Speaking strictly as a neutral observer (although I do admit to having a bit of equal contempt for both liberal and conservative politicians)
...I watched that little skirmish between Feinstein and Cruz the day it happened. Cruz was
being condescending in tone, and in his overall approach while addressing Feinstein. Cruz came off (to me, at least)
as being arrogant and disrespectful. Feinstein recognized that too, apparently, and became red-faced with anger as she answered him firmly, but pretty calmly. I was surprised just how well she kept her obviously up-welling emotions in-check during the proceeding. It wasn't until after the official hearing was over that she revealed to a reporter (and the rest of us) why she became angered during Cruz' comments and questioning. At the time, I thought her anger was totally justified...although I would never want any politician to become so angered during a hearing that it would detract from, and possibly change the overall outcome of the hearing. Of course, if Feinstein's anger somehow detracted from the hearing, she was no less guilty than Cruz himself, for being an arrogant ass. His position, questions and viewpoint, didn't require him to be disrespectful, arrogant, and condescending toward Sen. Feinstein.
TPM In an interview with The Dallas Morning News published Sunday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said his commitment to the Constitution led him to vigorously question earlier this month an assault weapons ban put forward by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).
Later in the article..."One of the principle responsibilities that I take most seriously in this position is the responsibility to respectfully but forcibly raise serious questions about the constitutionality of legislation before this body."
See, that's where Cruz erred...he didn't appear to be "respectful" at all when he "vigorously questioned", and "forcibly raised his serious questions about the constitutionality of legislation". I don't think Feinstein was angered so much by his questions of constitutionality, but the way in which this
Senator, was addressing her (a Senior Senator)...as if she had no experience at all with the constitution. His condescending tone, appeared arrogant and disrespectful toward his fellow Senator. If Cruz wants a fruitful career as a politician, he needs to work on his manners and at least APPEAR to be more humble when addressing his colleagues. If he wants his opinions, and the views he represents to be respected by those he's addressing, he has to earn it! He didn't earn any points of respect either for himself, or the views he was trying to convey by coming off as an arrogant, condescending, upstart senator. If he'd been addressing me, he surely wouldn't have earned any respect from me that day! Instead, Cruz may have possibly (and certainly needlessly) made Feinstein a new political enemy...where as an experienced, less arrogant politician, may have maneuvered himself (and the viewpoint he represented) into a position of gaining respect, and perhaps at least more support.
As to the Constitutionality of an assault weapons ban...I can't find anything in the Constitution which allows citizens to keep and bear assault weapons, grenades, torpedoes, tanks, mustard gas, nuclear weapons, or any other weapon of mass destruction. The Constitution only says we have the right to keep and bear arms...it doesn't designate which ones. If Cruz, or any of you want to get technical about it...when the Constitution was written, about the only arms the people could keep and bear were swords, single-shot muskets, and single-shot pistols. With the exceptions of canons, that's about all that existed in the way of arms...and I don't think the average American could have afforded to buy, keep and bear their own canon back in the day.
So does putting even a small limit on the kind of weaponry we are allowed to keep and bear really infringe on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms? I don't
think it does...although I know there are many who believe it does. That's the reason we have this thing called, "votes" in this country.
Edited by Mark, 26 March 2013 - 03:33 AM.