The ‘ignorant’ Cruz clobbers Feinstein, MSNBC

Another Way of Looking At It

If you have any interest in politics (and you don’t live under a rock) you have seen the emotional confrontation between Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.

Cruz threw Feinstein a fastball down the middle. All she had to do was keep her eye on the ball, take a swing, and hit a grand slam home run for the Democrats.

It was a gutsy move for Cruz – one that could have cost him. But the Harvard Law School graduate calculated correctly that Feinstein could not hit a home run. Feinstein would instead strike out.

Liberals and media see this as an embarrassment for Cruz because of his abrasive tone. For reasons they admit they cannot see, they could not be more wrong. Cruz clobbered both them and Feinstein so badly that it’s laughable…

…Feinstein gave the following little nugget of political gold to her opponents. She told Cruz, “You use the word ‘prohibit.’ It exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States?”

Those who hold an expansive view of the Second Amendment might interpret her words like this: Americans don’t really have a right to weapons, so out of the magnanimity of our Congressional hearts, we’ll let you people have 22-hundred or so exemptions…

…If the assault ban falters in Congress, Senator Ted Cruz might be the reason. The “ignorant” Cruz outsmarted them all.

Read the entire article at Another Way of Looking At It.

And you might want to also read Sen. Cruz’s Wikipedia page, particularly the notation, “Legal career.”

Related:  This is part of a press release from Senator Cruz’s Congressional site:

U.S. Sen. Cruz on Heller, the Second Amendment

WASHINGTON, DC – Some media outlets have incorrectly characterized what U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said at yesterday’s Judiciary Committee mark-up on guns. In particular, some commentators have attacked a straw-man, falsely claiming Cruz argued the Heller v. DC case did not allow any restrictions at all under the Second Amendment.

What Sen. Cruz said was directly to the contrary, as this hearing clip demonstrates:



Sen. Cruz said Heller makes clear that laws prohibiting weapons “in common use” for self-defense are unconstitutional. Thus, under Heller “dangerous and unusual” weapons—like fully automatic machine guns and sawed-off shotguns—can be restricted, but weapons like so-called “assault weapons” which are undoubtedly “in common use” (with over 4 million owned by Americans) cannot.

Comments are closed.