All they have to do is rule that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to individuals, or whatever else they want to use.
Silent resistance will be more difficult when police are physically checking you for guns. I'd rather not have to hide them so well that they aren't useable.
I know full well how that works. I don't understand how the framers could have missed that.
WTF does drugs have to do with this?
I'm getting the sense that many people are caring less and less what the framers thought about guns. The framers also thought slavery was important enough to Constitutionalize, but we changed that, and not many are still bitching about that change.
I'm out on the history thing. Its cool to know, but does not have any validity in todays social issues. NONE.
Current social issues starting with LBJ is where we need to start the discussion. The break up of the American family by democratic hand outs that allowed mothers to pump kids out for additional benefits by not having a male part in the picture started the issue.
The Great Society was a set of domestic programs in the United States launched by Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964–65. The main goal was the elimination of poverty and racial injustice, and it was an abject failure. That one piece of legislation is the start of where we are at now.
That is just the beginning.
I think we'd have to go back at least to FDR and the "new deal", and likely earlier. But I'm confused what that has to do with the Supreme Court re-interpreting the 2nd Amendment, or maybe I'm just confused in general about everything!...lol
I thought I explained it well. Appointments to the supreme court are made by the administration in charge at the time.
How can that be a separation of powers?
The same old Constitution is responsible for that. However, they do have to be confirmed by the Senate, so there is, in theory, a check there.
You left out in your quote, how can that be a separation of powers.
Similar threads
