Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, March 19, 2013 | 2:02 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
It is possible that the high point of this past week in Washington came when Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Sen. Ted Cruz to stop treating her as if she were in middle school.
Let me set the stage. First, pretend you’re Feinstein. You started your political career in San Francisco. While you were on the Board of Supervisors in 1978, your colleague Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated in City Hall. You were the one who discovered Milk’s body.
You arrived in the Senate with an understandable interest in gun violence. The ban on assault weapons you successfully sponsored has long since expired. You’ve been working on a new one for almost a decade, and, after the Sandy Hook slaughter, it looked for a minute as if there might be a chance.
But, as the immediate impact of the tragedy faded, the assault weapons ban lost traction. This had nothing whatsoever to do with the power of the opponents’ arguments, which seem to get weaker by the day. The big pitch of the anti-ban lawmakers is that people need assault weapons for self-defense. But there’s a distinct shortage of examples when they’ve worked better than a normal rifle or pistol.
During a meeting of the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas tried to shore up the pro-gun side by offering nine “news stories of people defending themselves with assault weapons” for the record. The list spanned 17 years and included things like “tenant shoots intruder on porch.” If this is the best the ban opponents have to offer, Feinstein’s bill should be passed by unanimous consent.
The other argument, which does not require examples, is that the Founding Fathers wanted Americans in the 21st century to be able to stock up on guns that can fire 45 rounds a minute.
Enter Ted Cruz of Texas, a Tea Party darling. He’s been in office only a few months, but he’s made quite an impression. You may remember his suggestion that Chuck Hagel might have been taking money from North Korea. Or his interesting theories about a United Nations plot to exterminate American golf courses.
Cruz said he had a question for the senator from California. “It seems to me that all of us should begin, as our foundational document, with the Constitution,” he began, in a tone that combined sublime pomposity with a total lack of actual curiosity. “And the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights provides that ...”
He delivered an extensive lecture to the 79-year-old Feinstein. The question buried in the harangue was whether she could imagine listing exceptions to other parts of the Bill of Rights. He could not have asked it in a more patronizing way if he had illustrated his remarks with pictures of large, brightly colored stick figures.
“I’m not a sixth-grader,” said Feinstein, before launching into a fiery defense. The bill, she noted, includes a list of 2,271 types of weapons specifically exempted from its scope: “Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka?”
“She gave a new meaning to the phrase ‘Leaning In,’” said her fellow committee member Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
Later, Feinstein would tell CNN that she felt Cruz was being “somewhat arrogant,” which seemed like an understatement. Even in an age of political polarization, there apparently is still an unwritten rule against calling someone “a stupendously irritating twit” on national TV.
In committee, Cruz sat sullenly while Feinstein gave her response. “I would note that she chose not to answer the question that I asked,” he said when she finished.
Other Democratic senators jumped in and pointed out some of the ways that other parts of the Bill of Rights were, indeed, limited by exceptions. Interestingly, none of the Republicans came to Cruz’s support. Do you think they ever take a vote for Colleague We’d Most Like to Avoid Meeting in the Elevator? I think we have a candidate.
Then Cruz announced he wanted to “make four points briefly. ...” It’s highly unlikely that a single person in the room wanted four points. And they were not in the least brief. But they were remarkable for their incessant self-reference.
“My fourth and final point is that the Constitution, in my opinion, should be the touchstone of everything we do. ...”
“I would point out that I am not unfamiliar with the Heller case. Indeed, I represented ...”
“In my view, the Constitution is particularly important, ...”
Do you think, people, that this is a key to the stupendous impact the Tea Party continues to have on Congress, even now that it’s proved itself to be a loser when it comes to elections? If you combine a lack of a sense of humor with an absence of humility and then stir in a cup of self-righteousness, you are definitely not working on a recipe for cooperative achievement.
Gail Collins is a columnist for The New York Times.
As Cruz said Feinstein did not answer the question
How does the bill met the test of not infringing on the right to bare arms
Senator Feinstein was being condescending to Senator Cruz by "leaning in." Cruz has a job to do as a Congressional inquirer and Feinstein as a Congressional witness. In these positions, like it or not, agree or not, Senator Cruz, not Senator Feinstein, has the upper hand. Regardless of her age and experience and the perceived lack of his. He's there asking the questions. She's there to answer.
Carmine D
If future wants to "bare" arms, all he has to do is remove his shirt. As for bearing arms, I would be curious as to whether he has ever borne arms in defense of his country.
Gail and Diane use work place violence and cold blooded murder with a six shooter revolver as an example to go after semi-automatic defensive firearms that they wrongly identify as assault weapons. Drones and A10's are assault weapons, Good Grief! If these two lefty loons hate the USA and it's Constitution so much why don't they just leave, and take a few old bull GOP and half the outlaw Democrat gang with them.
So Senator Harry Reid has shot Senator Feinstein in the back rejecting any attempt to ban guns
@Future: Of course Reid shot Feinstein down. She already knew it was dead they just had to put up a minor fight so that their voters will think their doing their job. Reid was smart to turn his back. He would have paid a big price with his donors if he didn't.
Gail Collins says about Sen. Dianne Feinstein "The ban on assault weapons you successfully sponsored has long since expired. You've been working on a new one for almost a decade..."
Then wouldn't that make her the one most expected to see that her "ban on assault weapons" was a dismal failure and did not cause a reduction in gun violence or gun deaths?
Why does Gail think that Feinstein's opponents should have to worry about "the power of the opponents' arguments, which seem to get weaker by the day" when Feinstein herself can't provide ANY data showing actual documented benefits from the ban?
Isn't that pretty much the same as if I declare that Dianne Feinstein should be locked away in prison for life......and then expect her to PROVE why she should be allowed to remain free?
Shouldn't it be the person asking for change justifying why the change is desirable rather than just shouting "we're going to change things unless you can PROVE why things should stay the same"?
Future, Chuck333, et al:
It seems that background checks and school safety will be passed and approved. Feinstein doesn't have the 40 votes, even support from Democrats, to get the assault weapons bans. Reid will likely allow Feinstein to add an amendment for a high-powered magazine ban to the bill. That might garner the votes for support. For now it's getting something on gun controls passed. Reid to his credit is smart enough to know what will and won't.
Carmine D
PS: At least one of the two characteristics prevalent in all the gun tragedies, mental illness and gun free zones, is in the legislation: Armed school guards for safety. Thank you to the NRA and Mr. La Pierre.
Carmine D
"While you were on the Board of Supervisors in 1978, your colleague Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated in City Hall. You were the one who discovered Milk's body."
What does this have to do with assault weapons?
Arms, legs and fists have killed more people then assault weapons.
" Arms, legs and fists have killed more people than assault weapons "
Does this include stats from the bronze age? When was the exact date and location of the mass murder of 26 children by some pre gun idiot using his fists, arms or legs as weapons of assault?
No anti gov. Althugh your thinking may be stuck back then.
In 2010, there were 12,996 murders. Firearms were used in 8,775. Of those, rifles were used in 358, and modern sport utility rifles, often called "assault rifles" are a fraction of those. These rifles are seldom used in crime because standard handguns, at close range, offer comparable firepower and are more easily concealed.
Hands and feet were used to kill 742. Clubs were used to kill 540. Knives were used to kill 1,704.
Can you figure it out yet?
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mor...