I have served under arms, yet have never violated the oath I took to defend the Constitution. Sedition and heroism are not the same thing.
If most in this country will not even vote, what excuse do they have that justifies taking up arms. If indeed, there is a ballot, and it is unused, then a revolt by a minority is sedition. Rather than supporting "the tree of liberty", such an minority attempt to thwart democracy by force would represent mere fascism. You would be no better than the leftist and judicial activists who would use a "living" Constitution to enslave us.
However, when we lose the ballot, that indeed is the turning point. In fact, I had to seriously evaluate my own future during the last election. If the Presidency could have been so baldly and boldly stolen in the light of day, if members of the armed services could be disenfranchised to ensure "the proper result" for the political left, then only difficult choices remained. As is, the efforts to minimize the value of a citizens vote by promoting the illegal ballot representation of foreign nationals, skates on extremely thin and dangerous ice.
SFS
Unlike Congress or the presidency, the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a "political" institution. It must remain neutral in order to settle legal issues, interpret laws, and decide the meaning of the Constitution. Supreme Court justices should not allow their personal or political views to color their decisions. Neither should they permit themselves to be influenced by presidents, other politicians, or popular public opinion. To help assure the justices' independence, the Constitution provides that they serve life terms unless they resign, retire, or are removed for misbehavior.Your post is well-taken. We took the same oath. My post was to promote vigorous discussion, and was rhetorical in nature.
Ann Coulter's column is right on. Is my first paragraph really what the Supreme Court is today? I doubt you'd disagree that it is not.
Let's see...removed for misbehavior....Ok Ann, let's get started.
How would you suggest that I use the ballot to regain my right to keep and bear arms in Kalifornia? I don't recall voting in an election with that on the ballot.
Both Bush and Arnold seem to think that it is just peachy to outlaw some rifles. The US Supreme Court refuses to set this matter right. How, in my lifetime, do you suggest this can be corrected?
When I move to the "red zone" I may regain some of what has been lost, but Kalifornia will still be without a right to keep and bear arms.
At such time as enough liberals and illegal immigrants reach Texas, will the right to keep and bear arms not be recognized there? How shall I use the ballot then?