Comments on: Ted Cruz’s question to Dianne Feinstein regarding the constitutionality of her gun law should be required reading for conservatives

By: Charles Martel

Charles Martel — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 21:28:41 +0000

Book, I think what they’ve sacrificed is their dignity. It’s undignified to so vehemently protest the inevitability of age that you surgically turn yourself into a caricature. There’s nothing wrong with wrinkles and sags. As lethargic and my sainted mother pointed out, those happen to all of us–if we’re lucky.

In Pelosi’s case, her self-caricaturization is doubly pitiful given her insistence that she is a devout Catholic. Were that actually the case, she would take seriously the Church’s warnings about the soul-eroding properties of vanity.

By: Bookworm

Bookworm — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 19:43:27 +0000

lethargic, I am an aging woman myself, so I do appreciate your point of view. The reason I mock both Pelosi and Feinstein is because they have used plastic surgery, make-up, and (I bet) botox to such an extent that they don't look like aging women. They don't look human. In their quest for youthfulness, they've abandoned something very fundamental, and I can't quite put my finger on what it is, other than to point to their peculiar looks.

Because my mother has spent the last several years in a retirement community, I've had the opportunity to study closely women and men aged 70 - 100. None of these "real" people, even the women who have had a little nip-and-tuck over the years, have that peculiarly mummified face.

By: lee

lee — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 19:30:16 +0000

DiFi’s retort of child pornography as a way freedom of speech/press is limited by the government is a bad analogy. Child pornography is a limit on what you can do with your speech/or pressand is comparable more to laws against using guns for illegal purposes–such as murder, armed robbery, etc., and the way those laws “limit” the second amendment.

By: lethargic

lethargic — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:50:24 +0000

As much as I agree with you on every other point, I ask you — all of you — please to stop mocking aging women because they are aging. With luck, it happens to us all. Unfortunately, most women do not age as well as do men, according to contemporary standards of beauty and attractiveness. And of course, women are expected to look better than men in almost all circumstances … why aren’t the feminists taking on that cultural norm? But I digress. Please stop mocking aging women for doing their best to look their best, whether it’s Nan’s Botox or Di’s Dye or whatnot. I personally make vastly different choices than those women have made, but I wouldn’t want someone mocking me for my minimalism, either. Fair is fair, folks.

By: Spartacus

Spartacus — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 17:20:31 +0000

As recently as 1939, the Supremes still remembered the insurrectionist intent of the Second Amendment, actually ruling against the gun owner in United States v. Miller because they reasoned that his gun was insufficiently military in nature to enjoy protection under the Second Amendment. It was the collection of cannon at Concord that Gen. Gage's troops were after, and the Founders remembered that well. If you pointed that out to DiFi, I think her head would explode.

By: bizcor

bizcor — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:18:08 +0000

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have shown some Moxi. Lets hope this will encourage more Tea Party Conservatives to one speak up, and two run in 2014

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 02:21:33 +0000

It seems to me that with the ban on fully automatic rifles, we have already conceded the principle that the government can restrict firearms. I’ve heard no one argue that we should overturn that ban.

Senator Cruz’ question could have been answered very easily by pointing to such examples, I think. And I think he knows it. But he threw the question out there because he was reasonably confident that Feinstein hadn’t put any thought into the constitutionality of her bill, and that she would therefore stumble and bumble and reveal herself as a complete lightweight. Which she promptly did, yay! Open mouth, insert foot, wedge tightly!

Feinstein’s bill is based on protecting the gun rights for “sports and hunting activities” only. Restricting guns based on planned activity has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment and to me the bill is clearly unconstitutional (but then again, so was ObamaCare, I thought, and, um, a greater mind than mine such as John Roberts disagreed). The criteria for which weapons are to be banned and not banned are utterly ludicrous. Many restrictions are chosen based on appearance only, not functionality. It’s banned if it has a certain type of grip??? Say what? Maybe we should allow only pastels, especially ensuring that we ban glossy black. But Feinstein didn’t have to answer to that damning charge.

By: MacG

MacG — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:00:56 +0000

If I was on DiFi’s team I would have asked about the fourth amendment parole searches that are performed without warning 24/7. But then that seems to be a voluntary condition to get out early but it is an abridgment to an unalienable right is it not?

By: Charles Martel

Charles Martel — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:33:13 +0000

DiFi’s unfortunate political career was extended almost 35 years thanks to Dan White’s assassination of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and gaydom’s favorite papier-mache hero, Harvey Milk.

DiFi, president of the Board of Supervisors at the time, was slowly backing out of public life when the murders thrust her into the mayor pro tem position. She was a calming and steady force, moderate at the time, on a city in great distress. She later won the mayoralty in her own right and served two terms.

Alas, once she got to Washington, she moved lefter and lefter, though she’s never quite reached the Looney Tune level of Babs Boxer. Still, she is a classic example of Democratic privilege: wealthy, rabidly feminist, a Stanford grad, and pretend devout Jew, at one time smart as a whip and now reduced to employing the hyper-emotional non-logic so favored by 13-year-old girls, college professors, and “journalists.”

By: donkatsu

donkatsu — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:34:23 +0000

Book,
Don’t you think it would be a good piece of truth-in-packaging regulation to make the use of hair dye impermissible for elected officials. We would then be more fully exposed to the decrepitude, obsolescence and, as you note, creepiness of these people.
Anything that makes DiFi uncomfortable is probably good for the republic. And note that Durbin’s rejoinder was about what some specific reading material contains – a functional test not a proscribed list, with due process safeguards – as is not the case in the DiFi bill.