Originally Posted by B Butler

Well, no. The Nine took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. They are in a unique place which makes them the primary preservers, protectors and defenders of the Constitution. The Constitution becomes a worthless piece of paper to the extent it is degraded by folks who are concerned more by the political implications of their decisions rather than the words of the text and the intent of the authors. While you and I have a right to our opinions, they have a Duty to the Constitution, a Duty that has been blatantly disregarded throughout US history. That the modern Court is making decisions on a political basis is blatant and infamous, but not unusual. The trend was even stronger in the Gilded Age. When Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote many of his famous precedent setting dissents, the public response was often outrage that he had 'voted' against the interests of the president that put him on the bench, Teddy Roosevelt.

The Railroad Court of the Gilded Age was a business court. It served its business masters faithfully, and is best remembered for rulings that were later overturned. With a near solid lock by one party on the Presidency for the entire second half of the 19th century and the start of the 20th, that's not surprising. Its still not right, nor is it permanent.

Originally Posted by B Butler ...

The Jim Crow court was far worse.

Yes. Bubonic Plague is worse than Cholera. OK.

Originally Posted by B Butler ...

The gun policy studies and statistics are highly ambiguous. In this forum everyone quoting a study and set of statistics will be answered by someone supporting the opposite policy. Your values suggest that a restored right to own and carry firearms will be a disaster. Rural values suggest that continued increases in concealed carry coupled with a clear individual right will cause a continued decrease in crime. Both sides are ever so sure the statistics are with them. How could they not be? Their values are obviously correct, the other side is obviously evil and deluded, so time will prove them right. I'm noting that the debate has been going on for some time, and seems to be in no danger of being resolved. Still, you have a right to daydream.

My reservation is unrestricted manner of the "right", assuming I actually is one. Even the right to free speech is limited, but the 2nd is being treated as somehow sacrosanct ... almost religious. I was appalled that a serious effort was made to allow guns in bars -- it passed. Churches too. Now, we're seeing schools on the list. Next, it will be OK for juveniles in those schools to go about armed to the teeth. There seems to be no terminal point, where the "right" ceases to be. Where is the gun-hugger version of slander?

Originally Posted by B Butler ...

One of the Hiller dissents made mention that the statistical evidence was worthless, that the statistical studies on the merit of the DC gun policies were ambiguous. The core of the dissent was that if the evidence and policy is questionable and ambiguous, it is better to let the legislators decide the issue than the courts. I would agree entirely that legislatures ought to be setting policy, not the courts. However, it is the court's responsibility to make sure the legislatures do not exceed their authority.

OK, but the NRA has made in nigh to impossible to gather gun-related data, so the statistical studies will never be adequate -- catch 22 at its most venal. We're tacking toward a disaster worse than the Sandy Hook shooting. And how much worse can it be than the wanton slaughter of young children?

Originally Posted by radind

Bring on the revolutions. This would make my day, year, decade.

Yes, that's a good article Teacher posted.

Originally Posted by Odin

It's increasingly clear that the Clinton campaign is in desperation mode and is resorting to scaring black voters by insinuating that Bernie's populism is for poor whites only. She doesn't give a shit that this risks blowing the party to bits as long as she wins.

Okay, Odin, your Clinton Hate Derangement Syndrome is getting even more out of hand.

Let's see your reference or quote from Clinton or campaign that insinuates Bernie's populism is for poor whites only.

Can you find anything equivalent to this -

... Hillary's record as a cheerleader for the "tough on crime" legislation that gave so much of the African-American population a criminal record.

If not, you are simply the Left's version of a t-bagger.

I'm beginning to see why Bloomberg will jump in and destroy Sanders chances if he's the nominee.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm beginning to see why Bloomberg will jump in and destroy Sanders chances if he's the nominee.

