Congressman implies armed insurrection if president does not obey the Constitution

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: ketsuko
Crap like this is why governments are not to be trusted.

Yes but I gotta say I do like the notion of A-Holes being punished for their behaviors. It's a delicate tightrope to walk, thats for sure.

Yeah, but you know we're all partisan @ssholes, and we'd all get punished. Every last one of us. No one here would be safe.

Totally aware of that. I've already been punished by some. Someone on FB right after the election, threatened to not use my business or services because of my postings. Not that they even actually knew me or used my services ever.

It would be abused quite a bit I'm sure. I just like the concept of people reaping their just rewards for truly appalling behaviors.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Crap like this is why governments are not to be trusted.

Crap like that is why citizens must get off their lazy asses over here and make sure we get exactly the structure we want, done how we want, and relating high level political abuses severely punished.

We can have something similar to Norway in the US. It just takes citizen effort to get in there & maintain it instead of thrusting it in corrupt career politician laps. However, the bulk of Americans -- even you -- haven't yet had the cattle prod up the ass yet that will ensure we have heavily restricted, heavily vetted people in politics at every level of it. As a whole, the country is not yet offended enough by our own homegrown corruption to do so.

as a duly elected representative of the people, him saying this is proper and within his responsibility. assuming he speaks for his constituents.

That said, its pretty wreckless to ratchet up tensions even more.

And were there an armed revolt by his political peers, it would go very, very bad for them. They'd have to revolt against the US Government and the better armed/trained half of the nation. It would be an enormous uphill fight.

Side note: it undercuts the nonsense coming out of Parkland as of late.

a reply to: nOraKat

Revolution is a healthy thing from time to time.

I see no reason for an insurrection right know.

However even if people were given many many reasons. They will not rise up. Most are cowards.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: ketsuko
Crap like this is why governments are not to be trusted.

Yes but I gotta say I do like the notion of A-Holes being punished for their behaviors. It's a delicate tightrope to walk, thats for sure.

There is an episode of Black Mirror that covers this topic. And its pretty dark.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: ketsuko
Crap like this is why governments are not to be trusted.

Yes but I gotta say I do like the notion of A-Holes being punished for their behaviors. It's a delicate tightrope to walk, thats for sure.

There is an episode of Black Mirror that covers this topic. And its pretty dark.

I saw that one. Black Mirror is great. They gamed the system at the very end to get the result they wanted, If I remember correctly. They lied to influence the public.

a reply to: Nyiah

Who watches the watchers?

I will point out that Norway works because they are a small country with a small, mostly homogeneous society with natural resources they aren't shy about using to fund their social programs.

We are not small. We are not homogeneous either racially or culturally - the American culture and integrate are a dirty words now, and they used to be the ones that unified all the disparate cultures from other nations that came here. And tapping our natural resources is highly controversial no matter which ones we are talking about.

Not to mention, I do not want to be socialized. Not every social good is one that works best for me or mine. I'd like the freedom to seek out the best fits for us.

The problem with social goods are that I am forced to pay for them even when they do not benefit me or I cannot use them, and then and only then can I seek out what I can use *if* I have the means to do *after* paying for the social goods. In other words, after I've paid for a bunch of things I may not be able to use or may not want, I can get the things I do need or will use ... if I can afford to. And since I'm forced to pay for the social goods, I don't have any choice.

So I may be left needing something I can't pay for and with a lot of things that do me no good that I've been forced to pay for.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
as a duly elected representative of the people, him saying this is proper and within his responsibility. assuming he speaks for his constituents.

That said, its pretty wreckless to ratchet up tensions even more.

And were there an armed revolt by his political peers, it would go very, very bad for them. They'd have to revolt against the US Government and the better armed/trained half of the nation. It would be an enormous uphill fight.

Side note: it undercuts the nonsense coming out of Parkland as of late.

But this is what he said from the Article:

“It’s really a matter of putting public pressure on the president,” Suozzi said in a newly released video of the March 12 talk in Huntington. “This is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly, because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?”

Obama ignorned the Courts far more and far more aggressively than Trump has, was this Congressman spouting the same rhetoric towards his own Party's President?

It would be different if he were consistent.

Even then, Using armed force every time a Branch of Government disagrees with the other Branches it would be chaos. Democracy implies people will peacefully disagree and work to resolve issues.

Should California use armed might to fight I.C.E. then?

He is fully within his rights to say something idiotic..

That said as Texan mentioned it is irresponsible for a sitting representative to say such inflammatory rhetoric while there is so much tension in the country.

Double posting fool...

This is clearly an example of the Mandela Effect in action. In my timeline I seem to recall the left wanting to disarm the populace and the right touting the second.

a reply to: pavil

Words are not action. Thats the best part: you can use words to belay, or delay, action.

If i were to answer his question of what would i do: i'd encourage my representative to address the issue via legislation. There are a few miles of steps to take before you take up arms.

Then again, im not so sure that Uncle Sam doesn't need his ass kicked to remind him who is in charge.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: whywhynot

That the Second is to be a Sword of Damocles to the government is understood by every office holder. I do have to give the guy a little credit for admitting to its purpose. Still think he is a bit on the fruit bat side of things given to whom he was speaking.

Well sure, does he not understand the irony?

originally posted by: WarPig1939
a reply to: nOraKat

Oh an armed insurrection will only lead to worse results. Why is a congressman advocating or threatening violence? Shouldn't this be grounds for removal from office?

I agree with this, that congressman should be removed from office immediately if this is true.

To incite hostile action against our president is nothing more than inciting civil unrest.

Suozzi’s comment seems to conflict with his recent push for gun control following the Parkland, Florida, school shooting.

- From the source article.

This isn't a "conflict" with his recent push for gun control. This is a smart person trying to get riled up so they can proceed to say something along the lines of : "Look at these people and their willingness to take up arms against the government!? This is why we need to ban weapons of war! We have domestic terrorists that will stop at nothing to get their way!"

Or something like that.

Typical political fashion: They already have their "solution" in mind..... All they need to do is either create a problem or exacerbate an existing one and they can put the solution into place.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I hear ya. It's a lot of talk with no actions to back it up. Just like Trump saying 2nd Amendment types would take action if Clinton were elected.

I'm more amused than angry at the Congressman. Hearing Dems in Political office talk like that warms my cold Republican heart.

Maybe he's mad about bump stocks ban, since that's the closest to unconstitutional Trump has gotten?

Bumpstocks are useless. Talk to anyone who served with full auto/semi M-16s and they will tell you auto is just a way to run through ammo you carried to the field. Waste.

We only used it for suppression, and even then it was a waste.

Semi aimed fire is the only way a trained soldier used a 16.

Want to have fun on the range? Go for it. Want to use a 16 in an effective manner? Forget auto.

Who cares if a bunch of weekend wanna bee s want a bump stock? Put out 30 rounds in 3 seconds while the trained citizens roll your butts up.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I fear that if due process ever got bypassed, there would be shooting either way, democrat or republican in office.

a reply to: nOraKat

i think this lady needs a visit from secret service . why do dumbocrats not understand it is a crime to make threats against the office of the president.