When Feinstein was asked whether the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment could similarly be limited, for instance by prohibiting certain books, the (very) senior senator from California responded not with law but with hysterics and violins.
Let me just make a couple points in response. 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 and 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 were other weapons.
I'm not a lawyer, but in 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 that 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... Incidentally, this does not prohibit—you use the word "prohibit"—it exempts two thousand two hundred and seventy one weapons. Isn't that enough for the people of the United States? Do they need a bazooka?
Let me repeat: the Feinstein bill "exempts two thousand two hundred and seventy one weapons. Isn't that enough for the people of the United States?"
In other words, Feinstein is banning all firearms, but then allowing us to have some, at least for now.
Which just confirms her earlier statement, around the time of the first assault weapons ban: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in."
It's like the Constitution doesn't even exist for these would-be tyrants. The oath they took to uphold the nation's highest law was a joke, a prank -- the victims of which are we, the people.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét