NYTimes Editorial: Congress Should Secretly Suspend Second Amendment Rights

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.

I wouldn't want one of this guy's students as my lawyer.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You should acquit my client because, let's face it, he's done worse than this."

a reply to: neo96

How? We can't find and remove the up to 30 million illegals in the US. Even if we could find them, it would be too expensive. There is ten times the number of guns and they can hide in less than man-sized places. And unlike illegals, guns have a tendency to just jump up and kill indiscriminately all own their own. At least that is what I have heard.

a reply to: Ahabstar

How?

Here is how they do it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: xuenchen

I'm so sick of this even being an issue.

Someone hits someone else with a car, we blame the person.
Someone murders people with one weapon, they blame guns.


Let me break it down like this:

If you are the kind of person who defends Islam by saying "The man committing the murders does not represent all of Islam", then why does he represent all gun owners?

Every time this happens, where does it happen? In no gun zones. Use your brains.

that's insane. Losing rights over accusations alone is cray cray

originally posted by: Ahabstar
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.

Biggest mistake of the left and gun grabbers is that they actually think we're all cowards and numb nuts and we won't stand our ground and return fire.

BIG MISTAKE.

That's why "gun control" is being implemented incrementally in hopes that with enough "nibbling", the end result will favor the overall objective.

You are a COMPLETE fool to think banning or confiscation will yield favorable results.

a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

And it's not even the guns themselves.

It's the bullets.

a reply to: xuenchen

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 !!!

The fact is, the NYT is a rag Newspaper chuck full of yellow journalism, and properganda.

For them to write such a statement proves they are anti-American, and they hate the Constitutions.

My "opinion" the NYT is no different that the "National Inquire" rag magazine sold at your local Walmart stores.

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.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

And it's not even the guns themselves.

It's the bullets.

Clearly the science states it's the gunpowder

(dramatically shakes fist in the air)

a reply to: xuenchen

Step 1: Acclimate people to the idea that the government can just suspend freedom movement. It's for our safety of course. If we let certain people on a plane, they might blow it up, but at the same time, it acclimates you to the idea that certain people can be kept in the country merely by removing their freedom of movement. How long before you can be kept inside the country regularly (no ISIS training and returning), or within state borders, or even within cities arbitrarily on a wide scale ... for safety?

Step 2: Start doing the same with our right to keep and bear arms.

Pretty soon, you need major papers to move anywhere outside your tiny little district, even for what used to be a day trip. But hey, don't we all feel safer?

a reply to: ketsuko
It worked for the Nazis.

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

And it's not even the guns themselves.

It's the bullets.

Clearly the science states it's the gunpowder

(dramatically shakes fist in the air)

And better yet ....

gunpowder has charcoal !!!!

It's the CARBON Footprint !!!

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.

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?

Much as it pains me to use a Star Wars reference, the same way the emperor dissolved the senate. How does any fascist power take control?

a reply to: xuenchen

Not sure what he is talking about. America already has the House Judiciary Committee, a left over from the McCarthy days. 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 ?

a reply to: tinymind

I`m pretty sure that congress doesn`t have the authority to add or remove amendments to the constitution that authority lies with the states.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
Don't ignore the other factors they have put into play.

They have us so divided and obsessed about trigger issues, that we either won't notice when the final pen is placed to paper, or we will be screaming in support for the cage door to be slammed on us.

Like in the cock and pit bull fights. They agitate and bait the animals, until they are ready to behead and eviscerate, the first thing that enters the ring.

They are prepping, grooming, and baiting, us for the final countdown, and we are following them like the rats did the Pied Piper.

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.

Was there ever any doubt the MSM are not on OUR side?