Democrat Congressman Mentions Second Amendment as Remedy for Trump
“What would you do? What would we do?”
Do you remember the way the liberal media hyperventilated daily over the dangerous threat posed by the supposedly extremist Tea Party? Don’t expect the same reaction over recent comments by New York Democrat Tom Suozzi.
On the bright side, there’s finally a Democrat who cares about the Second Amendment.
Eric Garcia reports at Roll Call:
Suozzi Suggests Using the ‘Second Amendment’ on Trump
Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi suggested at a town hall that President Donald Trump’s opponents could take up arms against the president.
The New York Democrat was speaking at an event in Huntington, New York, last week and said it was important to put pressure on the president, in a video obtained by the New York Post.
“This is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly,” Suozzi said. “Because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?”
A person in the audience actually had to ask what the Second Amendment is:
In response, someone in the audience asked what the Second Amendment entails.
“The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms,” he said.
Here’s the video:
As you can imagine, some people were not happy about this. Alex Pappas writes at FOX News:
“When resistance and obstruction don’t work out, Tom Suozzi proposes violence,” National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Chris Martin said in a statement. “He’s completely out of touch.”
A spokesperson for Suozzi denied that the congressman was calling for “armed insurrection” against Trump.
“Taking a page from such great Americans as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, Congressman Suozzi explained why our founding fathers created the Second Amendment as a way for citizens to fight back against a tyrannical government that does not follow the rule of law,” senior adviser Kim Devlin said in a Monday statement to Fox News.
Devlin added: “To suggest his comments meant anything else or that he was advocating for an armed insurrection against the existing president is both irresponsible and ridiculous.”
That’s classic Democrat spin. Forget what I said, it’s your reaction to it that is irresponsible.
You may recall back in 2010, a Tea Party candidate named Sharon Angle running for Senate in Nevada got raked over the coals for similar comments. From the Huffington Post:
Sharron Angle Floated ‘2nd Amendment Remedies’ As ‘Cure’ For ‘The Harry Reid Problems’
Sharron Angle, the Tea Party candidate turned Republican primary winner in Nevada, has taken heat for a number of extreme affiliations and policy positions. One of the more outlandish was a statement she made during a radio interview last January in which she floated the idea that the public would bring down an out-of-control Congress with “Second Amendment remedies.”
The media also pounced on a Second Amendment comment by Trump before the 2016 election.
From New York Magazine:
Trump’s Assassination ‘Joke’ Was Thinly Veiled Sedition
Donald Trump managed to descend to new depths today by repeating a tedious gun-lobby argument that Hillary Clinton wants to “essentially abolish the Second Amendment” and then turning it into a “joking” suggestion that “Second-Amendment people” might hold the only way to deal with that threat. Nothing like a little assassination humor to liven things up on the campaign trail, eh?
Do you think anyone in the media will use the word “assassination” to describe Suozzi’s comments?
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Two points:
First – the only way the word “assassination” will be mentioned is when someone takes up his words and acts on them, but that would be too late (can you say “Congressional Baseball Shooting”?!).
Second – Suozzi is quoted as saying, “Because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?” —> you mean DO WHAT OBAMA DID THROUGHOUT HIS PRESIDENCY?!?!
There are numerous examples of OBAMA ignoring the courts, ignoring the law, failing to uphold the law……in fact, his admin. has so many egregious examples of blatant disregard of the law that it is LAUGHABLE that this NY Rep. even uttered those words!!
(Some examples: Holder in contempt of Congress, Fast & Furious, illegal immigration policies, Justice Dept. & NBP election interference scandal, SoS Hillary’s illegal servers and TS comms on unprotected channels, Loretta Lynch letting Hillary skate, ….. need I go on?!)
We have had a number of leftists who have pretty much called for Trump being assassinated. That was the point of Kathy Griffin’s Donald Head “comedy”. That was the point of that play depicted in NY – Julius Caesar. That was the point made by Maxine Waters in some of her classic rants. That was the point made by the Missouri State Senator.That was the point made of the Twitter rants when Trump went to Mexico as a candidate.
I remember Democrats expressing outrage at any hint of that kind of talk directed at any Democrat. I remember the outrage expressed in the NYT and media outlets when Trump mentioned that Hillary was anti-2A, and that the 2A folks should remember that (even though it sure sounded like he was talking about voting, the Times and the media made out as if he was calling for Hillary to be killed).
