The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret law vis a vis the Constitution. Somehow over the years, that court has found that somewhere in the 14th amendment to the Constitution there is “right” to privacy and incumbent on that right is a women’s “right” to have an abortion. That is the law of the land. Some how the that Court determined that Government could condemn your property, not for a road or a school building, but for a project to improve their tax base. That is the law of the land. The could in the future determine that you do not have a right to own a fire for self defense, when that happens, that will be the law of the land. As far as my underserved idiotic freedom is concerned, I spent 25 years in the service of the American people in out Navy and have owned many fire arms, antique and modern over my life time. What I am saying is that the Court can in fact radically change its interpretation of the Second Amendment and depending on who replaces Scalia may well do so. If you are incapable of seeing that fact, then you have absolutely zero concept of modern reality.
Exactly correct! And it need not happen all at once (that would cause considerable blow-back). It could happen in stages: prohibit handguns, then semi-auto rifles, etc.
That is not so far-fetched. We saw exactly the same process with the 10A. Even after the Civil War, states were darn near sovereign entities. Now DC can tell some school in, say, Idaho, what they must serve for lunch.
And I’m telling you the court can suck my ass....so can you.
You were in the military?
You say you own firearms, might I suggest you learn what they are really for or are you going to let the “law of the land” tyrants to take them away from you?
.
>> “The Supreme Court has the authority to interpret law vis a vis the Constitution” <<
Well, no, they really do not.
They absconded with that “authority” unjustly in Marbury vs Madison, but nowhere is such granted to them.
When the people tire of tyranny, who knows what will happen.
.