That raises an interesting question -- could this be a four party election, like 1860? If Trump is NOT the nominee, I understand that he has indicated that he would run as an independent. This could play different ways depending on whether the GOP nominee is Cruz or a mainstream Republican (Rubio, Bush, or Kasich).

If Clinton is nominated, Bloomberg sits out, and I expect Sanders would endorse Clinton. However, might another leftist candidate run and attract all of the left-leaning Clinton haters? So you get the mainstream GOP (Rubio, Bush, or Kasich), Trump, the DCL (Clinton), and the Greens.

If Sanders is nominated, under a Cruz scenario, Bloomberg would probably run. So you get four possible candidates -- Tea Party (Cruz), Trump, Reform (Bloomberg), and left Democrat (Sanders). Under a GOP mainstream scenario, you'd get three -- GOP, Trump, and Sanders.

Any guesses as to who would win under these wacky scenarios?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

That raises an interesting question -- could this be a four party election, like 1860? If Trump is NOT the nominee, I understand that he has indicated that he would run as an independent. This could play different ways depending on whether the GOP nominee is Cruz or a mainstream Republican (Rubio, Bush, or Kasich).

If Clinton is nominated, Bloomberg sits out, and I expect Sanders would endorse Clinton. However, might another leftist candidate run and attract all of the left-leaning Clinton haters? So you get the mainstream GOP (Rubio, Bush, or Kasich), Trump, the DCL (Clinton), and the Greens.

If Sanders is nominated, under a Cruz scenario, Bloomberg would probably run. So you get four possible candidates -- Tea Party (Cruz), Trump, Reform (Bloomberg), and left Democrat (Sanders). Under a GOP mainstream scenario, you'd get three -- GOP, Trump, and Sanders.

Any guesses as to who would win under these wacky scenarios?

The stock market is strongly indicating the need for a business savior - that's neither a Sanders or Clinton talking point. The more secular will want a businessman (2 choices!), but the ones that pray will want Cruz. Just a matter of how bad things get and prayer seems to be the only thing left.

Interesting article about Clinton in Slate.

It was easier to write about Hillary Clinton when I hated her.
I spent much of the 2008 Democratic primary season furious at both Clinton and the second-wave feminists who tried to guilt young women into voting for her. In Barack Obama, I thought, America had the chance to elect a transcendent figure, a person who promised so much more than the relentless triangulation of Bill Clinton’s disillusioning presidency. It was inexplicable to me that, presented with Obama, anyone could prefer Bill Clinton’s wife. Mocking Obama’s promise to unite the country, Hillary Clinton said then, “The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.” She didn’t just fail to inspire—she seemed to sneer at the whole idea of inspiration.

It is strange, then, to find myself, eight years later, not only rooting for Clinton, but feeling exasperated by her left-wing critics. I know their case against Clinton. I agree with a lot of it. I worry about what Clinton’s many flaws would mean for a potential presidency. Now, however, watching her be rejected by young people swept up in an idealistic political movement, I feel sadness instead of glee.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Interesting article about Clinton in Slate.

The human capacity to learn is truly amazing - at times.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But Casey can always flip-flop, Mitt Romney style, when the time comes; plus if both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy retire within the next four years and Obama gets to name more-or-less hard-left replacements, overturning Roe v. Wade (or Lawrence v. Texas) will become as quixotic a cause as bringing back Jim Crow.

Casey could also placate the left by choosing a running mate that would please them - preferably a woman. Elizabeth Warren would in fact be ideal.

That's Kasich, not Casey. I think.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

That raises an interesting question -- could this be a four party election, like 1860? If Trump is NOT the nominee, I understand that he has indicated that he would run as an independent. This could play different ways depending on whether the GOP nominee is Cruz or a mainstream Republican (Rubio, Bush, or Kasich).

If Clinton is nominated, Bloomberg sits out, and I expect Sanders would endorse Clinton. However, might another leftist candidate run and attract all of the left-leaning Clinton haters? So you get the mainstream GOP (Rubio, Bush, or Kasich), Trump, the DCL (Clinton), and the Greens.