I even remember a news comment regarding Bush and the year he was elected having a common issue of people trying to assassinate the President in those years. (I don’t recall the exact thing, maybe with the election year ending in zero?) And they brought up Reagan and the attempt against him.
I’m sure there are Republicans who have hinted at things like this, but they are rare. Even though the propaganda wing of the DNC (pretty much all MSM) change the meanings and intents of Republican statements to be a threat of using guns against Democrat candidates or office holders.
I thought things like this were illegal. Yet nothing seems to go anywhere with the leftists making calls like this.
It can’t be illegal. It’s protected by the first amendment.
Threats aren’t protected by the First Amendment
http://13wham.com/news/local/wny-man-charged-with-threatening-to-kill-clinton-trump-obama-cruz
Also, legality shouldn’t even be the issue at hand. The selective media outrage only when it’s against a lefty is the issue.
If Mulhouse was a REAL solicitor he would know this. The fact he didn’t speaks volumes.
But it isn’t a threat under American law. See Watts v. United States for details.
Also see Rankin v McPherson. A public employee who, upon hearing that an assassination attempt on the president failed, says “next time I hope they get him”, can’t even be fired, let alone charged.
This is not a threat, and therefore it is protected.
Advocacy is not a threat. It is perfectly lawful to say that the president (or anyone else) ought to be shot, or that I hope someone shoots him.
A conditional threat is not a threat. It is perfectly lawful to say that if the president (or anyone else) were to do some thing then I would shoot him.
Even something phrased as an actual threat, i.e. “I will kill you”, but which from the context a reasonable person would not understand as such, i.e. would not seriously fear that the speaker might carry it out, is not a threat, and is therefore protected speech.
If you knew anything at all about first amendment law you would know this.
You’re a committed leftist thinker. You think Donald Trump is Hitler. You’ve been to all the marches, carrying your homemade sign with Donald having an Adolph mustache, and swastika ear rings. “Facist” “Nazi” you yell out in unison with your friends.
And you of course are full lefty right down the line on all the issues of the day, unrestricted abortion, unilateral nuclear disarmament, the UN as the seat of world government, unrestricted immigration, destruction of Israel, free tuition, free needles. You name the liberal position, you’re all for it.
Including full gun control, full confiscation. By the federal government. By Donald Trump’s federal government. Huh?
Sharon Angle was right, and so is Suozzi. If Trump turns tyrannical (which thankfully hasn’t yet happened and shows no signs of happening), then the second amendment will become relevant. That is, after all, the whole point of having it in the first place.
….and so far only the left is exposing themselves as the wannabe tyrants.
Re: Milhouse
Nothing personal, but the dem isn’t right. If Trump ignored the courts, that would not be grounds for insurrection. Constitutionally speaking, the courts have repeatedly usurped powers belonging elsewhere,and Trump ignoring them would be proper.
Yes, the other applications and benefits are incidental and contributory to the primary purpose. The Second Amendment was conceived and practiced in the same context as the First Amendment.
Leftist never think the 2nd Amendment as a check against tyranny because they always think of their side as being in control.
I would posit that the Left feels it is far enough ahead to begin shutting down the very freedoms that got them here. Sealing the 1st and 2nd A’s in a deep tomb would ensure they can “progress” on to perfecting humanity in their own image. So, when a Leftist brings up 2A, it means they think they are loosing their control…. and control is EVERYTHING!
With all the end-of-the-world rhetoric on the left after the election, I really thought those leftists would finally see the point of the 2nd Amendment. I mean, you you’re marching around with signs saying Trump will destroy the country, and you believe it, you should be carrying rifles, not signs. Alas, they seem to be immune to logic.
Well Congressman, since your constituents are bound by New York’s dopey gun laws they aren’t going to be much help with what you suggest
“…and that, children, is how the Civil War started.”
Sure, go ahead and try that.
“In response, someone in the audience asked what the Second Amendment entails.”
You’re hereby demanded to turn in your voter registration card. You’re too ignorant to vote.
That is all.
what if the president was to ignore the courts?
I haven’t seen any reports which clarified just which courts or decisions he’s concerned about.
