Thursday, March 14, 2013

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) supports Child Pornography and Adam Lanza's Right to Murder Children

Senator Ted Cruz is the latest in the string of needle-dicked pissant Republicans to bring their sick and twisted ideology to Washington DC.

Like a plague of locusts they descend upon the Capitol with the goal of grinding the American people into dust. Cruz thought he would school Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California) about the Bill of Rights.
Senator Cruz: The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? 
So, according to Cruz's view of the Senate and Constitution Child Pornography magazines and websites can't be deemed illegal because of the First Amendment.

Also I, as a Police Officer, am unable to arrest people deemed criminals because the Senate can't specify that some citizens lose their Fourth Amendment Rights.

And I couldn't do anything when a gang banger threatens to "catch you on the street" and "cap your bitch-ass" to a person in my town. I can't arrest him because that would be a violation of his First Amendment rights.

And Senator Cruz's condescending despicable rhetorical question was all about protecting the right of murderers. According to Senator Cruz, the Second Amendment Rights of Nancy and Adam Lanza are more important than 26 Americans, including 20 children, Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Republicans are twisted and evil. Their minds have become so warped by their sick ideology that they can not support Laws or Government.

The US Senate is attempting to create sensible Gun Restrictions. No Republicans will support such a Law. When a Country loses the Rule of Law you have Anarchy and that was as big a fear to the Founding Fathers as any.

Update:
I could have highlighted any number of possible scenarios (could the Senate stop the publication of a book containing Senator Cruz's bank account numbers, access codes, passwords, SSN, mothers' maiden name along with his address and photos of his daily routine, routes to work, time he likes to shower for instance) but it comes down to the fundamental question can the Government pass any Legislation?

18 comments:

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"So, according to Cruz's view of the Senate and Constitution Child Pornography magazines and websites can't be deemed illegal because of the First Amendment."

Or, alternatively...since gun control politicians want to progressively infringe on the 2nd Amendment, they should have no issue whatsoever with 'free speech zones'.

You and I may agree on many topics, but the civil liberty to be able to defend oneself with the tools commensurate with the threat, isn't one of them.

The major problem with the current gun control legislation is that it is utterly reliant on emotion and rhetorical invention, rather than facts. DiFi and her ilk are pretending that one set of firearms is somehow more lethal, based on cosmetic and ergonomic feature. Yet they cannot only not define why cosmetic and ergonomic features would make a firearm more lethal [as they claim], but they have a proven track record of not being able to even identify those features in the first place.

If they were truly concerned with saving lives, one might think that they would go after the firearm used in the overwhelming majority of violent crimes, rather than the one used in the overwhelming minority......unless of course, they simply intend to progressively pursue a complete ban on ownership of firearms...thus making the law abiding bear the burden of inequity when it comes to individual defense.

Cruz is a tool on nearly every issue...but in the particular case, Feinstein got what she deserved.

You're correct about what happens when a nation loses the rule of law....but that does not equal Democratic legislation being just or Constitutional.

Grung_e_Gene said...

Oh I agree, this law doesn't go nearly far enough. The Constitution isn't a Suicide Pact no matter how much Second Amendment Fanatics wish.

The problem is the evidence clearly shows more guns equals more gun violence.

We are flooded with guns.

But... for some reason that can't be discussed because...

What I want:

- A removal of the Federal blanket immunity firearm manufacturers have from lawsuits.
- A national database of guns.
- Twice yearly proof from gun owners that their weapons are under positive control

Are all impossible.

And so more shootings are going to plague us. Upstate New York Kurt Myers welcome to the Second Amendment Hall of Fame.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"We are flooded with guns."

And yet the rate of firearm related deaths has consistently declined over the last couple of decades.

Firearms manufacturers should be immune from lawsuits, when their legal product is used in a crime, but three, four or more times removed from the span of control of the manufacturer. Name another industry held to that standard.

I wouldn't be opposed to a registration database, if there would concrete provisions included that stipulated the right to defend oneself without unequal burden, and thus, the registration could not be used to confiscate firearms, as has occurred in every other nation that has gone from firearm ownership to near zero. That won't happen, because it's contrary to the ultimate goal.

More shootings are always going to happen. Removing firearms from the overwhelming majority of law abiding owners isn't going to change that.

Grung_e_Gene said...

I know from personal experience that guns can be used to defend the law-abiding. I am 100% in favor of guns being used for defense.

But, overwhelmingly guns in homes are used to kill a significant other in a Domestic situation or in the death of a person from an accidental shooting.

I also don't trust people and have very, very , very rarely met a responsible gun owner.

