It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NYTimes Editorial: Congress Should Secretly Suspend Second Amendment Rights

page: 1
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Now all of a sudden we have a major MSM source suggesting the U.S. Congress should pass some kind of secret law that would effectively suspend 2nd Amendment rights !!!

It's the New York Times of all things.

And the "writer" is a law professor somewhere.

No Fly -- No Buy is the theme today.


NYTimes Editorial: Congress Should Secretly Suspend Second Amendment Rights


A New York Times editorial advocates for a new law allowing a secret court to take away citizens’ right to own a gun at the discretion of the federal government.

Citing the Orlando terror attack that left 50 dead including the shooter and 53 wounded at a gay nightclub, the piece advocates for a “no-buy” list similar to “no-fly” lists. Under the law, suspected terrorists would not be able to buy a gun. In an attempt to ensure the integrity of the lists and preserve due process, the author proposes people only be added to this no-buy list after a secret court rules they are ineligible, similar to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court hearings where the federal government obtains permission to wiretap. Under this proposal, an American who has never been convicted of a crime could be denied their right to buy a gun simply because a secret court decided it should be that way.

The piece is written by Adam Winkler, a U.C.L.A. School of Law professor. Winkler argues the secret court is a good idea because the same kind of court is already used for government surveillance, and historically, the U.S. has committed worse rights violations such as Japanese internment camps.


! ! ! ! ! ! ! !







posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


They keep pushing, more will end up dead. Many many more than those needlessly murdered in Orlando.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   
xuenchen

What's that I am beginning to smell...?

Is it... Hidden Agenda with a tad of False Flag... maybe some utter BS sprinkled on top for seasoning...?

This is classic PRS tactics. Hope you've all got your dancing shoes on because we're all doing the Totalitarian Tiptoe.

Curiouser and curiouser.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Are we still in America?

Enough with "citizen watch lists". "No fly list". "No buy list". And right on cue, "citizen kill lists".

Obama ‘kill list’ paper leaked, includes criteria for assassinating US citizens.

Why is the government so scared of due process?

Are we supposed to believe that someone on this list is "such a threat", that the only restriction is that they "cant fly" or, as is being suggested, cant buy a gun?

If they were really such a danger, shouldnt they be arrested, tried, convicted, deported and or incarcerated?

Obviously, something isnt right here.

Seems like yet another way to strip Americans of our rights. Always start with the least popular group.

Government's primary function is to protect our rights. Instead, they seem to be the ones constantly chipping away at our rights.


edit on 14-6-2016 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   


NYTimes Editorial: Congress Should Secretly Suspend Second Amendment Rights

Congress should openly deport the NY Times to Communist China or Somalia.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Don't we already have some form of list that disqualifies someone from gun ownership?
At the very least, we already have avenues for taking away someone's right to bear.

This is redundant. More laws are not the answer. It is already against the law to murder.

So then the question is: What is the answer?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Is this so the person in question can shop around and not pay the fees through an unlicensed dealer?

How would that have stopped this tragic event?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
How can you make a secret law? People would be breaking the law by owning guns, and not know it? I understand the saying "ignorance of the law is no excuse" but the law can't be secret.....



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Not knowing a lot about the "ins and outs" of this whole legal system I have to ask.

How could the government enforce a law which is directly unconstitutional?

How would the congress go about " suspending" an amendment to the Constitution?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyosaurus
Is this so the person in question can shop around and not pay the fees through an unlicensed dealer?

How would that have stopped this tragic event?


Exactly

the only thing a law like this will do is create more illegal guns by turning legal guns into illegal ones

Except it's harder to track a gun's history when it was never registered



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: xuenchen

Not knowing a lot about the "ins and outs" of this whole legal system I have to ask.

How could the government enforce a law which is directly unconstitutional?

How would the congress go about " suspending" an amendment to the Constitution?


Short answer:

They can't.

This writer and editorial is designed to scare people into automatically believing Obama and Hillary.




posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
NYTimes Editorial: Congress Should Secretly Suspend Second Amendment Rights

They gonna suspend the 4-10th and their 14th amendment RIGHTS while they are at it ?

There is MORE than one at play here.

Can the NYT be any more FASCIST ?

Forget the ACLU.

Forget your elected leaders.

Forget the SCOTUS.

It's up to each and every one of us to defend our rights.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Shows how much this ding dong understands the Constitution if he thinks 67 Senators would do this surreptitiously.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
How unpolitically correct of them. How about we let them say what they want without getting offended? Because this is never going to happen.

Non-PC people getting offended over something non-PC being said. How ironic! This is an editorial and the opinion of one journalist, how about we put our pitch forks away?

I don't agree with the guy but he has a right to his opinion however non-PC it is.
edit on 6/14/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The push is on since CA recently ruled on concealed carry.
spectator.org...

Of course, they cite Heller, and Scalia.

I assume this is what Mrs. Clinton was referring to when she
said the Second Amendment is wrong.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: xuenchen

Are we still in America?

Enough with "citizen watch lists". "No fly list". "No buy list". And right on cue, "citizen kill lists".

Obama ‘kill list’ paper leaked, includes criteria for assassinating US citizens.

Why is the government so scared of due process?

Are we supposed to believe that someone on this list is "such a threat", that the only restriction is that they "cant fly" or, as is being suggested, cant buy a gun?

If they were really such a danger, shouldnt they be arrested, tried, convicted, deported and or incarcerated?

Obviously, something isnt right here.

Seems like yet another way to strip Americans of our rights. Always start with the least popular group.

Government's primary function is to protect our rights. Instead, they seem to be the ones constantly chipping away at our rights.



And without due process to boot.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Just going to run some numbers for this numb nuts that thinks they are qualified to teach law.

There are enough privately owned guns in the US for every man, woman and 3 minute old child to hold one. That does not count the ones owned by the police, national guard, branches of military and various local, state and federal agencies like the IRS for example.

The Battle of Little Bighorn was a bunch of swinging Petes that didn't realize just how woefully outgunned they were and that ratio is way better that the over 300 million privately held guns versus maybe 4 million if they all agree to go against that?

But let's clean this up a bit. The privately held is in the hands of around 185 million to 210 million, so let's just say 200. If only 1% stand to fight that is 2 million which twice the number of police officers, about five times the federal guys and around 500 thousand more than all current active military.

For those clambering to ban guns, forget waiting on laws to pass. I say go ahead and collect them and let me know how that works out for you.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

And the KICKER ?

The San Bernadino terrorist used a straw buyer.

And gun control comes from the people that used straw buyers to arm drug cartels.

I lost track of how many levels of stupid this is.

But secret courts has to take the cake.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Bloomberg is the largest straw purchaser in history.

People talk about self-radicalized radical Islam. No one thinks about self-radicalized US citizens. Personally I know which scares me more.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

Self radicalized anti gunners.

Should scare everyone.

Our rights are what ever the mob says they are.

Put the fear of gunphobia in them, and watch what the brown shirts do next.




top topics



 
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join