1. You don’t want the USA system, you want a different system because you don’t want a system where SCOTUS is the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution.
They are the final authority if you're talking about the authority of the government but they're not the final authority in the country, the people are the final authority, that's how our country's founders saw it.
2. The Constitution is nothing like a dictator. What it says is subject to interpretation by SCOTUS and it can be overridden (amended) by the people with sufficient support.
And unless and until the Constitution is amended what the Constitution says goes.
What you are talking about isn’t “legal means”. You are talking about violating existing law based on a personal (non-SCOTUS endorsed, if you will) interpretation of the Constitution. By definition that is not legal.
And what if the people don't agree with SCOTUS's intepretation of the Constitution? And by that Im not just talking about me, Im talking about the American citizens as a whole.
That is absolutely incorrect. The Constitution STATES the second amendment, but it is SCOTUS that decides what it means. You may not like it, but that’s how it is and what you like or don’t like can not change reality.
Even if that is the case, I don't recall SCOTUS saying that law enforcement could seize guns in New Orleans post Katrina, or that law enforcement was exempt from respecting people's rights to keep and bear arms in New Orleans post Katrina.
1. You need to actually read what I’ve posted. I explicitly noted that TX law, at least, allows for legal resistance in circumstances where LE immediately uses greater force than is necessary.
2. A situation where LE is trying to murder someone “just for the heck of it”, isn’t what we’re discussing here and is quite different in several obvious ways from the topic at hand.
Yes we are, in the aftermath of Katrina there were people being raped and people being murdered, sometimes by law enforcement.
3. The quote you responded to includes the word “generally” specifically because there are some limited circumstances where it is legal to resist LE actions.
Exactly.
EXACTLY. And under that newly formed government, SCOTUS was given the power to interpret the Constitution and to provide binding rulings relating to its interpretation.
And the country's founders knew that the government could become corrupt, including SCOTUS, and that's why they decided the people should have the final say.
This is now the third time that I’m telling you that is an option when all else fails, assuming there’s enough support.
My point exactly and that's what I've been saying all along and that's what the 2A is for, as a final resort.
BUT, again, assuming the revolution is successful, it still won’t allow everyone to have their own personal interpretation of the new Constitution and the new laws. That would be anarchy. If everyone gets to interpret the laws however they want, what's the point of even having laws?
Yes there will be that problem, when it comes to forming a new government, deciding what laws to have, what the laws meant, who should be in charge, ect. We had that problem when the USA was first formed with incidents such as Shay's Rebellion but eventually it was worked out and the country's founders brought about a system of checks and balances where the American people were the final check and balance.
There will be some organization set up in the government that is the final authority on how the laws and Constitution will be interpretated and administered.
At a government level yes, but as I said before in this country it's the government that serves the people not the other way around.
There’s no difference right up until there’s enough support to actually overthrow the government.
Im not saying the entire government would need to be overthrown or that it should be overthrown, but sometimes citizens can stand together and rise up to stop corrupt LE and corrupt government officials in specific incidents such as in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. As a matter of fact, there were cases of some citizens doing just that.
Even if there is enough support to amend the Constitition, that won’t change the fact that the amended Constitution is still going to be interpreted by SCOTUS and their interpretation will be the law of the land, regardless of how any individual or collective interprets it differently.
So now you're making it sound like SCOTUS is the dictator, that the SCOTUS could interpret the 2A by saying it doesn't count, or that any part of the Constitution doesn't count if they don't want it to.
Look, if you are serious about this, you need to do some study and thought, because your understanding of the situation is miserably (even dangerously) deficient.
I am studying, thank you very much.
Also, you are getting very close to advocating armed revolution, something that is not legal and something that would be extremely unwise to openly promote.
I wouldn't want an armed revolution and I would be against an armed revolution up until the point where all else fails but the point is that the 2A which identifies the Right to Keep And Bear Arms, it does not grant the right it identifies the right, makes it so that option exists should, God forbid, it were to ever come to that. I am not in favor of a 2nd Civil War and I don't think most people are, including the people that make up the government. As such I would do everything I can to avoid that while still preserving our rights as American citizens. As of right now I just wish more American gun owners would vote and vote for the right people, people who respect our rights including the Right to Keep And Bear Arms.
