Security and Intelligence Insider Says Infringe on Second Amendment to Fight Terrorism

“Former NSA Director Michael Hayden says that changes to the 2nd Amendment may be more effective from a counterterrorism standpoint, than more intrusive surveillance,” The Wall Street Journal noted in its description of a video interview with Assistant Managing Editor and Executive Business Editor John Bussey at its Future of Cybersecurity breakfast in New York.

Hayden is more than a “former NSA Director.” He’s a retired four-star Air Force general and has also been Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, serving in various capacities in Democrat and Republican administrations. That means he’s a consummate insider, and that he seamlessly transitions to highly classified positions of power between parties, exemplifying Carroll Quigley’s admission:

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy”
So it’s hardly a surprise that Hayden was one of “Fifty of the country’s most senior GOP national security officials signed a letter saying Donald Trump would rank poor in national security.” In other words, they were giving a boost to Hillary Clinton of Benghazi, Muhammad video, and classified emails on private servers (and then lie about it) notoriety.

His superior solution? Now that we’ve trashed the Fourth Amendment, step up infringements on the Second.

“We could probably do more things that’ll squeeze your privacy a bit, to give us a marginally higher probability that we could have caught the Orlando guy prior to the attack, but not much,” Hayden told Bussey. “Rather than jigger in the Fourth Amendment, and try to increase, only marginally, our ability to predict this event, why don’t you take a look at the Second? And why don’t we begin to wonder about making the guy less efficient who actually conducts the event?”

In other words, resurrect the federal “assault weapon” ban and impose the due process-trampling “terror watchlist” ban.

Maybe the counterterrorism discussion is about some people out there shouldn’t be able to buy any guns and there might be some guns out there that nobody should be able to buy.
This is from a guy who’s taken the oath to the Constitution, and who, for all his supposed “intelligence” and security expertise, can’t seem to fathom that maybe there are people ”we” shouldn’t be importing en masse and embedding throughout the Republic  — people from backgrounds inimical to American ideals of freedom and for whom true security screening is impossible.

He either believes he knows better than the framers of that Constitution he trashes what is “necessary to the security of a free State,”or he knows full well and is tasked to undermine it.