Previous Post
Next Post

Texas Senator Ted Cruz speaks for gun rights advocates at the House Judiciary Committe, and does so with grace, passion and determination.

Previous Post
Next Post


      • The senators spoke in order of seniority, and she and all the other more senior senators (both Dem and Rep) had already left by the time Senator Cruz spoke.

        • Senator Feinstein possesses the unique capability to extract her soul from her body so that it can roam the dark nether-regions between heaven and hell, seeking lost souls she can suck the remaining life energy from. The only real way to beat her is to travel yourself to this the deepest corners of this region by way of death-like meditation, find the vorpel sword, and then return to our world to do battle with her mortal body without her true self’s knowledge.

          True story.

      • Nearly gave me a heart attack there. Had to do some searching, but since his mom is a US citizen and spent most of her life in the US, Cruz is a citizen by birth even if he was born while his parents were working in Canada. He’s got just as much “natural born” cred as Obama and McCain do.

  1. What about those 100 round drum magazines that can shoot 2000 rounds in 8 seconds!!! Will someone think of the children!?

  2. Go Cruz, We need a few more Sheriff Clarks & Senator Cruz’s. I still remember the reaction the grabbers had to guns in schools after Sandy, now? its a great idea, they are glad they thought of it, Randy

  3. Cruz is clear, forceful, articulate — a rising rock star of the GOP. Then there’s LaPierre. Does anyone else find his appearance lackluster? He hums and haws, puts his head in hands, looks all over the place, rambles on and on (“.243’s, 270s, 30-ought-six”)…. Good lord. Cruz absolutely sets him up to hit this out of the park and instead he comes across as a drunk uncle at the family gathering.

    Time for Wayne to move on? We need someone better than this. What kind of weight do NRA members have on pressuring the organization to find someone better than this?

    My vote: Colion Noir. Well, I mean, it WOULD be Robert Farago but then he’d have to move away from TTAG.

    • I saw this video linked from another site I read earlier today, and one of that blogger’s comments that he’d learned from this is that “Wayne LaPierre should limit his answers to a simple ‘yes or no’ and otherwise shut the f*ck up.”

      WLP is absolutely in love with the sound of his own voice, and that rambling journey he went on in answer to a question where a simple yes-or-no was clearly desired was painful to watch. I’m sure there was a point in there somewhere, but it got lost. As Tman says, he looks all over the place — and it’s not making eye contact with the committee members, it’s a lot of staring at the floor with a mournful expression — but most notably he doesn’t look at Cruz even once between the beginning and very end, probably because he knew that Cruz was staring daggers at him to tell him to wrap up and shut up. The head in the hands with a mournful expression is particularly annoying to me, as if he’s saying that the anti-gunner’s stupidity is physically painful to him, but without the snarky tone that should accompany such an observation. It’s more long-suffering and sad, and it’s painful to watch.

      The introductory speech he gave at the beginning, that we read here the day before, was alright, but it got a little rushed and sloppy at the end. I was watching it live while reading, and again, it was because he’s in love with the sound of his own voice. For the first half to two-thirds, he stuck to his prepared speech, word for word, but after that, he started inserting and deleting words and phrases, and simultaneously his emoting went up dramatically. It was like he was going for an Oscar in the last quarter of the speech, but he was also clearly against the clock, so it came out as a jumbled mess — instead of finishing on a strong note, it creaked to a stop with a whimper.

      I’m confident that I could have done a better job of presentation, and unlike WLP, they wouldn’t have been able to hold 1999 comments like “No loopholes for anyone, ever” against me.

    • I thought he mispoke to about the 25-06 but I was wrong. However that proves that he has an Elmer Fudd knowledge of guns.

      I was not a fan of his capitalization of Mr. Cruz’s time either. He was asked a yes/no question. Answer it that way.

      Drunk uncle indeed.

      • Perhaps it is time for a wartime consigliere to head the NRA? They’re coming at us with everything they’ve got. Now is not the time to placate or we’ll lose rights softly.

    • I agree that WLP is not the best general public spokesman. He’s very good when preaching to the choir. If you look at the history of the NRA it seems like he’s helped to accomplish some amazing things over the past 15 years, so I bet he has some formidable skills when it comes to the more behind the scenes stuff with lobbying, etc. Still, as I said speaking to a mixed audience does not seem to be his strong point. Here he did seem a little bit scattered and used more of Cruz’s time than he should have. Based on what I’ve seen, I think David Keene or Chris Cox are much better suited to that.

  4. Ted Cruz had requested to have an AR-15 disabled or otherwise, and a semi automatic rifle present for the purposes of his talk. This request was denied, despite the fact DiFi did it not days earlier. He used photos instead.
    Even still it was well stated, and makes me think about moving to Texas! 🙂

  5. the mini 14 is exempt from di fi’s modern sporting rifle bad? sweet! it is just not as scary as the evil black guns i guess.