If Sanders is nominated, under a Cruz scenario, Bloomberg would probably run. So you get four possible candidates -- Tea Party (Cruz), Trump, Reform (Bloomberg), and left Democrat (Sanders). Under a GOP mainstream scenario, you'd get three -- GOP, Trump, and Sanders.

Any guesses as to who would win under these wacky scenarios?

It could turn into 1824 all over again--with the election going to the House--who can vote for whoever they want (the Senate chooses the VP). And what complicates matters is that the representatives of each state caucus and each state gets one vote. So we could see a Republican House going for an Establishment Republican. Or voting for Paul Ryan. Or splintering until January 20, wherupon Joe Biden takes office by default as Acting President.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Interesting article about Clinton in Slate.

Another article in Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...e_sanders.html says it all about why young people are decisively rejecting Hillary. Young people have identified (correctly, I think) Hillary with the policies of a Baby Boomer Generation that made the 3T Unravelling worse than it had to be and which has greatly hurt Millennial's chances. They look at Hillary and sing in the words of Devo "It's a beautiful world for you. Not me".

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

That raises an interesting question -- could this be a four party election, like 1860? If Trump is NOT the nominee, I understand that he has indicated that he would run as an independent. This could play different ways depending on whether the GOP nominee is Cruz or a mainstream Republican (Rubio, Bush, or Kasich).

If Clinton is nominated, Bloomberg sits out, and I expect Sanders would endorse Clinton. However, might another leftist candidate run and attract all of the left-leaning Clinton haters? So you get the mainstream GOP (Rubio, Bush, or Kasich), Trump, the DCL (Clinton), and the Greens.

If Sanders is nominated, under a Cruz scenario, Bloomberg would probably run. So you get four possible candidates -- Tea Party (Cruz), Trump, Reform (Bloomberg), and left Democrat (Sanders). Under a GOP mainstream scenario, you'd get three -- GOP, Trump, and Sanders.

Any guesses as to who would win under these wacky scenarios?

The Koch brothers. They would find a way to give their stooge every advantage he needs.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

My reservation is unrestricted manner of the "right", assuming I actually is one.

I am intensely interested in values lock. I believe it is real. I see it left, right and center. I am fully aware that if someone's values are incompatible with fact, then fact vanishes in a puff of confused thinking.

But sometimes I am still amazedl. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do you not get?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Even the right to free speech is limited, but the 2nd is being treated as somehow sacrosanct ... almost religious. I was appalled that a serious effort was made to allow guns in bars -- it passed. Churches too. Now, we're seeing schools on the list. Next, it will be OK for juveniles in those schools to go about armed to the teeth. There seems to be no terminal point, where the "right" ceases to be. Where is the gun-hugger version of slander?

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes set the defining principle. It has been expressed many ways, but here are two of the best known. "You don't have a right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater." "Your right to wave your fist around ends where my nose begins." This principle isn't written in the Constitution, but it has become the core of so many Supreme Court precedents that it might as well be.

Free speech ends when one falsely harms another. That's the key principle. The Bill of Rights does not guarantee a right to harm another. Your own rights become irrelevant when you impact the rights of another.

Owning and carrying a firearm does not harm another.

Now if you fire the thing, and the bullet hits somebody, there is definite harm. If you try to claim the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to commit murder, this won't get one out of jail, but they might consider an insane asylum.

Yes, there are limits to every right, but you should do your homework and study up on what these limits are. There are valid well known set in precedent principles that bypass the Bill of Rights for good and proper reason. This does not mean the courts can or will disregard the Bill of Rights on whim or out of gratitude to the politician that appointed one to be judge.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, but the NRA has made in nigh to impossible to gather gun-related data, so the statistical studies will never be adequate -- catch 22 at its most venal. We're tacking toward a disaster worse than the Sandy Hook shooting. And how much worse can it be than the wanton slaughter of young children?

The FBI, BATF and various other branches of the Justice Department are free to study and finance studies relating to crime. There was a problem a while ago that agencies outside Justice were spending government money to produce highly partisan propaganda having nothing to do with their areas of responsibility or expertise. Yes, a limit on spending money on a political issue outside of the charter of one's agency had to be explicitly written. It shouldn't have had to been written. Agencies should have known not to trod in other agency's areas of responsibility.

You keep writing as if it OK for any government worker to spend government money to push any personal political agenda they please. I disagree. This issue ought to belong to the Justice Department.

We might want to move this conversation to the gun policy thread.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I know your opinion, and you have a right to one of those, as flawed as it may be. Each of the Nine also have that right, but they don't have a right to immortality. When they leave, they take their views with them. The idea that a modern nation benefits from an armed populace, especially one that has no eligibility or capability burdens placed on it, is one disaster away from being repudiated. Judging by the amount of violence in society, that's almost a given.

I wonder what would qualify for such a disaster. Mass shootings obviously aren't it. The kind of disaster you are talking about would probably be an episode of mass insurrection and civil war lasting an entire 4T ala China, 1st half of 20th Century. Whatever came out of THAT would probably mean a disarmed population.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

I wonder what would qualify for such a disaster. Mass shootings obviously aren't it. The kind of disaster you are talking about would probably be an episode of mass insurrection and civil war lasting an entire 4T ala China, 1st half of 20th Century. Whatever came out of THAT would probably mean a disarmed population.

No, it doesn't have to go that far. I am predicting a right-wing rebellion by those paranoid about gun control, which is already ready to pass, save for the right-wing congress. When that goes away in the 2020s, gun control will sweep in. Then, militias may rebel. Not on the scale of the civil war, but on the scale large enough to turn off most Americans and empower the government to take their guns away. But repeal of the 2nd amendment may not follow from this. Thus, the government will put down the violent gun control opponents, and take their guns away. But they will be considered criminals who have forfeited their right to guns under the gun control law and the second amendment alike.

Originally Posted by Teacher in Exile

Excellent point in your first sentence! You're the only member that I'm aware of that has raised the prospect that BOTH political parties could crack up, and in any order. (Most left-leaning members here assume that the GOP will wither and die first.)

A recent Salon article adds weight to the prospect that both major parties could fade away: "This Is How a Political Party Dies: Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders--and the Collapse of Our Failed Political Elites" (The left and right want a revolution, or an end to business as usual. Parties have died before — and could again.) The article chronicles the rise and fall of the various political parties in American history. The excerpts below are the last four paragraphs of the article:

Obama’s 2008 election represented a real opportunity for the dawn of a new multi-decade party system era of Democratic policy dominance, but Obama, as a creature of the divided government era, did not even aspire to such a goal, seeing “bickering” between the parties as the real obstacle facing the country, and setting out to overcome it by seeking compromise. Obama’s consensus-seeking—rather than consensus-shaping—approach left him wide open for the GOP rejectionist strategy that followed, wrapped up in the false claim that it was he who would not compromise, when they insisted on repeatedly pulling sharply to the right.

Obama was so deeply imbued with the dealigned worldview of the post-1968 era that he never pursued the possibility of initiating an era of Democratic dominance—even when near-absolute GOP opposition made the path of bipartisan policymaking untenable, as his repeated bipartisan overtures were rejected again and again. Despite the fact that Obama typically began his policy negotiating from a position of “consensus” compromise, Republicans responded by portraying it in extremist terms, and the hapless political press duly fell into “he-said/she-said”/“both-sides-do-it” line. Thus, Obama’s attempt to deal with the accumulated backlog of unresolved issues, problems, tensions and unmet expectations in a bipartisan manner, within the imaginative framework of the dealigned era was successfully mis-portrayed as a radical departure, when, in reality, only a radical departure could possibly have dealt with all that accumulated backlog. (A radical departure, I should add, which would first and foremost consist of restoring how our politics has usually functioned.) This is precisely the argument that Bernie Sanders is advancing today.

