Ted Cruz Smokes Psycho Joe In Heated Gun Debate

Posted by on March 8, 2018 10:01 pm
Categories: Column 1


Cruz Smokes Psycho Joe In Gun Debate

Cruz and Psycho Joe Scarborough debated whether owning an AR-15 is a constitutionally protected right.  The senator argued that the now-expired 1994 assault weapons ban did not bring down violent crime, and said the feared AR-15 is no more dangerous than a deer rifle.


The senator argued that “under the test of Heller, it is clearly protected” since the AR-15 is a popular gun.


“Remember, my career was litigating before the Supreme Court,” Cruz clapped back. “I recognize that’s not what you do.”


Cruz swept the Texas Republican primary yesterday in the first actual voting of the 2018 midterm elections. His much-hyped Democratic opponent, Rep. Beto O’Rourke, won the Democratic primary but performed weakly against the other Democrats.




Much shorter clip…




41 responses to Ted Cruz Smokes Psycho Joe In Heated Gun Debate

  1. Darrell M March 7th, 2018 at 12:03 pm

    Joe is an idiot. Under the 2nd Amendment you are not confined to just keeping and bearing arms in your house. The word keep means own/purchase the word bear means carry both open and concealed away from your home not just in it and the word arms means weapons and ammo and all accessories thereof. I suggest Joe read Federalist papers 29,46,and 85 to fully understand both the 2nd Amendment as written as well as what our Constitutional rights are.


    • Jo March 7th, 2018 at 2:20 pm

      “Bear Arms” is in a military context as in ALL the people being the militia against all enemies, especially tyrants


    • Kane March 8th, 2018 at 1:09 am


      “So you know better than anyone. You know what the Second Amendment says,” said Scarborough.

      “I don’t know better than anyone but I know what the Second Amendment says,” said Cruz.

      “But you were involved with Heller, weren’t you?” asked Scarborough.

      “I represented 31 states in Heller,” responded Cruz.

      “So you know, at least where it stands right now, Scalia said that Second Amendment means people have a right to keep and bear arms in their homes. They have a right to have handguns in their home, they have a right to have shotguns in their home,” Scarborough stated.

      “People didn’t just say in their home, by the way. The home is not a qualifier,” said Cruz

      “But, if you go from 2008 and the decision in 2010 all the way through now, obviously the Supreme Court has denied time and time again for limitations on assault-style weapons, for limitations on carry, for limitations on just about everything. But what you and others successfully argued in Heller,” continued Scarborough

      “Remember, Heller was about a semi-automatic handgun which they said the Second Amendment protected and the District of Columbia couldn’t ban,” Cruz said.

      “But you know though that every American doesn’t have a constitutional Second Amendment right to carry an AR-15. Yes or no?” asked Scarborough.

      The argument continued between the two of them until Scarborough began to get testy.

      “I don’t need you to lecture me on what the Supreme Court does and doesn’t do. If the Supreme Court denies time and time again, and they have since 2010, and they have allowed Connecticut’s laws to stand in place that actually ban assault-style weapons right now the court is sitting back and they are allowing that to remain in place and allowing that. That is constitutional right now. There is not a constitutional right, and you know it, and you can talk down to me all you want to, but you know there is not a constitutional–,” said Scarborough.

      “Who is talking down to whom? You say lawyers are rolling their eyes at me, I mean let’s be clear,” said Cruz.

      After writing an amicus brief, Cruz argued successfully in the 2008 Supreme Court case Heller v. District of Columbia on behalf of the right to hand guns.


  2. Tutalums March 7th, 2018 at 12:51 pm

    Has nothing to do with any gun. It’s about taking our freedom and they will not stop til they get it.

    Cruz is debating someone who wants to kill America and the American dream, ultimately Americans.
    I wish someone would cut to the chase and say just that. Hammer that home with their own talking points.


  3. Reader March 7th, 2018 at 1:05 pm

    This website is starting to resemble drudge with links to NYTimes CBS etc etc.


    • Kane March 7th, 2018 at 1:08 pm

      That is pretty insane. I always warn readers if the links go to the NYT or WaPo. And out of 150 links on the site right now, a grand total of 4 go to those sources. I’ll just assume you woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.


      • Collateral Justice March 7th, 2018 at 10:24 pm

        I’m afraid I also woke up on the wrong side of the bed. @Kane, this site and your wicked sense of humor fixed me right up.

        Good day to you, our much needed Drudge “fix”.

        Seriously, thank you for picking up the ball. I have a feeling it’s not looking good for Drudge.
        There is Blackmail, and then there is the Federal Blackmail Instigators.

