Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marine Schools CNN Anchor on 2nd Amendment! (Video)
youtube ^ | january 6, 2013

Posted on 01/07/2013 10:28:29 AM PST by lowbridge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETF6XFiQe7I

(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; cnn; guncontrol; marines; secondamendment

1 posted on 01/07/2013 10:28:38 AM PST by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

bookmark


2 posted on 01/07/2013 10:41:23 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

His last remark: Unconstitutional laws aren’t laws.

It would be nice if Congress understood this.


3 posted on 01/07/2013 10:43:58 AM PST by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

News anchor arrogance is a cover for ignorance.


4 posted on 01/07/2013 10:44:19 AM PST by ryan71 (Water, food and ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
even Joshua got it wrong on two major points. He failed to stress that criminals do not obey laws and that people "need to own guns to defend themselves" from incidents like sandy hook

the point of the 2nd amendment is that the people need to own guns to defend themselves from politicians like Feinstein as absurd as that may sound it is the 100% truth

5 posted on 01/07/2013 10:46:05 AM PST by KTM rider ( , you'd be lucky to get= $7....LOL !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
even Joshua got it wrong on two major points. He failed to stress that criminals do not obey laws and that people "need to own guns to defend themselves" from incidents like sandy hook

the point of the 2nd amendment is that the people need to own guns to defend themselves from politicians like Feinstein as absurd as that may sound it is the 100% truth

6 posted on 01/07/2013 10:46:42 AM PST by KTM rider ( , you'd be lucky to get= $7....LOL !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Joshua poses a good point ... "an unconstitutional law is no law"

I mulled that over a bit and wondered; Is that true?

I think it's true in the military, that an unlawful order must be followed before you can make an issue of denying it, though of course I may be wrong.

In Joshua's case, I can reflect on my own life when, as a 20 yo, I committed a felonious crime that now, at (almost) 65, having lived a law abiding life, I am still dis-allowed to keep and bear arms, which points directly to Joshu'a point ...

If the gun contol act of 1968 (due mostly to NRA (as I understand it) impetus), is unconstitutional (and of course I say it is), then I should be allowed to keep and carry without having to justify that keeping and carrying other than, I am an American.

7 posted on 01/07/2013 10:48:22 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Where does he live? We should run him for Congress.


8 posted on 01/07/2013 10:48:33 AM PST by ken5050 ("One useless man is a shame, two are a law firm, three or more are a Congress".. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Oooh Rah!

Semper Fi and Uphold & Defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic!

Way to go Corporal!


9 posted on 01/07/2013 10:55:12 AM PST by BwanaNdege ("To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"- Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ryan71
News anchor arrogance is a cover for ignorance.

Good point.

10 posted on 01/07/2013 10:56:38 AM PST by GOPJ (News anchor arrogance is a cover for ignorance. - - freeper ryan71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ryan71

CNN anchors are the dumbest of the lot. I think CNN recruits from the nearest mental asylum.


11 posted on 01/07/2013 10:56:41 AM PST by max americana (Make the world a better place by punching a liberal in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

For a young man who’s not on TV everyday like the anchor, he sounds better prepared than the anchor. The kind of person needed in Congress.


12 posted on 01/07/2013 11:00:58 AM PST by topspinr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: knarf
that an unlawful order must be followed before you can make an issue of denying it

In Basic Training you are taught to respond to an unlawful order: Repeat, Refuse, Report. If you obey an unlawful order, you, too, are culpable.

13 posted on 01/07/2013 11:11:56 AM PST by Procyon (Decentralize, degovernmentalize, deregulate, demonopolize, decredentialize, disentitle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
@ 4:03 into the vid
"But the law is the law, if it becomes law, and you're just willing to break it."

Reporterette doesn't even realize she is making the point exactly that any law will not change the behavior of those who willingly break the law. (shooters willingly break laws against murder)

Maybe the surest way to end all the lawbreaking would be to simply and finally pass a law which makes breaking the law illegal.

14 posted on 01/07/2013 11:12:14 AM PST by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Bump & bookmark


15 posted on 01/07/2013 11:12:39 AM PST by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Unconstitutional Laws Aren't Laws

This should be a Nationwide billboard campaign.

