helped to create and popularize a distinctive American literature built on American themes and language. Many of Twain's works have been suppressed at times for various reasons.
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been repeatedly restricted in American high schools for its frequent use of the word "Nigger" which was in common usage in the pre-Civil War period in which the novel was set.
If we use Child Porn as an example of what should be banned, than we can say that banning Child Porn is the same thing in severity as banning air-to-air anti-aircraft Stinger missiles or hand-grenades for example.
Using Mark Twain as an example of what we should not ban is extremely appropriate because someone has made the Political decision that his 19th Century language is offensive because he uses the 19th Century colloquialism "nigger" in the way they did back when he was alive.
Imagine that for a moment, writers who actually use the same vernacular language as those around them? Wow! What a concept!
Liberals who keep Mark Twain out of schools for political reasons are violating the First Amendment. It is the exact same thing as trying to ban so-called assault weapons just because of political reasons.
They use the gun's appearance and mechanical features to say that they are more dangerous than other firearms, yet FBI crime statistics don't agree with what they are trying to sell the American people.
It is not surprising that Democrats would use Child Porn as an example of how they see so-called assault-weapons. It is an extreme, it is their way of doing things. It is the very same way how Obama said the world would end after March 1st 2013 because of Sequestration.
Throughout history, various people and groups have banned books like Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because they contain information, ideas, or language that conflicts with their own values and beliefs.
The same with guns in the respect that guns conflict with how liberals see the world. It offends them to think that Americans would be stronger than the government and of course more independent from needing government protections if they had guns.
Huckleberry Finn remains one of the most controversial novels in classrooms and on school library shelves; the main criticism is Twain's treatment of the theme of race and his use of so-called "racial slurs" in reference to African Americans, Native Americans, and poor white Americans.
So-called "racial slurs" today was common language before the Political Correctness Police rear their ugly heads and stifled free speech.
Although the novel is written in the vernacular of its historical setting and the time period in which it was written, people today find this language offensive.
Some people have falsely claimed that Twain's novels condone and promote racism. Though that is not true and in fact Twain was an ardent abolishionist, they lie to get Twain off the shelves. It is their way of getting political support to ban them.
Democrats like Feinstein want to ban so-called assault weapons because of how she and other liberals see them. Liberals have set themselves up as would-be censors fto decide what is OK and not, what should be legal and not. Yet, no one asked them to!
And really, since anyone who has read my blog knows, I believe in common sense regulations but not government power hungry over-regulation.
Feinstein's attempt to ban a type of gun that is not a primary concern to law enforcement in America is an attempt at impose government control and over-regulation through political theater.
And yes, beings next year is an election year, it may all be for her liberal constituents in California.
Story by Tom Correa