Yesterday, 09:29 PM
You described the opposite of what I want, in order to promote a straw man that is the opposite of what I said. I don't want lip service, and my faction is the Founding Fathers, whose intent was to have a government that actually recognizes the rights we innately have, and could be actually countered if it did not. Is it too much to expect to enjoy the rights we already have, AND expect the explicit acknowledgement of them in a country's Constitution to be upheld, or redress to be available if it does not? It's a both-and, not either-or.
If the SC comes up with an unconstitutional ruling on guns or other rights, what I "want" is for the decision to be overturned, AND for Congress to remove the Court's jurisdiction if it's not, AND for the states to secede if the Courts or Congress won't restore recognition, AND for the People to stand up for their gun rights in any event. That's NOT "abiding," despite your mis-description. Blowing off institutional safeguards that affirm your liberties is not a good thing, as we need as many checks against state overreach as possible. Resisting seeing the checks eroded is part and parcel of a "I don't abide" mindset.
Just saying, as a practical matter, without such formal remedies, allowing the Court to get stacked such that it vacates the 2nd amendment will lead to massive restriction of gun ownership and access. The personal remedy of "from my cold dead hands" may NOT be enough to retain it, as it has shown to be not enough in most countries. The state will NOT let you go about your day, no matter what dude you are.