Here is our future

[Dog Soldier]

How fast would these old SCOTUS Liberal Lawyers change their minds? Damn fast, when 1 million armed Americans march on Washington.

 

[towboat_er]

Trump 2016 I do enjoy the 2A, and would like to keep it.

 

[phil dirt]

I'm voting for Trump ....... the only choice.

 

[bob40caliber]

Dog Soldier----I don't think 1 million would do it.
We wouldn't yet get violent......
The media would say only half a million were there and SCOTUS and others would find it easy to ignore.
6-7 million might do it.

 

[RX-79G]

Why is this thread open if the Compromise one is closed?

 

[barnbwt]

Dog Soldier----I don't think 1 million would do it.

Why not? Say what you will about the media, we've never mustered anything close to that kind of response (try one or two orders of magnitude less) that I'm aware of. So you can't really say a large demonstration would not yield results.

There would also be absolutely no need, or even benefit, to being armed in such a large turnout scenario. Not unless you're goal is actual insurrection, which would be stupid, since such a show of hostile force would easily targeted & crushed.

If the Federalist Papers existence were acknowledged in our secondary public education system, we could start getting this situation reversed. But of course it isn't, much less being examined & taught in class. Primarily because the teacher's union's, ie. the NEA & ilk can't stomach the idea of it's existence. For those who aren't aware of the Papers, I'll suggest you do some research.

In short though, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by committee. The Federalist Papers put forth the thinking of the framers, explaining why they did what they did. See George Mason's writings on the second amendment, as he was vigorously instrumental in creating it as published in the Bill of Rights.

How do you figure the FP's aren't acknowledged? They were mentioned frequently in my middle, high, and college civics classes. Also, the real purpose was not to to explain why, but to refute skeptics in colonial news media who opposed federalism (the formation of a nation) as a way to build support for ratification. Subtle difference, but it's there, because there are definitely a few non sequitors and other logical fallacies scattered in the Papers (the famous one by Hamilton that many cite for 'militia clause' arguments has Hamilton basically saying "but that won't happen" in response to several concerns about the viability of the militia concept...turns out they were right, since the militia shriveled and died almost immediately after the new government & its army were formed.)

Even in liberal schools hostile to the constitution, they have to teach students how to refute or mislead when these documents are presented to support an argument (case in point, Obama, who supposedly does have a decent understanding of our system even though he sees little value in its restrictions on government)

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

Why is this thread open if the Compromise one is closed?

What, you want this one shut down, too? I, too, disagree with it being closed; for some reason the mods dislike vigorous discourse, since it does tend to inevitably spiral into insult-hurling. But I see no reason in pre-emptively stopping the discussion because of what someone may/will do later on. As long as we're being polite & arguing in good faith, there's no reason to bang the gavel, even if there's a lot of people making noise.

TCB