"The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is," said Cruz to Feinstein, "Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment's protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?"
Cruz, a Harvard-trained Constitutional lawyer who has argued many cases before the United States Supreme Court, is asking very clear questions trying to get at the inconsistencies or double standards of the left regarding Constitutional protections. The things they want to do with gun control and the Second Amendment would be unthinkable if anyone tried to do it with some other express (or even implied) Constitutional right.
Anyway, Feinstein did not directly answer the question, because to do so would be to expose the inconsistency of her position. Instead she rants and demagogues and presents what amounts to an argument for authority (i.e., not from data or logic), saying that, because she's been in Congress a long time and was a mayor and has seen people get shot, therefore the logic of her positions cannot be challenged:
"I'm not a sixth grader," said Feinstein. "Senator, I've been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I've looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I've seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I've been up -- I'm not a lawyer, but after 20 years I've been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn't mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I -- you know, it's fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I've been here for a long time. I've passed on a number of bills. I've studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture."Feinstein may not be a sixth grader, but she argues like one.
By the way, I don't quite like Cruz' second example. Discriminating among the individuals who holds the rights under the Constitution is not the same as discriminating among particular ways of exercising the rights. A better fourth amendment example would be to ask "would she [Feinstein] think that the Fourth Amendment's protection against searches and seizures only applies to single-family owner-occupied homes, and not to rental properties such as apartments?" What the left is trying to do with guns is not to say that certain people can't have guns, they're trying to say that certain types of guns are proscribed: everyone can have X, but no one can have Y.
But, following the correct pattern, you could ask a series of questions like this:
"Ms. Feinstein, would it be consistent with the Bill of Rights to outlaw some modes of birth control so long as some other modes remain available?"
"Ms. Feinstein, would it be consistent with the Bill of Rights to permit freedom of speech in newspapers, magazines, television and radio, but to prohibit it on the Internet?"
"Ms. Feinstein, would it be consistent with the Bill of Rights to permit freedom of religion for a particular list of established religions, but prohibit it with regard to other religions not appearing on the list?"
"Ms. Feinstein, would it be consistent with the Bill of Rights to permit freedom of association in certain public areas only, but prohibit protests or other gatherings of citizens elsewhere?"
Cruz' main point is valid. Government is not permitted to limit the scope of individual freedoms under the Bill of Rights. Individuals are allowed freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable searches, etc. If Government can define what arms or what speech or what religions are permissible, then we don't have the same rights anymore.
Here's the video: