This reply is in no one in particular and yet everyone here in this thread.
Definition of ACCOST : to approach and speak to often in a challenging or aggressive way
I would say the journalist was definitely accosted. The NYPD officer approached him in an intimidating manner, obviously outside his jurisdiction,
and asked him for his papers. This isn't Nazi Germany, we are NOT required to carry ID on us unless we are driving or buying something requiring an
age limit. If I were him I would've laughed in his face and walked away. If he continued to harass me, I would've called the D.C. police to report
stalking and harassment.
Some have said, paraphrasing here, "He's a high ranking politician and needs more security than the rest of us." Maybe that's true but why is he
trying to take our personal security away from us "regular" citizens? Not everybody can afford their own private security detail, which the
citizens of NYC pay for anyways. I think what they are basically saying is only "trained professionals" should carry guns. Well what's considered
trained? I've been around firearms almost my whole life, the first thing I learned about guns is "you only point it at what you want to die." I
know common sense isn't common anymore, but there are millions of people in this country who would rather do anything than taking another human
The one quote I want to repeat for clarity's sake is this:
Originally posted by xedocodex
Yes, very clear to me...if you want a gun...go join the National Guard.
I'm assuming here, and might very well be incorrect, that you mean only State sponsored military, and by extension the US military, are the only
one's you would trust with a firearm? My response would be the Kent State Massacre. A bunch of unarmed college students protesting the Vietnam War
were gunned down by the Ohio state National Guard. And you think they are more capable of protecting our individual rights than the people
Another question that has come up, "What rights are being taken away?" There's a whole list, but let's consider the 1st amendment, the Freedom of
assembly, which is the right to protest. According to new laws, the people's right to protest is limited within a certain distance from the
president, known as the ridiculous "Free speech zones". How about the 4th, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and
possessions without reasonable cause? That was taken away by the Patriot Act and all the warrant-less wiretapping that resulted from that. And you
can't forget the violation of the 5th and 6th, the right of due process, thanks to the NDAA. Simply declare them an "enemy combatant" and they no
longer have a right to a fair trial by a jury of their peers.
I'm sure everybody on ATS knows the tale of the frog in boiling water but I'll reiterate anyways. Put a frog in boiling water and he'll jump out,
put him in room temperature water and turn up the heat and he'll be dead before knowing what happened. It's along the same lines as "Give 'em and
inch and they'll take a mile." It's all a gradual progression. If you try to do something the people don't want all at once you'll get a push
pack, but do it incrementally and nobody will notice until it's too late. I like the analogy another poster had. It's like whittling a piece of
wood, you don't go and chop it in half, you take out small chunks at a time to reach the desired result just the same.
Down to the root of the 2nd, as some have said all over ATS, the 2nd amendment isn't about sportsman or hunting or personal protection. It's main
purpose is to dissuade a tyrannical government from making slaves of it's citizens. "Those than don't learn from history are doomed to repeat
it." It has happened before and damn sure it will happen again if the people don't keep it in check. The founding founders were smart enough to
include this final provision against tyranny directly into our Bill of Rights. As some have stated before, "shall not be infringed" is a very
direct and powerful statement to the government. That is why it is being fought so hard for now. When the original "assault weapons ban" passed in
1994 I was 11 years old. Even if I had opinion back then, it didn't matter. It was my parent's and their parent's generation voting at the time.
I've noticed a large animosity towards my generation here on ATS but we're not all lazy, self-absorbed, entitlement seeking buffoons. Some of us
truly do care for our country and what it stands for in the grand scheme of things, even if we disagree with our parents and the government at
I can only hope maybe I can open some eyes to the hypocrisy that is our federal government to date. I am left leaning and yet I'm not what most
would think of me by my prescribed political leanings. I believe in freedom for all and tyranny for none.