Last week, Congressman Suozzi participated in the student walkout for gun control outside the US Capitol, and called on the youth of his district to back gun ownership restrictions. “I think we should engage the high school students of #NY03, and all of Long Island, to promote gun violence prevention legislation,” he tweeted earlier.
This week, however the gun-grabbing Congressman endorsed the concept of an armed citizenry prepared to overthrow the government…specifically, the current one. This, of course, requires more than rocks and slingshots. It requires guns. Citizens opposed to President Trump had to consider the option of resorting to “Second Amendment,” Suozzi said in March 12 talk to constituents, saying in part,
“It’s really a matter of putting public pressure on the President/ 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?”
After an audience member called out, “What’s the Second Amendment?” (I know, I know. Sigh), Rep. Suozzi answered, “The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms!”
Afterwards, Suozzi’s office tweeted out one of the Thomas Jefferson quotes often cited by the NRA and Second Amendment defenders:
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms!”
OK, audience, are you ready? We’ve heard the evidence: this isn’t like John Kerry saying that he was for the Iraq War before he was against it. This is like Kerry saying that he was for the Iraq War WHILE he was against it! So it’s time to play the popular new political game show that’s sweeping the nation, “Unethical, Confused, Shameless, Or Just An Idiot”!
Here’s your challenge! Is Congressman Suozzi…Unethical, Confused, Shameless, Or Just An Idiot?
Choose carefully!
You have only a minute…
Thanks for playing, everyone!
See you next week!
Ethics Alarms 
There was no checkbox for seditious.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385
Of course one man’s traitor is another man’s patriot…
Oh brother. All silliness aside, my main point was that a lot of folks who would have called anyone who said take up arms against Obama racists traitors will declare anyone who says take up arms against Trump to be patriots trying to save this country from itself. The converse is also true, and this guy is just playing on that.
Are If-Then statements seditious, when the “If” condition is “actual presence of tyranny”?
People like this are exactly why I’ll never surrender any of my rights for safety and security.
Exactly.
How you gonna get the guns?
You gonna dig up all of Texas?
Unethical is a given. You cannot ethically let yourself be in office and be this non-functionally confused.
Zuozzi’s office sent out the Jefferson quote in a release saying that it was “irresponsible and ridiculous” to interpret what he said as advocating for armed insurrection. His senior adviser went on to say that Suozzi was just explaining why the founding fathers created the 2nd Amendment as a way for citizens to fight back against a tyrannical government. What? Isn’t fighting back against a tyrannical government with arms an armed insurrection? Now I’m confused too.
I don’t know, he’s about as internally consistent as the Left is revealing itself to be.
Only pro-Free Speech when their socialist worldview was despised, but now that it’s mainstream, all other worldviews must not be communicated.
Pro-Right to Bear arms when the object of overthrow is something other than Leftism…but when Leftism is in power, there’s nothing TOO overthrow, so the people don’t need the right…
I guess I am the one confused. You say:
Last week, Congressman Suozzi participated in the student walkout for gun control outside the US Capitol, and called on the youth of his district to back gun ownership restrictions. “I think we should engage the high school students of #NY03, and all of Long Island, to promote gun violence prevention legislation,”
There is the possible conflation of “gun ownership restrictions” and “promote gun violence prevention.” Only the latter is a direct quote of Suozzi. “Gun ownership restrictions” appears to be an editorial comment. At any rate, the two are not the same.
In any event, promoting the prevention of gun violence through legislation is not a position that is inherently inconsistent with the Second Amendment (though it often is in the case of particular legislative proposals. Even further, promoting gun ownership restrictions is not necessarily inconsistent with promoting the right to bear arms. To give you the easy example: I think the 2nd Amendment could be interpreted to mean that I have a right to own a machine gun (or fully automatic rifle, if you will); however my right to own such a weapon is restricted by legislation and the NRA does not seem to view that as a restriction of the right to bear arms.
Though, maybe I am missing the point of the quiz.
-Jut
I should be able to own a machine gun. Or a flame thrower. Or a howitzer. Or a tank.
And I can. http://www.drivetanks.com
I SHOULD be able to own these without government permission as well.
That is the true constitutionalist position
I voted all of the above.
Congratulations, Jack. The number of voters in your polls used to reflect pretty much the number of regular commenters – and not even all of them. Now it’s grabbing more readers each time. Perhaps you should have a poll with each blog. Much more interesting than a “thumb” or a “like” (ugh) button. Promotes some thought. I don’t know if there’s a word limit to these polls, but if you could make the selections a bit more complex. . . . It would only take an hour or so longer to write up . . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjYoNL4g5Vg