Quote:Ok, Joe Wilson.


Go ask Sharon Engle about it.

 

This wasn't some third party discussion on the constitutionality of restrictions to some grazing field or retention pond that was suddenly injected with a "SECOND AMMENDMENT OPTION" as a means of resisting the state. 

 

This was a conversation about, you guessed it, THE SECOND AMMENDMENT.  So making reference to the amendment itself and its supporters isn't some invocation of insurrection, no matter how much you want it to be. 

 

Also, your memory is a little lax.  The left ascribes to the idea of the constitution as a living document.  Ergo, it doesn't really matter what the dead white guy slave owners wrote 250 years ago, its about how I as an individual jurist choose to identify today.  Case and point, the establishment clause of the first amendment is referring to a specific legal/religious term of the 18th century.  There were ESTABLISHED state religions in lots of countries that you were forced to be a part of.  The clause means that there would not be an official church of Rhode Island or Church of the united states.  Using that language to justify barring a valedictorian from leading a 5 minute prayer, or taking the words UNDER GOD out of the pledge of allegiance is a bastardization of both originalism and our nations traditions.  the 14th amendment was passed to enfranchise slaves.  The reconstruction congress never imagined the concept of Gay marriage let alone thought they were passing anything to do with it.  The concept of Jus Soli had three basic exceptions when it was adopted in the 14th amendment as an expression of English common law.  Those have been abandoned in favor of illegal aliens playing red rover red rover with border patrol agents with their pregnant wives. 

 

The idea that the left can't or won't corrupt certain institutions because of silly things like constitutional amendments is just silly.  Case and point, the Secretary has already signaled that she wants to overturn the heller Decision.  That means that she wants to limit the scope of the inherent right to bear arms and inordinately increase the ability of the state to introduce a slew of new regulations, taxes, fees, and restrictions.  You may not see a march to everyone's home but you could definitely see court challenges to stand your ground, open carry, conceal carry, the passage of new taxes (she's already proposed a 25% gun tax I believe,) or more importantly, extending civil liability to gun manufacturers and effectively ending the business model. 

 

She's already talked about an Australian still buy/back confiscation as a model for the country. 

 

Paying attention, its what's for dinner.

---