        Be safe bro, the spooks are getting desperate.


    • Kane March 7th, 2018 at 1:28 pm

      Perhaps you were reacting to this headline…

      WaPo Columnist: You Know What Time It Is, Kids? Socialism Time!

      But if you actually clicked the link you would see that it goes to Hot Air making fun of the WaPo writer, and does not go to WaPo itself.

      It pays to read before you accuse me.


      • mike March 7th, 2018 at 7:49 pm

        that’s what I like, an Editor that doesn’t take any shit.


    • El bochie March 7th, 2018 at 2:32 pm

      This site is great…keep up the good work


    • Kath March 7th, 2018 at 3:19 pm

      HARDLY!! Sometimes NYT gets it “right”.


      • Rocket March 7th, 2018 at 5:18 pm

        Like what day it is?


    • MissPriss March 7th, 2018 at 8:55 pm

      Reader – troll much?


  4. elan March 7th, 2018 at 1:15 pm

    Howdie Do do do is one arrogant scum bag! Simply stated he wants to claim that people don’t have a 2nd amendment right to carry a weapon. Well, what about a shotgun? In any event, the argument is kind of Joe arguing for getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, and Cruz is simply responding. It’s like a restaurant owner telling the chef chicken have salmonella, and the chef arguing about salmonella, WHEN IN FACT THE ISSUE IS MEDICAL. Similarly, the issue is not weapons, IT’S PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATIONS being prescribed willy nilly, like candy, by so called professionals in the so called mental health community. That’s the issue. Big pharma selling mind altering drugs, psychiatrists prescribing them without knowing how they affect the human brain. And, the issue is the money being generated by these merchants of grief. And, the issue is the psychiatric profession which should be eliminated in favor of neuroscientists who know the dangers of these drugs. And the issue is romanticizing, in the MSM, these quacks. Not long ago, they were claiming Trump was crazy in public.


    • Anonymous March 7th, 2018 at 8:22 pm

      A Better case can be made that the media of today is the cause of more deaths that those caused by any type of weapons people carry to protect their family and their own life with.


  5. Paul March 7th, 2018 at 1:53 pm

    Joe doesn’t want to talk about a surefire way to protect children, because that would cause the debate to end and his ratings go with it. People eat this type of ongoing drama up, it’s nonsense, but they still choke on it.


  6. MissPriss March 7th, 2018 at 5:38 pm

    Bobble-head Joe and ditto head Mika aren’t as bright as the Constitutional scholar, Senator Ted Cruz.

    Bravo to Cruz for appearing on their ‘show.’ He was actually polite and tried to educate the commie duo.

    Speaking of Mika – she is beyond stale. The raised eyebrow and sneering face is hilarious.

    Too bad Cruz didn’t ask about the dead intern found in Joe’s Congressional office…


  7. Noxomus March 7th, 2018 at 6:53 pm

    i’m beginning to like Cruz more and more . . .


  8. Gingerr Kurtz March 7th, 2018 at 7:08 pm

    Joe was wrong on so many points/items I could not keep track of them all. A couple – He asked Cruz if a “hunting” rifle is a “lethal” as an AR-15. Dumb. Many hunting rifles use much larger and more powerful than a .223 AR. One more > Joe said the AR the guy had in Florida “is illegal”. What? They were selling them at Dick’s and Walmart a week before the shooting.It’s difficult to watch Scarborough and his smirking wife.


    • Andrew Burns March 8th, 2018 at 7:10 am

      SORRY–you mean mistress.


  9. MacHam March 7th, 2018 at 7:29 pm

    I have hidden my firearm inside a bale of marijuana , guarded by two illegal aliens , inside a sanctuary city . This will stump the FBI for sure.


  10. destroyeroflibs March 7th, 2018 at 8:46 pm

    What’s her name? The blonde? She just sits there looking so pretty!

    And utterly clueless!


    • Kane March 7th, 2018 at 11:26 pm

      That would be Mika Brzezinski…


  11. Strayhorse March 7th, 2018 at 9:11 pm

    Its clear that the team of Morning Joe are so socialist, bent on destroying America, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights from the inside out – just what Nikita Khrushchev, Zbigniew Brzezinski’s boss, Mika Brzezinski’s father’s boss once said would be the reason America collapsed. Maybe Mika and Joe are not what they seem to patriotic Americans watching them as they bash America time and time again everyday.


  12. cal March 7th, 2018 at 11:45 pm

    Once the camel gets its head in the tent…the hump must follow. No ban on AR-15″s!


