Long Island, Rep. Tom Suozzi, (D-NY) recently said: “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?”
“It’s really a matter of putting public pressure on the president,” Suozzi continued.
National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Chris Martin said in a recent statement, “When resistance and obstruction don’t work out, Tom Suozzi proposes violence. He’s completely out of touch.”
A spokesperson for Suozzi said that “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.”
Democrat Congressman Tom Suozzi talks about using the Second Amendment against President Donald Trump. pic.twitter.com/QaQjwtR5X9
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) March 20, 2018
I mean… I guess points for sorta understanding the point of the Second Amendment but I take those points away because the POTUS has done nothing to actually deserve anything like that.
From Cornell: The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment’s intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.
On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.”
A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
