Ted Cruz Schools Actress Who Questions “God-Given Right to Own a Gun”

You don’t want to get into a Twitter debate with Sen. Ted Cruz, because the man will, more often than not, make you look like a simpering fool. Of course, in the case of Alyssa Milano (last seen celebrating her decision to have two abortions in the early 1990s), that’s not an overwhelming feat.

After Texas State Rep. Matt Schaefer offered up a rejection of gun-grabber mythology in the wake of the latest mass shooting in Odessa and Midland, Milano countered by asking: “Can someone cite which passage of the Bible God states it is a god-given right to own a gun? This guy is unbelievable and is clearly owned by the gun lobby.”

It would have been easy enough to dismiss Milano’s remarks as the ravings of a liberal psychopath, but Cruz decided to take his time and give the actress the respect of taking her query seriously. In doing so, he delivered a lesson in both theology and constitutional authority that should give Milano plenty to think about in the coming days.

Well, okay, probably not, but maybe it will convince others.

“An excellent Q, worth considering carefully w/o the snark of Twitter. It is of course not the right to a modern-day firearm that is God-given but rather the right to Life & the right to Liberty. Essential to that right to life is the right to DEFEND your life & your family,” Cruz explained in the first of many tweets.

“The right to self-defense is recognized repeatedly in the Bible, eg Exodus 22:2: ‘If a thief is caught breaking in at night & is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.’ (Note, though, verse 3 says it IS murder if during daylight (ie, not self-defense),” Cruz continued. “The Declaration of Independence acknowledges our rights thusly: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’

“And, for that reason, the Second Amendment provides ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT be infringed,” he continued. “It wasn’t to protect people’s ability to hunt, or to shoot target practice, but to defend their lives, their homes & their families. Stephen Willeford exercised that fundamental right when he risked his own life to stop the Sutherland Springs murderer, saving countless others as a result.”

After several subsequent tweets, which delved further and further into the history of American self defense and the laws surrounding it, Cruz lowered the boom with his closing remarks.

“Playing politics w/ these deranged crimes—and trying to use them as an excuse to violate the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens—won’t make anybody safer. Forcible gun confiscation (as some 2020 Dems urge) won’t prevent mass-murders. But it would weaken our self-defense,” he finished.

Milano, for her part, apparently had nothing else to say about it.

What do you think?

4 points
Upvote Downvote

Total votes: 6

Upvotes: 5

Upvotes percentage: 83.333333%

Downvotes: 1

Downvotes percentage: 16.666667%

Written by Andrew


Leave a Reply
    Second Amendment
    Right to Keep and Bear Arms

    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.

    The meaning of this amendment has been argued ad infinitum.

    Allow us to assume this Amendment reads:
    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (operative clause).

    That would appear to be crystal clear, but why would an amendment be necessary to state the obvious, since anyone who wanted arms had arms?

    The actual amendment appears to become clarified when we add the prefatory clause: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”.

    That appears to define, with specificity, the meaning, i.e., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is due to the necessity of being able to call citizens, when and if necessary, to form a well-regulated militia for the purpose of augmenting the standing army for the ultimate purpose of the defense of the nation.

    When citizens would be called to serve in a well-regulated militia, it was necessary that they bring arms, thus no authority should be able to deny the possession of the requisite arms.

    James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were involved in discussions as to whether to have a large standing army or a small one which could be supplemented by a call-up of citizens.

    Since we were a growing nation and needed farmers, builders, etc., they opted for a smaller cadre military.

    It appears that the conclusion was that the organized militia (the army) could augment its forces if and when required.

    It is, further, probable that the State National Guard system and the military’s reserve system is the metamorphosis of the intended, but out-dated, “well-regulated militia”.

    It appears that there is no possible phenomenon as a “well-regulated militia” or any possibility thereof, in the United States of America, thus the Second Amendment appears to be an example of desuetude.

    It appears the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does not imply an inherent right for an individual to keep and bear arms for any purpose other than to be able to participate in a “well-regulated militia”.

    Furthermore, since the “well-regulated militia” has been subrogated by the ORGANIZED militia, this amendment is without significance, i.e., has no meaning or consequence.

    This analysis does not intend to imply that a citizen does not possess an inherent right to self-defense.

    This analysis is being presented for the sole purpose to reflect that the intent and basis for the 2nd Amendment have been eliminated, thus the functionality of this amendment has been eliminated and cannot and must not be relied upon to build any legal edifice upon that defective foundation.

    Again, when our nation was in its youth, the 2nd Amendment was necessary and
    functional to enable the security of our nation.

    Please visit:

    michael zitterman
    December 13, 1999
    Revised April 14, 2014
    Revised February 17, 2019

    • When the 2nd amendment was drafted, “well-regulated” meant well-equipped/well ordered. It did not mean government regulated.

      “The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.” ~

  2. Man, I couldn’t say it better myself . . . Thank you TED CRUZ! It is sickening to use these shootings politically in a way that plays with people’s safety and lives by trying to disarm a populace into helplessness. We need our guns now more than ever against ever increasingly crazed nut cases. And the LAST thing that we need is to infringe upon our God Given 2nd Amendment rights to garner a few extra votes. “This right WILL NOT be infringed upon”. Team Trump and his allies 2020.

