I've read that content and much much more. Since your first link is wikipedia (the resource of the ignorant and lazy) I doubt you can provide any content that I have not already read. The difference between us is that I can read the writings, learn the history, learn human nature, and put the pieces together to see the larger picture. You cannot.
LOL....uh huh....something tells me you wouldn't want to test out that theory. Many righties woefully underestimate their "opponents."
I fully support and defend our constitution. You are not the decider of what is constitutional and I am grateful for that
Let's see if I can explain this to you: if there were a Constitutional Amendment, duly passed by the required majorities at the required levels in this country, he would probably have complied with the changes whether he personally agreed with it or not. If the courts blatantly defied the obvious intent of the Constitution for political expedience; or the protection of governmental power over the rights and Liberty of the people, then he would not comply with the changes. And yes, he would have arrested the person giving the unconstitutional order. I disagree because after thoughtful study of the history, filtered through my personal values instilled in me by my family, and seeing the direction this country has taken, then I believe that those who want to claim my viewpoint is "nonsensical" are the ones whose view lacks merit. The difference is that at the fundamental core of the issue my viewpoint is on preserving my own rights and their position is based on stripping them from me; so I don't give an airborne copulation if they find my views "nonsensical" or not. In the end, it comes down to each individual's belief system, I suppose... and I have certain "lines in the sand" that I will not accept anyone crossing. I also know a lot of people who share my beliefs. Eventually it will come down to how far certain entities are willing to go to push their agendas; we will find out whose way is "right" based on the outcome of that.
No, you really don't. Your own words, and your contempt for the foundations of the Constitution, put the lie to that claim. We are both deciders of what is Constitutional, and we will put our energies and support behind which interpretation of the Constitution we each believe in. In the end that final determination may be decided in ways neither of us is going to like very much.
SCOTUS decides what is Constitutional and what is not. You may not like that but until something changes that will take that power away, it is what it is. And if the officer refuses to carry out such order (if deemed Constitutional) he won’t be arresting anyone. He’d be fired from his job.
Only up to a point. When they prove themselves corrupted, and willing to defy or even destroy the Constitution to maintain authoritarian governmental power and control over the people, then SCOTUS becomes just as much of a problem as the authoritarian government itself. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it". Every officer has to decide for himself, based on his own values, whether he has it in himself to obey an order he personally does not agree with; if he does, can he live with the consequences of that and still look himself in the face at the end of his shift? An officer can follow the order, or not, and decide for himself what consequences he can live with as a result.
I support our constitution and the mechanism used to settle disputes/issues that arise under it whether or not I agree with SCOTUS's decisions. If tomorrow SCOTUS ruled against the 2nd Amendment to strictly limit gun ownership I'd go by their decision; on the other hand if they ruled in favor of rejecting attempts to limit gun ownership, I'd go by their decision even if I disagreed with it, instead opting to work to get the 2nd amendment modified or repealed as the case may be. To do otherwise would lead to anarchy since there'd be no mechanism to settle disputes and people would attempt to take the law into their own hands. You'd have lots of dead people on both sides and the only people who'd win would be the funeral directors.
Fine, you stick with what you feel is the truth and history and I'll stick with what I believe is the truth and history and we'll both be happy.
Not true. I would be happy with you disagreeing with me and we go our own ways but that wont happen. Because you will not be happy in the fact that there are people who do not believe the same as you do. Your totalitarian ideology demands you to wage figurative war (and literal war when you have the means) on those who do not agree with you. I can agree to disagree and go on with life and leave you alone to live your life. But your kind won't accept the impasse and leave my kind alone. So there will be no happiness in the long run.
More than most ever have and way more than the faux on-liners who claim to be to loyal to an oath and the Constitution, ever will. Lots of anti-gunners claim to both own firearms and support the Second but that is by their actions been proven to be a lie.
Happiness is something that cannot be forced upon someone; that being said I'm sorry you will not be happy, however I'm happy with that way things are thus far. Perhaps someday you'll find happiness; one can always hope. In the mean time just to show you that I have no bitter feelings towards you, may you have a most merry Christmas.