30,000 killed by Firearms. 12,000 homicides.

In 1994 there were 192 million guns in the country we've added 120 million in the last 20 years 50 million once Bush removed any threat of lawsuit.

Gun Makers have no reason not to make more and more and aggressively push them into the country.

And with the NRA and the Gun Nuts dancing around with the Hitler! Hitler! Hitler! Molon Labe! incitements... basically we're screwed.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Yet you didn't answer my question regarding manufacturers liability.

And the number of firearms have risen dramatically over the same time span that deaths by firearms have decreased....

Grung_e_Gene said...

CI,

Gun Manufacturers should be always be potentially liable. When Bush in 2005 made it impossible to bring any action against them he gave them blanket protection to flood the Nation with instruments of death.

Every person who is injured within this State, in person or property, by any intoxicated person has a right of action in his or her own name, severally or jointly, against any person, licensed under the laws of this State or of any other state to sell alcoholic liquor, who, by selling or giving alcoholic liquor, within or without the territorial limits of this State, causes the intoxication of such person. (235 ILCS 5/6-21)

Deaths by firearms haven't decreased due to an increase in # of firearms but because of medical advances.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

You are ignoring the span of control with your analogy of alcohol. With a firearm, the product is far removed from the manufacturers span of control. What you want with liability would be similar to me suing Ford because a drunk driver hit me with an Explorer.

And violent crimes using firearms have decreased. Nothing to do with medical advances.

Grung_e_Gene said...

CI,

If the Ford Dealership sold it to a drunk driver then yes the dealer and store could be liable. If Ford Motor Corp sold Explorers to The FARC then yes they could be liable. I also specifically mentioned "potential". Removing even the potential is something no one else enjoys.

You're changing categories. You mentioned "deaths" specifically above not crimes. And that has everything to do with medical advances and not the proliferation of firearms.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Yet again, you're laboring under the presumption that while Ford could sell a call to a drunk buyer...the firearms manufacturer is removed from the buyer...and if that buyer then commits a crime with the firearm, they're removed from the dealer.

The span of control is too far removed from the manufacturer, and thus should not, in any logical way, be held liable. Please name another comparable situation.

Syrbal/Labrys said...

The GOP has drank the sound bite Kool-Aid so long that they can't think their way through anything with real complexity. Hell, I am surprised they can figure which elevator button to push to get to their rooms.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Syrbal - Do you presume that the left is immune from the same?

Grung_e_Gene said...

CI,

Okay. You seem to be focused in on a micro level (1 particular Ford explorer being used by 1 particular Drunk Driver).

What if convicted criminal disgraced ex-Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick made a contract to buy Glocks and then gave the Glocks to criminals. Does Glock have any liability?

How much dilgenice is Glock required to do? None? Once Rockets Go Up Who Cares Where They Come Down That's Not My Department Says Werner Von Braun!

Can Glock supply arms to Al Qaeda? Can they supply them to both sides of the Syrian Civil War?

Once production is complete are they absolutely free and clear?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Glock would not have any liability based on their sale of firearms to the State, unless it was known that Kilpatrick intended to provide them to criminals...thus violating the straw purchase restriction. Kilpatrick bears the liability...just as if I sold my firearms to felons. Not Glock.

As with any manufacturer, unless the product is defective, once outside the span of control, they can not logically be held liable.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Like it or not, Kilpatrick is an agent of the State, convicted or not.

Grung_e_Gene said...

CI,

Okay... so your view is clear. Glock only makes the stuff, unless it's defective or negligently made they are free and clear to make as many guns as they want.

If I recall correctly you're a strong libertarian.

While I know unjust Laws have been made and still exist against substances, products and their producers which many people (sometimes a majority) have felt pose no danger is there anything a Country can do, in your opinion?

Do we have any recourse (besides better education in the usage of them) in respect towards Guns?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"Do we have any recourse (besides better education in the usage of them) in respect towards Guns?"

Education is certainly key in all things. I support stronger enforcement of mental health screening in regards to denying them the ability to own a firearm.

Beyond that, it needs to be a cultural change in the way we parent and teach. We have a history of a greater percentage of homes owning firearms, but with fewer incidents than we have today. We have a society that largely eschews personal responsibility, relying instead on a paradigm of dependance to the State. That needs to change....but can easily be a conversation in a far larger topic.

Andrew Acista said...

I don't for a second believe you are a sworn LEO Grung_e_Gene. You have neither the vocabulary nor the compositional skills.

Grung_e_Gene said...

@ Andrew Acidiot,

In response to what you believe and what are true the answer is What are Two things which are Diametrically Opposed.