NYTimes Editorial: Congress Should Secretly Suspend Second Amendment Rights

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: smurfy
That house should have already had information about the Orlando killer given to them by the FBI, and could have acted on it..unless the FBI didn't do that, or that the house committee didn't act on any information received ?

I believe the information that would have helped to prevent the attacks
was deleted, and the investigator was removed from his duty of such.

The current Administration did this, DHS.

So do you mean the FBI deleted the information, or the House Judiciary....a cross party affair it seems, to whom the FBI must report. I don't think that the President can interfere there, but if so, there you have a trifecta of accomplices, charlatans in fact. That seems very close to what happened vis-à-vis 9/11. ?

originally posted by: Gothmog

NYTimes Editorial: Congress Should Secretly Suspend Second Amendment Rights

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

ISRAEL

a reply to: ecapsretuo
Hmm. I just included that one in the list for you. With the exception of Palestine instead of Israel
I know what you are saying though

Wonder if Clinton has anything to do with this declaration?

"Clinton Donated $100K to New York Times Group the Same Year Paper Endorsed Her"

A little-known private foundation controlled by Bill and Hillary Clinton donated $100,000 to the New York Times’ charitable fund in 2008, the same year the newspaper’s editorial page endorsed Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary, according to tax documents reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

Source

Legal propaganda have the media regurgitate it, people share memes, etc, and eventually people will rally for it.
Huff Post, with "weapons of war", is guilty as well to say the least of MSM.

There are always people that will want to support the loss of freedoms and rights.

We used to call them fascist bastards.

I don't see any point to change what we call them.

a reply to: smurfy

Better explanation of my short post is found here:

thehill.com...

Its a good read.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: xuenchen

When someone starts proposing such things as secret courts, and writing about that in major newspapers, the nation is in serious trouble!! There was a time when even the most liberal papers wouldn't have touched such a piece, or allowed it to be printed. Now, they beg for rights to be removed.

Are we living in pre-WWII Germany here? Starting to seem that way.

But remember, it's really only the evil Republicans we have to worry about, so long as everyone keeps their eye on that ball while the other hand is busy taking all our rights away, we all win!

Bouncing off the idea that this editorial was published
in response to the Orlando Terrorist Attack....

I'd say that the two trips to Saudi Arabia on a Muslim Pilgrimage
indicate that this is all about Radical Jihad, and has nothing
to do with the need for gun control in the U.S.

The FBI is piecing together Mateen’s radical Islam roots, and the trips to Saudi Arabia could be a sign of his growing religious devotion. His stated reason for both the 2011 and 2012 trips was umrah, a Muslim pilgrimage to the Kingdom that is not as significant as the hajj, a trip all Muslims must make to Mecca at least once in their lives. Either or both of the trips could also have included a side trip.
www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: xuenchen

I'm wondering what this editorial offers as far as implementation of this entirely illegal and treasonous scheme to trash a ratified and legitimate Amendment.

Sure some would bow down and turn their guns in, but I can't believe there wouldn't be a significant percentage who would take a stand and defend their Right violently if need be.

Yeah there's bloodshed occasionally now, but this is begging for rivers.

and do you know what? it would work.
you would get no more mass killing or terror attacks.
as they would do the job they are supost to do.
and the FBI would stop geting people to do it.

The idea won't fly for a multitude of solid legal reasons already touched on. End of story. Nice thought experiment, but it ultimately goes nowhere.

Two things have been on my mind, though. The constitution thumpers who reject the notion of ever amending it for modern applications, yet still support the existing amendments. If you're going to go all no-amendment purist, then shouldn't you be supporting the original constitution only? (I'm not advocating repealing anything, just noting the hypocrisy of that gymnastics logic)

Second, this was inspired by someone else on here who asked similarly. On the infinitesimal off-chance the government does prove CTers right and does turn on the people, how are your civilian weapons supposed to compete with military ones? Seriously. This is what the gun advocates preach, yet never answer when that's posed. Never mind the weapons soldiers carry, how are you going to stand up to armed tanks? Fighter jets? Armed helicopters? Drones? Launcher systems with the bulls-eye on you from a hell of a lot farther away than your projectile can cover? This is, of course, assuming the military personnel do point their weapons at the civilians, which any one of them will tell you they legally cannot do on domestic soil outside of specific circumstances (i.e civil war/martial law) Point remains that your toys are no match for theirs.

The government shouldn't "secretly" do anything.

I guess I'll have to purchase another firearm. Not out of need or desire, just to make a statement. And I guess as an investment.

originally posted by: Ohanka
It's becoming clear that the US constitution is, and has been for a long, long time, totally worthless. The Government just does whatever they want. Because no one will ever do anything about it. People too distracted by the media machine

Welcome to the Brave New World.

I can't help but totally disagree with your statement about the value of the U S Constitution.
About the American people in general not so much.

The Constitution is as valued today as the day it was written. It is only those who desire to lessen its value who try to either devalue or discredit its effectiveness.

It would appear many of our politicians and national leaders have taken up an agenda which is contrary to the constitution and the freedoms which it affords to the common citizens of our country. This is the major conflict which I see being played out in the media these days.

originally posted by: tinymind

originally posted by: Ohanka
It's becoming clear that the US constitution is, and has been for a long, long time, totally worthless. The Government just does whatever they want. Because no one will ever do anything about it. People too distracted by the media machine

Welcome to the Brave New World.

I can't help but totally disagree with your statement about the value of the U S Constitution.
About the American people in general not so much.

The Constitution is as valued today as the day it was written. It is only those who desire to lessen its value who try to either devalue or discredit its effectiveness.

It would appear many of our politicians and national leaders have taken up an agenda which is contrary to the constitution and the freedoms which it affords to the common citizens of our country. This is the major conflict which I see being played out in the media these days.

Whether or not the Constitution is a good document, it can be said that is wholly ineffective as we are in the state we are because of it, good and bad.

Has it truly worked?

Sure, it has protected many rights and limited government in many ways, but what about all of the alphabet agencies? It hasn't stopped them from spawning or growing.

I think it's not restrictive enough.

So, if that goes to SCOTUS and we have Barry Soetoro ( Saudi appointed) as a member of it. That law will pass, by one vote over by our favorable Barry...

a reply to: Nyiah
All that millitary equipment have to be operated by human being(tanks, drones, heavy armored vehicles) and as long as they suport US constitution no harm will be done. Granit, there are exceptions to the rules, but majority of the military personals and law enforcements will be on the same side with the people.
If you take second amendment from me, you might well take the rest of them among with my freedom, liberty and my life.

a reply to: Tempter

Sure, it has protected many rights and limited government in many ways, but what about all of the alphabet agencies? It hasn't stopped them from spawning or growing. I think it's not restrictive enough.

One question: What country do you live in?

If it is the U S, do you not enjoy the highest standard of living on the planet? The primary reason for most of these agentcies is to help keep this standard of living as high as possible. Another is to help keep your butt as safe as possible.

If you have a problem with either of these cases, take it up with your congress person and/or get enough people together and put them out of office. That is how democracy works. Don't cry about the power of money and the guys handing out checks on the senate floor. If you don't like it enough, DO SOMETHING about it.

That is how the system set up through the Constitution works.

a reply to: tinymind

I've heard that the NSA (or maybe not the NSA, it was one of those anti-terrorism agencies) is pretty much utterly useless. Over 8 billion spent and maybe one or two thwarted acts of terrorism to show for it. Maybe.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I could give you a long list of agencies, as well as some agents, whose usefullness could be questioned.

But what can I say?