16 posted on 01/07/2013 11:13:56 AM PST by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

According to the NRA, “In Haynes v U.S. (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that felons do not have to register illegally possessed guns, because the Fifth Amendment protects them against self-incrimination.”


17 posted on 01/07/2013 11:19:45 AM PST by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: knarf

“... can reflect on my own life when, as a 20 yo, I committed a felonious crime that now, at (almost) 65, having lived a law abiding life, I am still dis-allowed to keep and bear arms, which points directly to Joshu’a point ...”

Sorry to hear that. There are so many laws, many of which are felonies, that it is pretty much impossible to not commit a felony. Take this “Gun Free School Act”. If you are within 1000 feet of a school with a weapon then you are a felon. How many schools are within 1000 ft of a road? So, if you are traveling or just going home and pass by a school then you are a felon.

For those that don’t know. A felony is any offense that calls for more than a year in jail. Not, “you serve more than a year in jail”. Nope”you paid a fine” Felony “you plead guilty so there was no trial”felony. “No trial before a jury”. Felony. And then ALL your civil rights are taken from you.

Many laws are just a way for the government to control the populace. When you think about it actually all laws are a way to control the populace.


18 posted on 01/07/2013 11:21:08 AM PST by saleman (!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

bookmark


19 posted on 01/07/2013 11:23:01 AM PST by BillGunn (Bill Gunn for Congress district one rep. Massachusetts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: knarf
Joshua poses a good point ... "an unconstitutional law is no law"

I mulled that over a bit and wondered; Is that true?


The most famous case in Constitutional law is "Marbury v. Madison." In it, John Marshall the first chief justice of the Supreme Court said just that - a law which violates the Constitution is not valid. It is the precedent which establishes the review power of the Supreme Court, and they would absolutely agree with this.

However, the second part of the precedent in Marbury v. Madison is that the Supreme Court - alone, with no higher review - gets to decide. That part is wrong because ultimately 'We, the People' have the authority, but it's what the federal government follows. Which means that if they do pass an "assault weapons" ban, and the Supreme Court says it is okay (however wrongly) then they can still send the federal marshalls - with guns - to get our guns. Being right on the literal reading of the Constitution does not stop a bullet. Might makes right, and unless 'We, the People' demonstrate our might then others will declare themselves to be right.

On the additional part of your comment - that even though you are a convicted felon you should be able to keep a fiream because you are an American - I'm not sure the Constitution supports your position.

The right of 'the people' to keep and bear arms applies to 'the people.' As used in the Constitution, this is the same as "We, the People" and includes all those who agree to be bound by the Constitution. Those - like felons - who have demonstrated that they do not feel the need to be bound by the law, have removed themselves from the 'body politic' who comprise 'the people.'

Saying that one is willing to abide by *some* of the Constiutionally valid laws but not all of them is the same as saying that one is not bound by the laws - because that person is deciding for himself/herself what they will do, not accepting the decision of 'the people.'

The problem is that there is no provision for demontrated an enduring repentance as a way to re-enter, 'the people.' So, while being 'an American' is not enough, there should be a way for someone to regain their status as one of 'the People.' I'm sympathetic to your situation, even though the issue is not the gun control act of 1968, but the basic body of law addressing the status of convicted felons.
20 posted on 01/07/2013 11:42:41 AM PST by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

.


21 posted on 01/07/2013 11:42:41 AM PST by Gator113 (**WHO in the hell gave the damn order to NOT rescue our men in Benghazi?**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phlyer
Those - like felons - who have demonstrated that they do not feel the need to be bound by the law, have removed themselves from the 'body politic' who comprise 'the people.'

That is why felons serve time, or are put to death. Once that time is paid (to include all probation and/or parole), one should receive all rights back. If you are concerned a violent felon is able to have a gun once all time is served, then maybe we shouldn't look at the restriction of guns, but the length of incarceration for the crime. If said violent felon can't be trusted with a firearm, then why is said violent felon not still behind bars. Not only that, but there are too many ways to become a felon today.

