Login

Where O’Rourke Fails, Cruz Succeeds

The man who wants to unseat Ted Cruz is proud of his F grade from the NRA.

Texas Monthly—the same magazine that once fawned over abortion luvvin’ Wendy Davis and her pink sneakers, only to give her the bum’s rush after her career in Texas politics cratered—just ran a story detailing the amount of money that the National Rifle Association has spent on the Congressional delegation from the Lone Star State. Given that Texans beat the national average when it comes to gun ownership, and taking into account that Texas is a populous state that wields great influence over the rest of the country, it’s really no surprise to learn that the NRA has concentrated a lot of its efforts there—though with the recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida, this particular article smacks of an attempt to smear by association those politicians who accept donations from the NRA.

As if associating with a group that is dedicated to protecting a fundamental Constitutional right is a bad thing?

Well, that’s the way the media have been trying to paint things, and within the progressive bubble in which they live, the time seems ripe to strike at the heart of gun rights. That’s why Beto O’Rourke—the Democrat representative who hopes to bump off Ted Cruz in the 2018 midterms and flip his Senate seat from red to blue—referenced the article when he proudly declared on Twitter his utter failure to uphold a provision of the Constution he has sworn to defend:

Nice work there, O’Rourke. Makes me wonder what other rights he might not feel up to defending, if he feels the Founding Fathers got that whole “endowed by their Creator” thing wrong.

Ted Cruz, however, knows better—and isn’t afraid to let Texans know what’s at stake:

The choice Cruz mentions couldn’t be clearer: You either believe in the Constutution and what it says, or you don’t. That includes times when defending it is hard, and raises tough questions about the delicate balance between liberty and security. Unlike O’Rourke, Cruz understands that you don’t allow the passions of the moment to override our God-given rights, even when those passions arise from the best of intentions. That’s why the Founders declared those rights inalienable. They are not for any government to give or take.

O’Rourke shoulad consider that before parading his ignorance, especially in a place like Texas.

O'Rourke v. Cruz will be a KO in the first round. A radical lefty becomes mince meat against Cruz. If they ran a guy like Manchin that at least pretends not to be a lefty, they might make Cruz break a sweat. Beto isn't going to do that. He's basically saying he doesn't want to win Texas. I bet Cruz's position polls the issue is about 70/30 in Texas.

I'm not a fan of Cruz's vote. In his defense, he was put in a no win situation by the GOP leadership. They tied Texas disaster relief funding to the bill. So Cruz could either vote for fiscal responsibility or disaster funding, but not both. They did it in an election year so he had to wither vote for it or face attacks for "turning his back on suffering Texans". They do this to conservatives all the time to force a sell out or defeat. It's why you don't see conservative 3rd term Senators. They join the D.C. cabal or get beat. Sooner or later they have no choice. I'd rather have a flawed Cruz as no Cruz. The blame should really lie with the leadership that forces these no win situations by design.

Quit feeding the troll. He doesn’t care about Cruz. He’s the Kos plant staking this site.

👍

Magared, you really need to get a life outside of trolling this website. Might I suggest adopting a cat or ten?

Ted Cruz is unaware that both President Reagan (twice, with Mumford 1967 and his letter of support for the Assault Weapon Ban 1994) and Justice Scalia (his majority opinion on DC v. Heller) support a ban on certain weapons types and open carry as part of the constraints around general affirmation of constitutional right of ownership.

Neither Reagan nor Scalia would be welcome at an NRA convention, or apparently at Ted Cruz's twitter parties, with the views they held. Gun control has Reagan and Scalia on its side. Unlimited right to lethal weapons has Ted Cruz and .. who, exactly? Mass murderers? Nikolas Cruz? on their side. Given a choice of Reagan/Scalia or Ted Cruz, I know who I'd choose to listen to when they make a rational argument.

But back to the Supreme Court - Scalia said: “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’"

Such pesky little facts. Another pesky little fact as of this morning - the Republican President wants some heavy duty gun control legislation to make it onto the books. It's well-stablished GOP orthodoxy that President Obama was the man coming to disarm the gun-clingers, but he was clearly a scrub on the issue - he couldn't even effect the tiniest amount of change after we, as a nation, endured the aftermath of 5-year-olds get snuffed out in their kindergarten classrooms.

I see you taking the usual liberal tactic of conflating machine guns (Miller) with weapons in common use (AR-15 and the like). No one is claiming an "unlimited" right to lethal weapons, but a lethal weapon can be a butcher knife, which is certainly in common use. The fact of the matter is that any faults of the current gun control laws are due to inconsistent application, not a need to enact more laws that will be similarly inconsistently applied.

