Replies

The Founding Fathers recognized that the limited government they envisioned in the Constitution was fragile and tyranny could in time replace it. The Second Amendment was intended to assure that an armed populace would be available to if necessary overthrow a tyrannical government. Tyrants and dictators have always sought to disarm the public as a first step to seizing power.

We are already seeing under Obama our Constitutional checks and balances and limited federal government being dismantled. Obama at will bypasses Congress ruling by decree with executive orders, the courts have replaced Congress and elected legislatures and unchecked executive agencies have assumed the power of an elected Congress. What stands in the way of total takeover is the fact that tens of millions of citizens are armed and many could be expected to take up those arms in rebellion if basic freedoms are usurped.

We are already seeing under Obama our Constitutional checks and balances and limited federal government being dismantled. Obama at will bypasses Congress ruling by decree with executive orders, the courts have replaced Congress and elected legislatures and unchecked executive agencies have assumed the power of an elected Congress.

Before Obama is thru, the Fed will set a precedence where our President can write an executive order, or his cabinet can write "rules" that are enforceable until a lawsuit is filed and makes it's way to the SC. I agree, Congress is being made obsolete. The SC will eventually just be ruling on what powers the President has. In history, several dictators have taken power by rendering a legislative branch of elected government irrelevant.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the future, all Executive orders went directly to the SC for approval. That way, they can't even be challenged in court as the SC will already have pre-approved them.

What stands in the way of total takeover is the fact that tens of millions of citizens are armed and many could be expected to take up those arms in rebellion if basic freedoms are usurped.

I'd like to think so too, but they won't. I'm sure some will, but not enough to reach critical mass and be effective. The rest would be too afraid of govt reprisal.

I fear that the only way you would see a majority of firearms owners rise up in unison would be if the govt instructed them to do so in response to some national urgency (and I can't think of a believable urgency off the top of my head... invasion perhaps?). Then and only then would they feel "covered" and take to arms. I fear we are a society wholly adverse to any risk whatsoever and the majority will always take the easy/safe route.

If anyone thinks I'm very, very wrong and just having a bad Monday, I'd appreciate the kick in the rear...