22 posted on 01/07/2013 12:09:45 PM PST by IYAS9YAS (Rose, there's a Messerschmitt in the kitchen. Clean it up, will ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS
You're addressing ways in which a convicted felon could 're-enter the body politic' which is something I said we as a 'people' needed to address. However, it's not automatically true that every felon who completes his sentence has demonstrated that he is ready for full responsibility as part of 'the people.' That's why we have a lot of repeat offenders.

So, while we may differ on the details of what requirements should be met, we can agree that there should be a path for someone who has demonstrated enduring repentence to re-enter 'the people.'
23 posted on 01/07/2013 12:22:51 PM PST by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: knarf; All
If the gun contol act of 1968 (due mostly to NRA (as I understand it) impetus)

The NRA fought GCA 1968. Johnson is the primary culprit there. It was passed in another time of high emotions, after the assassination of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. In a time when the MSM was overwhelmingly dominant. Johnson was another disaster as a President.

24 posted on 01/07/2013 12:31:27 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: topspinr

I was thinking the same thing. He was calm, prepared, well informed, and affable.


25 posted on 01/07/2013 12:36:29 PM PST by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, and you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: knarf

“I think it’s true in the military, that an unlawful order must be followed”

Actually, you have an obligation NOT to follow an illegal order. Moreover, you are obligated to report up-the-chain the illegal order.

If you follow the illegal order then you are committing a crime and will be punished.


26 posted on 01/07/2013 12:59:52 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

“Unconstitutional laws are not laws.” correct!
As someone pondered ... I was taught, many moons squared ago, if an illegal order is given in the military, by a commanding officer, the choice is the subordinate’s to follow or not, but be ready to defend your actions.

The blonde twit had that, “yeah right, buster, you don’t know anything!” smile. Not a good practice.

Geaux Boston, geaux!


27 posted on 01/07/2013 1:30:20 PM PST by Terry L Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS

“That is why felons serve time, or are put to death”

Um, No. It’s not the time you serve that makes you a felon.


28 posted on 01/07/2013 1:42:21 PM PST by saleman (!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: knarf

Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845, said in reference to the Constitution, “Certainly all those, who have framed written constitutions, contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”

Pretty sweeping, I think. But it does leave the interpretation of the Constitution to the ordinary citizen rather than a group of politically appointed lawyers. In other parts of his commentary he also pointed out that our Constitution was written in plain english so that the ordinary citizen COULD interpret it correctly.

So when the Amendment says “... shall not be infringed,” what do YOU think it means? More importantly in these troubled times, what do you think those who would “infringe” on your Second Amendment right should be called? Misinformed or traitors?


29 posted on 01/07/2013 2:24:55 PM PST by oldfart (Obama nation = abomination. Think about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: saleman
Um, No. It’s not the time you serve that makes you a felon.

I didn't state that. I merely stated that once time and all probation/parole was served, that people should get rights back. If they cannot be trusted with those rights, all of them, when released back into society, then they should not be released.

30 posted on 01/07/2013 3:04:13 PM PST by IYAS9YAS (Rose, there's a Messerschmitt in the kitchen. Clean it up, will ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Phlyer
However, it's not automatically true that every felon who completes his sentence has demonstrated that he is ready for full responsibility as part of 'the people.' That's why we have a lot of repeat offenders.

True. My question is asking why they're out again, if they are repeat offenders. If the punishment truly fit the crime, then maybe, they wouldn't repeat offend.

31 posted on 01/07/2013 3:06:55 PM PST by IYAS9YAS (Rose, there's a Messerschmitt in the kitchen. Clean it up, will ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

It’s really difficult to ascertain whether her ignorance is exceeded by her arrogance.... She’s clearly lacking in neither.


32 posted on 01/07/2013 4:54:48 PM PST by Bshaw (A nefarious deceit is upon us all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: knarf
...then I should be allowed to keep and carry without having to justify that keeping and carrying other than, I am an American.

I believe the framers referred to that as an "inalienable right".

33 posted on 01/07/2013 4:59:10 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson