Please get back on your meds.

The 2nd Amendment is the ‘tripwire’ to Civil War.

Maybe. But there are many things which I know of that you do not. And which are not timely to discuss at this moment in time. People will figure it out in the end.

hint, look at California’s fires.

Hint: The Deep State does not need to defeat America’s arms although it is useful as a stalking horse. The reason is simple. They have technology centuries in advance of the latest US military tech. They don’t need pop guns to defeat you guys when they can obliterate your holds from the sky with no ability on your guerilla army to retaliate.

Unlike the US military or Israeli air force, The Deep State Will Not recognize civilian casualties. They don’t care. If they have the ability to carpet bomb all your cities, farms, and survivalist strongholds, GB… they will. And there’s nobody that can stop them, for now at least.

America’s popguns shooting in the sky will be very useful I am sure.

At SCOTUS, a handful of persons (9, if RBG is up to it) decide for all 330 million of us. But one man may not have his way, if 5 of those 9 so choose to oppose him. Five versus one!

We know that ALL humans are biased, and the Federal judges are in fact picked based on coherence of their views with those of POTUS and the Senate majority.

So we have looney judges and non-looney judges, and litigation will be filed in this case for a looney judge to rule, though it is totally clear pre-trial how he will rule. See Alcee Hastings, a former Federal district judge per Jimmy Carter, removed by impeachment for taking bribes. See the anti-Trump rulings by district judges in Hawaii and California…those were 1:1, and the judge wins???

One hell of away to run a country. No vox populi, none. Leads to ruin.

Perhaps Trump will be able to run on “I told you so.”

No sir. The inalienable right of the individual to bear arms expressed in the 2nd amendment is merely a formal acknowledgment in writing of a “self-evident” right, one that exists ‘apriori’ to the Constitution. “Inalienable” rights can only be granted by a creator that transcends mankind’s individual or collective opinions. Absent a creator, there can be no “inalienable rights”.

If the 2nd amendment itself is what ‘guarantees’ that ‘right’ then a majority of the citizens can amend the Constitution such that it effectively votes away our ‘rights’ revealing them to be privileges amenable to The Collective’s whim.

This is no small, ‘philosophical’ matter because ALL of our ‘rights’ hinge upon it.

I’m hoping that Pilosi just shoved a whole lot of people (and their votes), who might have been sitting on the fence, over to the Conservative/Republican side.

* * *
Artfldgr put that pretty well on the previous thread.

Artfldgr on February 15, 2019 at 7:28 pm at 7:28 pm said:
…
“But a Democratic president can do that.”

Then perfectly on cue without thinking – Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) shared a tweet calling several issues championed by Democrats, such as climate change and income inequality, a “national emergency.”
Gun violence is a national emergency
Climate Change is a national emergency
Income inequality is a national emergency
Access to healthcare is a national emergency
Building a wall on the southern border is not.
…
How many smart people with any sense are reading the above and realizing, the next president may use their emergency powers to override foundational constitutional rights!!

Long way around the barn (Mike K to Chicago Boyz to Ace to this quote) but why can’t both sides play the same game?
(Well, because, The Stupid Party etc., BUT they could, in theory).

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/379815.php
“He told me that Democrats routinely build traps and poison pills into bills. Sometimes, for example, they’ll pretend to concede a legal point to Republicans, but then they’ll deliberately write the law in such an aggressive way that they know a liberal interest group will challenge it as unconstitutional and easily win, because it was written to be unconstitutional.”

Note that some courts are fudging, in that “immigration is solely the province of the Federal government “unless a state or city wants to exempt itself from enforcing immigration laws aka Sanctuary Whatevers.

Same theory as expressed here about the Washington Sheriffs:

In defending their refusal to enforce the new law, several sheriffs have cited Seattle and other “sanctuary cities” that have promised to limit local involvement with immigration enforcement.

“Officers have discretion,” said Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer, who said he won’t enforce the law. “I follow the rule of law when I believe it’s constitutional.”

Ferguson says the comparison is misplaced. I-1639 is a state law, Ferguson writes, and law-enforcement agencies have a duty to “abide by the will of the people we serve and implement and enforce the laws they adopt.”

“This is not a situation where the federal government is trying to force the state to enforce federal laws,” he wrote. “If you personally disagree with Initiative 1639, seek to change it. Or file a lawsuit challenging it. But do not substitute your personal views over that of the people.”

Is there really any wonder that comity has declined?

Maybe you missed this comment of mine:

I agree 100% with [another commenter’s] point about whether the Republicans had control of the Senate in the first two years of Trump’s presidency. They did not have it except technically, on paper. In reality there were almost always enough defectors to make control impossible.

I’ve written about this time and time again. The left, Democrats, and the MSM like to mention that the GOP had control in order to fan the flames of the portion of the right who try to blame the entire GOP for not wanting to pass certain legislation that they in fact might want to pass if they had a large enough majority to not worry about a couple of RINOs. And it’s a rather large and vocal element on the right who cooperate fully by spreading the ire and angst at the GOP far and wide. The most basic effect of all of this is that the Democrats get more seats in Congress.

That’s not to say that the Republicans are heroic, principled figures. Many if not most are politicians first and foremost, and often disappoint. But I don’t think they get credit for the difficulties they face when their majority is tiny.

I will add that Republicans had only two choices with this budget bill. They could pass it or they could have another shutdown. Trump had also made it crystal clear he didn’t want a shutdown. They didn’t want another shutdown. Not only would they and Trump be blamed for it, but if the budget bill—with authorization of at least some money for the wall—hadn’t been passed, there might have been a problem with the eminent domain part of building a wall. As it is, there will be legal challenges, but with this bill passed, Trump will have a stronger hand.

I explained that in this post.