No comments at the site, and I am not able to log in, likely due to my operating system.
The author makes a silly claim about sacrificing generations of children for a right we will not use...
There are some underlying considerations to this, which have been hashed out by the Supreme Court over many years, leading to some interesting conclusions.
First, the SCOTUS has determined that the US congress has supremacy over the state legislatures, and that federal courts have supremacy over state courts. But they have *never* found that the president has supremacy over state governors.
In practical terms, this means that if a governor *defies* the order of the POTUS, the *only* means the POTUS has to overcome the governor is the “force of arms”.
Most recently, president Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas, to force integration of the high school, though Bill Clinton’s mentor, governor Orval Faubus, had ordered the state guard to prevent it.
Translate this to today. If Obama ordered unconstitutional gun control by executive order, Republican governors could just reject it, and refuse to allow it to be carried out in their states.
Likewise, the governor could order the arrest of federals who tried to enforce that executive order (which was recently done in Wisconsin, for a different reason.)
Second, county Sheriffs have a unique ability in the law, to invoke posse comitatus, in effect deputizing “every adult person” in the county who can legally be armed.
In effect, Obama would have to order the army to “disarm all law enforcement officers in the county (or state)”, in order to confiscate guns. Not happening.
Likewise, a county Sheriff could also order the arrest of federals who tried to carry out such an executive order.
Which brings up the most important point: since the only way Obama could accomplish his scheme would be to invoke the US Armed Forces, would they obey his commands?
The short answer is no, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give a right to armed revolt. That right is more fundamental than the 2nd Amendment, because if we didn’t have that right, then we could not make a legitimate constitution, or any legitimate amendments to one. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t actually confer any rights at all, it only compels the government not to trample on some of our pre-existing rights.
LOL! The 2nd Amendment doesn't 'give' us anything, it acknowledges a Natural Law Right we already possess.
Mr. Madison has introduced his long expected amendments... The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.
- Fisher Ames, Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789
The Second Amendment is there to give the Declaration of Independence a chance to be used again.
Did anyone post a comment at the site? I cannot read them with this machine.
Absent that compliance........
IMHO
Folks what are we doing to mobilize for demonstrations? We need to get a million people in D.C. each carrying a wooden gun painted bright orange and march through the streets to show our solidarity. How does that Idea sound?
The 2 Amendment is the tool. The right is in The Declaration of Independence “That when ever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter it or abolish it, and institute new Government’’.
A*hole author - Children were led into the Nazi gas chambers along with everyone else. I hope you don’t find yourself following others being led take a cleansing shower someday and reflect back on your idiocy!