  6. I also watched this earlier, and would have rather had Senator Cruz ask the police chief sitting at the desk those questions. Not because WLP is a terrible spokesman (and he is) but watching the anti gun PC try and explain why cometic features make one gun more dangerous than another!

  7. Senator Cruz does a great job in refuting the key components of Senator Feinstein’s AW bill. What he said from the start makes every bit of sense, that spurred by an emotional outcry, politician try to resuscitate a bill that was deemed ineffective at stopping gun violence even marginally. More legislation for gun control only hurts law-abiding citizens, not the criminals who should be the targets.

    I am mortified by the events at Sandy Hook Elementary School – but the problem was not the firearms used, or the number of bullets contained therein. It was the person pulling the trigger. Let’s keep our eye on the ball and focus on the real problem.

    • Not during that segment, but he’s back in his seat later. By that point, the hearings had been going for about 3 hours without a break. Maybe breakfast caught up with him.

  8. The problem with gun rights advocates is that we’re stuck in an endless circle of refuting the wrong claim. “These laws do nothing to stop crime and only oppress law-abiding gun owners” is correct except for one problem: This is exactly what gun-grabbers, and especially gun-grabbing politicians, want.

    • And that is because they fear an armed populous. It’s the fly in their ointment. Progressives are fully aware of gradual erosion of individual will reach a boiling point.

  9. And, of course, Cruz wasn’t the choice of the establishment Republicans. He was elected despite them, with the help of Tea Partiers. And people on the right wondered how Obama was reelected. It’s not called the stupid party for nuthin’.

    • Exactly.

      If Cruz continues to shine, the establishment GOP will start tearing him down. They can’t have a “tea party candidate” outshine them.

  10. I liked it except for the 4th Amendment bashing at the beginning. It does us little good to let the government play “whack-a-mole” with our rights.

  11. Ahem.
    At the risk of seeming petulant, the first question in regard to any legislative action on the part of persons in government is specific to legal authority and legitimate ‘powers’.
    Least it be obfuscated entirely in the midst of this ongoing ‘Great Debate‘:
    ( that is, ‘Rights’ of the Citizens vs. powers of government )
    ‘Rights’ of the Citizens are recognized as natural, inherent and inalienable.
    The Citizens grant to those in their local, county, and State government only certain. limited powers, and the Citizens of their respective State elect people as representatives to the Federal government.
    All States have Constitutions, which establish a framework for the operation of government.
    Most all States have within their State Constitutions — read:-Contracts / Compacts between the governed and persons in government — provisions which specifically declare and enumerate certain ‘Rights’.
    Several purposes are served by these declarations and enumerations of ’Rights’. Among the purposes served are, as a written reminder to those in government of what specific ’Rights’ they are duty-bound to ’Secure’, and as limitations on powers afforded to those in government. Declared and enumerated ‘Rights’ are not to be in any way violated by persons within or acting on behalf of government itself.
    [ Pertinent point of note: intentionally violating a person or person’s ‘Rights’ is the very basis of an actual criminal act. ]
    Continuing on;-
    The Constitution of the United States is a framework for the operation of the Federal government. Those in the Federal government are granted only few and limited powers, and within the Constitution of the United States are also declarations and enumerations of specific ’Rights’ of the Citizens.
    ( sound familiar? ) Among the purposes served are as a written reminder to those in the Federal government of what specific ’Rights’ they are duty-bound to ’Secure’, and as specific limitations on powers afforded to those in government. Said specified ‘Rights’ are not to be violated by persons within or acting on behalf of government itself.
    [ Intentionally violating a person or person’s ‘Rights’ is an actual criminal act. Attempting to alter, abridge or abolish altogether certain ’Rights’ is not only a criminal act, but Immoral and last but certainly not least, Constitutionally prohibited under law. ]
    Imagine as you may, being positioned as a representative from your respective State to the Federal Congress, aware that your primary obligation and duty is to ‘Secure Rights‘ of the Citizens of your State and committed to doing so.
    On the one hand, a certain person in the Executive Branch is actively engaged in attempting to issue Executive Edicts in obvious violation of laws restricting powers afforded to him, ( and naturally expecting to get away with it ) and on the other, a representative of a State — a Senator no less– has proposed legislation specified…“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”
    Oh my.
    Suggested solution?
    For representatives who have a provision within their State Constitution declaring and enumerating it to be a ’Right’ of the Citizens of their State to keep and bear arms — which most do — all that’s necessary is to express the facts that you’re bound by oath to ‘Secure Rights’ of the Citizens of your State to keep and bear arms; that no such authority exists as would be required for you to have the granted powers necessary to legally enact the proposed legislation: and
    that you are, Morally obligated and under written law, prohibited from any action which would violate the ’Rights’ of the Citizens you represent.

  12. So proud of my senator. I campaigned for this guy here in Texas, and yes he was elected in spite of the RINOS. I can’t imagine Dewhurst up there doing that, because he wouldn’t be would be. He’d be the in back taking a bribe from Difi and her ilk.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here