  13. Hammer Seeking Nails March 8th, 2018 at 6:33 am

    Joe (and Mika) is a Jackass. Two F’ing liberal morons.


  14. Cranford Ducain March 8th, 2018 at 6:38 am

    OK … Allow me to show my ignorance on this issue. What is the difference in the “lethality” of an AR15 and a 22 caliber hand gun ?? Dead is Dead !!! It doesn’t really make much difference if you use an AR15 or a BAR to kill someone. They are not going to be any deader because of the weapon you use.


  15. TheAhmedClockCompany March 8th, 2018 at 8:38 am

    morning joke likes to hear himself talk.


  16. David Larsen March 8th, 2018 at 9:13 am

    Mourning Joe


  17. David Larsen March 8th, 2018 at 9:22 am

    We need term limits on morning show hosts. I used to enjoy Joe until his head swelled up until it no longer fits on screen.


  18. Pyrran March 8th, 2018 at 11:00 am

    I remember when an interviewer used to let the guest talk. Maybe I’ll send Joe a pocket dictionary and he can look it up.


  19. Gary March 8th, 2018 at 1:45 pm

    I would have been out of there in 5 minutes with Mika’s ‘resting bitch face’ staring me down! LOL


  20. john March 8th, 2018 at 4:01 pm

    The right to keep and bear arms transcends the home. In fact, the State of Maine Constitution is explicitly clear about this and is modeled exactly and absolutely as the second amendment was intended. No and’s, if’s or but’s.

    The right to keep arms pertains to ones home/residence. Bear oertains to ones person.

    Any questions?

    Now about fake news…

    Study shows fake news travels faster than real news:



    • john March 8th, 2018 at 4:05 pm

      The word Keep, also implicitly refers to ownership/ possession.


  21. john March 8th, 2018 at 4:14 pm

    Whilst the british confiscated military grade arms, the population of the colonies were allowed to keep small calibur hunting weapons. A starving population would be of no use to the king as far as tax revenue etc.. was concerned.

    Think for a moment why our founding fathers drafted that amendment and study history. It becomes very clear what the intent was and is.


  22. john March 8th, 2018 at 4:32 pm



  23. john March 8th, 2018 at 4:45 pm



  24. J S March 8th, 2018 at 7:34 pm

    This is absolutely the most thorough interpretation of the Second Amendment by the founding fathers.

    Many people have questions about what a “well regulated” Militia is. I had questions too, so I decided to find out, and here’s what I learned.
    I’ll start with some background on the Second Amendment. The reason I’m starting with background on it is because I believe that in order to really understand something you have to understand it in context.
    In my efforts to get a good grasp on this issue, I sat down and read the Federalist Papers, all 85 of them (not an easy read BTW)( The Library of Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/home/his… Then I dug further, into the history that the Founding Fathers were living, trying to put myself in their shoes. In the end, here’s what I came away with……..
    The first thing we need to understand is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an “AMENDMENT”. That’s important, because no “Articles in Amendment” to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until “further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added” “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers”. (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.
    In this Light:
    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to “amended”?
    THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE “MILITIA”. The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the “militia” as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. “(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)
    What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the “Militia” that was so offensive to the States?
    First understand that the word “militia” was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the “Militia” was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word “militia” as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of “Militia” that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend “People” today:
    “Militia” in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:
    “To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions.” Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:
    “To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” Any “patriot” out there still want to be called a member of the “MILITIA” as defined by the original Constitution?
    Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;” The only way the States would accept the “MILITIA” as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”. The States realized that “THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE” required that the “MILITIA” as originally created in the Constitution be “WELL REGULATED” by a “restrictive clause.” How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional “MILITIA” be “WELL REGULATED”? By demanding that “restrictive clause two” better known as the “Second Amendment” be added to the original Constitution providing:
    This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton’s observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people’s militias ability to be a match for a standing army: ” . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . .”
    It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers’ writings show they also believed this. The Framers understood that “well regulated” militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to “insure domestic Tranquility” and “provide for the common defense.”
    Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:
    To put it another way:
    The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the “MILITIA” is not “WELL REGULATED” by “PEOPLE” keeping and bearing arms, the “MILITIA” becomes a threat to the “SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.”
    The “MILITIA” has no “RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” in the Second Amendment, rather it is only “THE RIGHT OF THE “”PEOPLE”” TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”


  25. J S March 8th, 2018 at 7:37 pm

    The above statement is not my own and sorry for it’s length but it is the best and most thorough explanation of the Second Amendment I have ever read.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.