Posted on 01/06/2013 3:12:08 PM PST by Red Steel
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), a freshman Congressmen, appeared on Fox News Sunday and said he did not support most new gun control legislation because it is unconstitutional.
Cruz was discussing his belief that after the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, politicians used the opportunity to try to exploit and push their political agenda of gun control. Cruz said he would not back an assault weapons ban or a ban on high capacity magazines.
RELATED: Former Marine Responds To Sen. Feinsteins Gun Proposal: Unconstitutional Laws Arent Laws
Asked if there was any new gun legislation he might be willing to approve, Cruz replied, I dont think the proposals being discussed now make sense. Senator Dianne Feinstein, he said, is proposing a national gun owner registry, which he disagrees with. I dont think the federal government has any business having a list of law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, Cruz added.
However, he said he would support an improvement in the quality of the federal gun database. He also noted we need common sense measures like ensuring criminal conviction barriers and mental health barriers to gun ownership.
Watch the full clip below, via Fox News:
We're talking here about denying a law-abiding person who is otherwise at liberty from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
If such a person has not already been convicted of a felony, then what actions would justify denying them the right? The law now, I think, specifies that a person can be denied if they have ever been involuntarily committed.
The question that should be asked is, "What actions resulted in the commitment?".
If the actions would not have constituted a felony, then from whence comes the decision that the person will commit a felony in the future?
If the actions would have constituted a felony, then from whence comes the psychiatric decision to release them from commitment?
Treating psychiatry as if it is an exact science is a truly troubling concept.
I have personally expended thousands of dollars in extra expenses because of the liberal notion that society must take risks by returning felons or those who have been committed to freedom. Why am I the one to pay for managing these risks?
Idiot Mitchy McConnell skid let this guy do all the talking .
Excellent spokesman !
Excellent Pres material !
Bummer
In another month or two, he’ll “realize” that gun control is a good thing.
Here was my first thought when I read the headline: “That’s well and good to say that but what are you going to do when gun control passes?” For as long as I remember we’ve had senators say things just like what Cruz said. All the while we’ve watched our freedoms slip away and our culture go to pot. When they’re in the majority, it’s the same.
In my opinion, people who still think there’s a political solution are part of the problem. They’re lending credibility to a corrupt system which is designed to enslave us. If Ted Cruz was assigned the role of making it seem as if there’s dissension, he wouldn’t be doing anything different.
Somebody posted and article about Patrick Henry’s speech in Virginia in which he says “Give me liberty or give me death.” That speech is relevant to our times. We’ve voted, and voted, and voted, and the congressmen we’ve elected either lose, being a part of an irrelevant minority, or they cave.
This is big. The left’s plans for us are bad. There’s no one in DC the will to stop them (or to do anything that will actually work to stop them).
Someone fully intent on killing you, who stands to gain from your death, and has started the process, will not be reasoned with. You have to kill them first. DC is a clear and present danger to our liberty.
Gov’t limiting a ‘right’ is a none starter. Perhaps we should ban criminals and others from free speech and other rights that we have. But more worrisome, is that Mr. Cruz starts off his decision that the Gov’t ‘should’ be able to deny gun ownership for a individual. So that's a Constitutional conservative these days? A federal background check, etc. No. Gov't always, and will abuse power.
But were his parents American citizens??
***********
I don’t know but I assume they were. His mother was from Delaware and his father was a Cuban Revolution immigrant in 1957. His parents were in Canada working in the petroleum sector, not sure what they were employed as at the time.
McCain’s father was station at the Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Panama Canal Zone when McCain was born, or that’s my understanding.
Cruz was born in Canada to a nonmilitary U.S.-citizen mom and a dad who was not yet a U.S. citizen.
Thanks Theoria, I did not know when his father became a US citizen so I looked it up and it was in 2005. Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz was born in 1970. So we’d have the same situation as we have with Obama, a mother with US Citizenship and a father without at the time of birth.
“That will be an interesting proposition should he undertake it as he was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.”
McCain was born in the Canal Zone and George Romney was born in Mexico. Both ran for president. And no one knows where in the communist was born because he refuses to release an official birth certificate. Eligibility for Cruz should not be a factor.
Yep others have been born outside the US and ran. That doesn’t keep it from being an interesting proposition should Cruz undertake to run.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.