  3. You don’t think our founding fathers needed guns to hunt and feed their families or defend their families against the lawlessness at that time (of which we are currently reverting back to). You think they stopped by the local grocery store or hovered in the corner waiting to be slaughtered? They felt we needed guns against a government gone wild. 100 people could read it and interpret it 100 different ways

    • Hello BJ: I agree with you. I wish to highlight one portion of your comments “They felt we needed guns against a government gone wild.” I honestly believe it is purpose that best identifies the purpose of the Second Amendment. If the government becomes dictatorial and decides to kill its citizens to take control of this nation of people a ‘well regulated militia” would be the means with which we the people can protect our selves and our families against the government gone wild.

  4. Liberals should be forced to read history books about so called leaders who conned their nations into believing arms in the hands of its citizens is dangerous for their respective countries! Russia, Germany, China for just a few and the result?? Millions and millions of its citizens murdered by the same governments!

  5. Yet there are those who still swear Ted is not a legal United States citizen, well if not then shame on those members of the Communist party who blatantly disregard the principles of which our fair and just laws Constitutional Republic are based, bravo Mr. Cruz you are far more an American patriot than any Dumbocrat will ever be.

  6. Milano you are a murderer how could you kill two innocent babies and then brag about it shame on you. nothing you say mean crap to us you are just another useless celeb that thinks what she says means something but it don’t so just shut your mouth WE DON;T GIVE A DAMN

  7. Conservative Free Press you must be kidding. I wrote a comment and tried to interpert a screw ball captha by trying to guess what a number was which looked like a domino. Then my comment disappeared. How do you post?

  8. the drug gangs smuggle thousands of pounds of drugs in this country all the time. To think that someone that can do that can not smuggle lots of 10 pound guns is not thinking realistically. The bad guys will always have guns no matter what the law or the liberals think. The supreme court has already ruled that the police is for the protection of the general population not a specific individual. which means you are on your own.

  9. WOW! It may not be a God given right to own a gun but it is a constitutional right. How can you take them from a law abiding citizen, following the rules? If you want to quote the bible, the 10 commandments say do not kill, but the bad guys do it all the time and NOT always with a GUN.

    • Thou shalt not KILL..That’s called COLD Blooded premeditated murder! Take that in the obverse of a nation defending itself against another nation, let’s say, Nazism, is that murder or is that killing what tried to kill others and stopping the wrong? SEE taking any scripture out of context, makes it what was NOT intended. I mean one MUST “RIGHTLY Divide Scripture or it will NOT come out as intended and will be “WRESTED”. Here is an Example: Ecclesiastes 4:5 says, “the fool foldeth his hands together, and eatheth his own flesh.” Does that mean he is eating his own arm or leg etc etc? or does it mean he is eating what he grew on the farm etc.. Heres another: Job 12:6 KJV says “The tabernales of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure:…..SEE how one can take any verse of Scripture to make the bible say what they desire it to say? YET, IF Scripture is compared w/Scripture then we get the intents as SCRIPTURE speaks for “ITSELF!” Mark 15:28/John 19:24/Romans 4:3 KJV SEE 2 Tim 2:15 KJV (ONLY)”STUDY”

  10. Here is what Jesus Christ “TOLD” his disciples in Luke 22:36 KJV That they should, if they had NO SWORD, or the weapon of choice in those days, to go out and buy one. Now, I know that one verse does NOT make this the theme of the bible and we are not to do so w/out the light of scripture on what we quote. So, going to Ecclesiastes 3:1-3 KJV it says there is a time to KILL, and as sure as I am sitting here there is also a time to defend ones self and ones family! Even civil laws allow for self defense etc. Take Ex 22:2 we see a thief breaking into one home …and he dies being shot…he is NOT guilty! I KNOW people say, well, that’s OLD Testament! Being the Old Testament dos not preclude the truth being told! “ALL Scripture is still PROFITABLE for doctrine, reproof, and correction and instruction in righteousness! (2 Tim 3:16 KJV) IF that were the case, then how did this nation take Exodus 18:20-22 to frame the constitution of this nation, that is IF the O.T. was no longer applicable! SOMEONE “HATES” Jesus Christ/GOD and wants to destroy a nation that reflected the Biblical virtues, and remold this nation into a rebelious nation, and destroy the same! ALL for the sake of the New One World Order! An order that will never work!

  11. Once again whats not mentioned is if and when Politicians decide to become tyrannical Government. Which would happen if the likes of Socialism or Communism under a Bernie Sandwrs or AOC were to take control of government. The 2nd Amendment was not just to protect ones self & family.
    It was to also to protect against this type of Government take over.
    Which if peopleopen eyes can seeDemocrats Socialist already attacking speech & movement as well as 2nd Amendment.

  12. Today, I went to the beachfront with my kids. I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She put the shell to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is completely off topic but I had to tell someone! kratom powder euphoria

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Lives Saved as Feds Bring Charges Against Would-Be Terrorist in New York

Mark Levin: Notice How Democrats Never Want to “Expand Liberty”