The wrong decision in this case would start a civil war.
The wrong decision in this case would start a civil war.
The wrong decision in this case WILL start a civil war.
The amendments prop each other up, remove one and they all crumble.
“...The wrong decision in this case would start a civil war...”
So might a correct decision.
Certains things just seem to happen when it’s time for them.
I would not want to be working for the Federal tyrant, if the wrong decision is handed down. The only question is "Who will shoot first?"
The wrong decision in this case would start a civil war.
I think it’s quite one-sided, Lexington.
In which event they will have earned it.
They can take my gun from a large pile of empty brass.
Not precisely. On one side, it would be an attempt at a coup d' etat, with the final step in assuming extraconstitutional power and rendering the document from which legitimate governmental authority flows moot and invalid.
On the other, it would simply be self-defense against a criminal gang, better equipped and better clothed than most, but with no more legal authority to govern than any biker gang or drug cartel- and deserving of exactly the same respect and support.
But it's quite possible that at least one side- and maybe both- would be less interested in attempting to wrest full control over all 50 states, then trying to wrap itself in the burnt charred remains of the ripped American flags that remain. During the XX Century Finnish Civil War, the Finns killed off about 1% of their population in a war that lasted but four months; during our War Between the States/ War of Yankee Dominance, we managed to kill about 2% of the US population, but only over 4-plus years. And in the Finnish example, only about a quarter could be considered *combat* deaths; the rest were executions or cases of those in prison simply allowed to freeze to death. Practical, those Finns.
In any event: between 1% and 3% of the US population of 301,139,947, [July 2007 U.S. Pop. est.]- well, you do the math.
Accordingly: CWII ping list PING!
You might be right. I'd like to think so, but recent history doesn't bode well. We should have taken up arms when they passed the National Firearms Act. Now the percentage of the citizenry own arms is way down from what it was in those days.
Of course combine such a ban with other actions, like aid to the terrorists of Fatah, refusal to control the border(s), trying to fight a war on the cheap against those who would kill or enslave us. Cutting and Running from the major theater in that war, thus encouraging the enemy to bring their aggression to our shores, again. Then maybe.
“The wrong decision in this case would start a civil war.”
Indeed. And I’m afraid I don’t share the faith some have in this court to make the correct decision—remember that these self-styled “conservatives” are NIMBY elitist who can turn on a dime when our rights get too close to their estates.
Souter/Breyer/Ginsburg? not too much guess work there... Stevens? God bless him for his defense of the 4th Amendment—usually alone, but he’ll probably be a fourth vote against the 2nd here.
That means they need only one more vote.
Kennedy? unreliable...
Roberts and Alito? they are new and impressionable...
Scalia? he has shown a willingness to trash any federalist bona fides he had in the name of political expediency—and sorry, going on ‘hunting trips’ with Dick Cheney does not make you Jeremiah Johnson much less Annie Oakley...
That leaves Thomas as the one sure vote—when the other side starts with 3...
Lord, I hope I’m wrong to be cynical. But I am.
Good! I'm tired of this crap!