A pro-gun control Democrat from New York seems to have an entirely different stance on the Second Amendment – when President Trump is involved. During a Long Island question and answer session with his constituents on March 12, Representative Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) advocated an armed insurrection against the existing president. Naturally his people have been trying to walk back that statement, but to no avail.
The Right to Bear Arms
A little more than an hour into the Long Island session, a woman asked what could be done to force Trump to comply with the Congressional mandate to impose stricter sanctions on Russia, and how much time he would have. Here’s how Rep. Suozzi answered:
“I don’t know the answer to the question. It’s… you know, it’s really a matter of, uh, putting public pressure on the president and making it public, which is hard to break through the news cycle with all the different things. And it’s probably about going to the courts, as well. Uh, and then, you know… I mean, 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?”
He seemed ready to continue with his thought – perhaps to answer his own hypothetical question – when someone interrupted him to ask what the Second Amendment is. “The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms,” he replied, quickly and confidently. “That’s why we have it. That’s why we have it.”
That’s Why We Have It?
Tom Suozzi
For any interested in the conversation that frames the context of this woman’s question, feel free to watch the session in its entirety. The inquiry begins at about 1:12:15. The meeting spanned numerous topics, but at the time of this question – and more importantly, Tom Suozzi’s Second Amendment comments – the discussion revolved around the Congressional mandate that President Trump impose greater sanctions on Russia.
So, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms so that the people can rise up against a president who refuses to impose sanctions on another nation?
Of course, Democrats have rushed to his defense. Some say that he misspoke, though Suozzi himself shot down that theory. Others, including Suozzi’s spokesperson, claim that it was not a call to arms against President Trump, but rather a general explanation of the Second Amendment. Clearly, that’s not true. If it were, why would he throw in the right to bear arms as part of his answer to the question of how to force Trump to impose sanctions on Russia?
Why We Really Have It
Despite his confidence both in defining the Second Amendment to his constituent and in denying that he misspoke, Rep. Suozzi seemed rather unsure when first mentioning it as part of his answer to the initial question – and for good reason. Evidentially, he doesn’t actually understand the right to bear arms. This should come as no surprise, however, as he supports the Democrat idea of “common sense gun control.”
The people are to be armed so that the government could be overthrown should it become tyrannical. More importantly, knowing that the populace is armed and ready keeps us all relatively safe. It serves as a deterrent to both government tyranny and violent crime.
But no matter how much you dislike President Trump, dragging his feet on Russian sanctions is not the oppression of the people for which the Second Amendment exists.
