Say, wouldn't that be grounds for revolution?

A-yep, it's time for another installment of Let's Scare the White People!
Sebastian of Snowflakes in Hell, on the potential of more Democrats in power at the national level:

I can promise you that an increased Democratic majority will put our gun rights in serious jeopardy, no matter how Heller turns out. A Democratic sweep in the fall may very well make Heller completely irrelevant.

I could be off here, but it sounds to me like what he was saying was that the Democrats would just flat-out ignore what the Supreme Court says when the Heller decision is handed down -- if, that is, the court rules that the 2A protects an individual right, along with the ownership of everything the Democrats want to take away from us. And once again, the words of Judge Alex Kozinski come to mind...

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed--where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees.

I can't help but think that Kozinski would include elected officials' willful ignorance of court decisions in his descriptions of rights being infringed, but I could be wrong. In any case, though, what would it say about the increased Democratic majority -- and not just on the federal level -- if it enforced certain laws in what would basically be open defiance of the Constitution? It leads one to wonder -- what other court decrees would they be willing to thumb their noses at? And I know very well that we could at least vote against these cretins at the next opportunity, but what the hell do you do when the the majority of the electorate at large has been bribed -- with its own money, no less -- into supporting them? An old quote from Alexander Tyler comes to mind...

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy....

And, of course, we see the people voting themselves money from the public treasury every time an election rolls around, pretty much, and however much the respective candidates will dole out does seem to be the issue of the day always, as opposed to which of our choices will keep their nose the furthest out of our business. It's a shame, indeed. And the question needs to be asked -- what will you do when liberty succeeds in the jury box but fails at the ballot box? Something to ponder...