"They’ll never put women in combat."
"They’ll never force the military to take open homosexuals."
"They’ll never kill babies by sucking their brains out as they are being born."
"They’ll never have SWAT teams for the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service."
Get the picture?
Not of the same category at all.
Because do many Dems are 2nd Amendment supporters, as noted by these libs, it will be 40 years before there are enough of them to change the 2nd Ammendment.
And when they try, there will probably be a civil war first.......
Every example you mention was brought about by executive action in the executive branch of government. As Paul Forehead Begala put it, “Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool” as the departing Bill Clinton signed a blizzard of executive orders while daring his successor to rescind them.
On the other hand, amending the Constitution is a long & difficult process that involves every state legislature in the Union & requires supermajority votes along the way toward ratification.
Sure, Obama could get on TV and announce he was declaring a national emergency and issuing an executive order outlawing the private possession of all firearms: “I am declaring a state of emergency and that means, Mr & Mrs. America, turn them all in, and that means immediately! All Federal law enforcement agencies are hereby tasked to carry out what I have ordered. Thank you and good night!”
Noooooooo.....I don’t think so. Insurrection would erupt in mere seconds.
What this ROF Supreme Court justice wants & what he gets are two vastly different things because that pesky Constitution with its Article V lockstep just keeps getting in the way.
FWIW, see what pronouncements come from the lefties during the NRA’s big shindig this weekend. Moms shouting “What do we want? Repeal the 2nd! When do we want it? NOW!!” would be fun to watch.
His "change the 2nd amendment" statement connotes some kind of attempted legitimate change. If you're talking about illegitimate and invalid change, the Progressive Socialists have been doing that for over 100 years.
What else is new?
Ignoring the Constitution is not “changing” the Constitution. He’s talking about “changing the 2nd Amendment.” I don’t think that’s going to happen.