So far the President has done no such thing. Suozzi seems to be thinking that he’s saving it up for a good occasion.
But there’s nothing in the Constitution which says that the Executive can’t fight the other branches of government, either alone or in combination.
The president must obey direct orders from a court acting within its jurisdiction, even if he believes them to be wrong, and (according to most authorities) even if they are blatantly and obviously wrong. If he were to defy them, and the democratic process of impeachment and removal, or of waiting for the next election, were to fail, then it may be 2nd amendment time.
Not sure how accurate that really is. We have seen some hyper partisan judges issue nationwide injunctions, in regards to immigration, ignoring what the Supreme Court has said on the subject, and what they are likely to say on the subject. As a previous occupant of the White House pointed out, how are the courts going to enforce their decisions on a President, if ihe doesn’t agree? The reality, is that they can’t (the military and most of the government LEOs report to the President), and the real Constitutional answer to a President ignoring the courts is impeachment.
If a court orders a president (or any other official who has sworn an oath to support the Constitution) to stop doing something, I’d agree. But if a court orders a president to do something that the president believes is unconstitutional, his oath should prevent him from doing it. The oath imposes personal responsibility upon the oath-taker to do or not do that which he believes he has or has not the authority to do. Government officials in this country do not take an oath to obey the orders of courts, they swear to abide by the Constitution as they understand it, not as it is dictated to them by any other “authority.” We discredited the “I was only following orders” defense at Nuremberg.
Agreed.
Also, the rule only applies to court orders that are wrong, even blatantly wrong, but within the court’s jurisdiction. When a judge acts ultra vires he’s not acting as a judge but as an ordinary person, and his orders are no more binding than mine or yours. Some of the recent orders fall into this category, and Trump should ignore them rather than appealing them.
Obama and company have sold so many guns that that locally we now have two nice new ranges. I say, thanks Obama.
I find it interesting…and darkly hilarious…that the exact same argument is made here virtually every week (correctly) in support of the Second Amendment.
The Congressman asked a hypothetical question about the POTUS doing something that would violate his oath of office (arguendo), and suggested the exact response most all of us would hold as our response in extremis.
He is just of the wrong tribe. So much silly hypocrisy.
I agree with you. In fact, when I first read what Rep. Tom Suozzi said, I thought “Finally! A Democratic politician who understands the fundamental purpose for the Second Amendment!”
No argument from me. I think Suozzi was sport on. But I’ll bet Schumer’s and Feinstein’s heads exploded when they heard that one of their own admitted that the Dems actually do understand the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment, putting the lie to all of their obfuscation. It is an astounding admission that gave away their entire game (at least to those who hadn’t yet seen through it).
So you remember the guy that got killed when he shot at a cop with his sandwich. Three times before it jammed. Then he got blown away by the cop. I think it was in Ferguson.
Rumor has it that the reason his sandwich jammed is that he got it with three rounds, then used the wrong kind of ammo for the rest.
So go ahead. Shove a gun down your pants to blow away Trump. You’ll wind up blowing off you c**k. A nonlethal form of the Darwin Award.
Not Ferguson. Vonderrit Myers was shot in St Louis, by a security guard who also happened to be a cop. He had GSR all over him, and the gun, which was positively identified as his (well, stolen, but in his possession), was on the ground next to him. He bought the sandwich 20 minutes before the shootout, so I doubt he still had it. And some time during those 20 minutes he put on a hoodie that he was not wearing when he bought the sandwich but was when he confronted the cop.
Whether this veiled threat is legal or not the idea that an elected politician would suggest the population might have to resort to using their 2nd amendment rights is freaking hypocritical coming from the side that wants to minimize those rights.
Another case of speech/conduct that the Left pitched hissies about when directed at BO but now they dance around it being a 1st amendment matter.
“This is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly,” Suozzi said. “Because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?”
Y’all probably would bravely form a drum circle or something.
Maybe we could get them to form a drum circle with guns. 😉 But seriously, the congressman is right, in that if the current prez were to start acting like a tyrant, there might be an armed resistance. But to him, even if Trump followed the constitution to the letter, the good congresscritter would still see Trump as a tyrant because he isn’t adhering to the liberal agenda. Acting against the constitution is very different than not doing just what I want, though it seems that very few of the liberal persuasion can see that.