1

"I'm not a fan of Cruz's vote. In his defense, he was put in a no win situation by the GOP leadership. They tied Texas disaster relief funding to the bill."
But when it's disaster funding for Sandy victims he is ready to stand on principle.

"They tied Texas disaster relief funding to the bill." They also tied military funding to it, which is why it received so much conservative support.

It is way past time to pass a law that ALL bills that come before the House and Senate must be one issue and one issue only. We need to be able to see clearly how and on what issues our elected Senators and Congressmen vote. With all of the riders often attached to bills (Obamacare is a good example) they cannot make clear decisions and we cannot fairly assess their reasons for voting for or against a particular bill. Good grief, there is no reason why a bill on guns should have anything to do with, say, Texas disaster relief funding or military funding. Unless we the people rise up and demand clear and concise bills be enacted (and preferably ones that we can read and understand) we will never be able to judge whether or not any one Congressman or Senator is worthy of our votes, or that our money is being spent wisely. But more important many of our tax dollars are wasted on "projects" that are not for the common good, but target certain segments or areas of our country or our population.
Some are also designed to help a specific Senator or Congressman hang on to his or her seat. Single issue only bills would speed up the process and also clarify exactly where and how our money is being spent, and often how and for whom we will vote). We will never get that unless we rise up and demand clarity of every bill. Did we not learn any lessons with the ACA bill that Ms. Pelosi famously said needed to be passed BEFORE "we" (i.e. our elected representatives) knew what is in the bill?

Did you stop to think that weapons might not be “in common use” today because of 2A restrictions that politicians have imposed? Muskets were in common use by both military and civilians; no guns were prohibited the populace until politicians began caving to socialist pressure, starting us down the slippery slope to confiscation we see progressing today. Let’s get back to an unabridged 2A with no apologies to Reagan, Scalia and today’s socialists.

Did we not learn from the ACA bill that was passed "before we can know what is in the bill"? We need to demand that each and every bill put before the House and Senate are single issue only. A lot of time, and more important taxpayers money, could be saved if each bill put before the House and Senate is a single issue. It would also give clarity to voters how their sitting Senators and Congressmen and Women are voting on issues that affect us, and how and on what our tax money is being spent.

1

The NRA, National Republican Assets is a middleman for the Republican Congress and the gun manufacturers. They use the 2nd amendment to hide their true agenda. Money to keep Republican candidate cashes full.
It's about power which the GOP Congress gives to gun manufacturers in order for them to keep the gun stores full. When you add in the gun enthusiasts who are NRA members the Power of the NRA is enormous.
The 2nd amendment was not written to include tactical weapons which were designed for use by the military. The designer never owned one of his own. His family has said he would be astonished to see the AR15 in civilian hands. It doesn't matter if it's not fully automatic. It is a rapid-fire implement made for one reason. To kill enemy soldiers.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-ar-15-inventor-speaks-out-n593356

The AR-15 is the most common long arm in use today. It's not a weapon of war or an unusual weapon. It's no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic rifle. I've never heard Senator Cruz advocate for unlimited access to any and all weapons and you have given no example of him doing so.

1

guess we all miss the good ole resurgent/red state days when we could just not have comments or boot anyone who disagreed with us. Alas, that model didn't work and this one is also going down the tubes despite Erick's begging for dough. Maybe Teddy could slide some funds this way to keep the maven going strong?

Sandy was loaded with tons of unrelated pork on purpose to get all of that crap through. Cruz would have voted for a simple Sandy relief bill, but one was not offered. This has been well documented, but those with dishonest intent think it is cute to purposefully ignore facts in order to try and make a point that doesn't exist.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for citizens to be able to protect their inherent and God-given rights from a tyrannical government. The point of every gun is to be able to kill someone or something. Yes, the Founders fully intended the citizens to be armed with the same weapons as the soldiers were. The type of weapons available today were not available in the 18th century, but no where is there any evidence that the Founders intended the 2nd Amendment to only include a pea shooter. That is modern day nonsense made up for the purpose of restricting the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I don't think that means we can't have any restrictions, but there is no logical reason that AR-15s are targeted other than the fact that they "look scary".

It is the game that D.C. plays in order to push crap down our throats. You must vote for this bill or the military will not be funded! Well there is no reason it has to be that way except that they want it to. They elect the leadership and we elect them, so until the voters demand better, we won't get better.

They like sneaking pork in like that. They also do that as a slimy trick to kill a bill.

Stories