If neither party is prepared for such a radical departure, then one or both of them very well may die, because the American people demand it, even as the established frameworks of American politics fail to deliver for them—both the frameworks of intra-party organization, which evolve over time, and the framework of periodic inter-party/transparty reorganization, which used to occur via realigning elections.

The unexpected storylines of the 2016 election cycle so far are but superficial expressions of far more fundamental untold stories deep within the bowels of our collective public life. Even if the GOP thwarts Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton’s almost unanimous support by the Democratic establishment keeps Sanders at bay, the profound elite failures of the post-1968 era cannot be wished away, including the chimera of elite bipartisan solutions. Sooner or later, something’s got to give. If neither party is equipped to respond to what the people demand, it would be foolish not to expect a return to the more chaotic politics of the pre-1860 era.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/06/this...tical_elites/#

The truly scary thought though is that the alternative to new parties emerging from the ashes of the old might well be serious political repression by terrified elites. Merge the two parties into one Democratic-Republican Party (this was the case during the Madison and Monroe Eras) and ban all others. Have a one-party authoritarian state. It's been done before elsewhere and I suspect that the prevalence of armed militias in the Early Republic may have been what prevented this outcome then and allowed politics in the 1840s and 1850s to BE chaotic--but remain democratic.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, it doesn't have to go that far. I am predicting a right-wing rebellion by those paranoid about gun control, which is already ready to pass, save for the right-wing congress. When that goes away in the 2020s, gun control will sweep in. Then, militias may rebel. Not on the scale of the civil war, but on the scale large enough to turn off most Americans and empower the government to take their guns away. But repeal of the 2nd amendment may not follow from this. Thus, the government will put down the violent gun control opponents, and take their guns away. But they will be considered criminals who have forfeited their right to guns under the gun control law and the second amendment alike.

What would cause those people to rebel against their government? If it goes that far we will be at war with each other at that point.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

That raises an interesting question -- could this be a four party election, like 1860? If Trump is NOT the nominee, I understand that he has indicated that he would run as an independent. This could play different ways depending on whether the GOP nominee is Cruz or a mainstream Republican (Rubio, Bush, or Kasich).

If Clinton is nominated, Bloomberg sits out, and I expect Sanders would endorse Clinton. However, might another leftist candidate run and attract all of the left-leaning Clinton haters? So you get the mainstream GOP (Rubio, Bush, or Kasich), Trump, the DCL (Clinton), and the Greens.

The Greens would probably get the least vote. Most Democrats are happy enough with Hillary to vote for her, despite the sentiment here. I imagine Clinton might win a plurality of the popular vote. But if she doesn't get a majority of the electoral votes, the Republican House would choose the GOP candidate. I expect she would get the electoral votes that she needs, though.

If Sanders is nominated, under a Cruz scenario, Bloomberg would probably run. So you get four possible candidates -- Tea Party (Cruz), Trump, Reform (Bloomberg), and left Democrat (Sanders).

Sanders wins the popular vote. Bloomberg will not attract a large vote, or any electoral votes. Trump splits the GOP vote.

Note that according to the rules, only 3 candidates can be considered in the House if no-one gets an electoral vote majority. So if Sanders fails to win a majority of electoral votes, then likely only Trump, Cruz, and Sanders will compete in the House. I imagine that after a few ballots (there's no limit on how many times they can vote), the Cruz and Trump supporters in the House would come together and outvote Sanders, and Trump would be elected (again based mostly on the horoscope scores of Trump and Cruz, but also considering that Cruz is unpopular with Republican politicians). I imagine it would be close though, with the Tea Party faction hanging on to Cruz for quite a while. But Sanders could never get a majority.

Under a GOP mainstream scenario, you'd get three -- GOP, Trump, and Sanders.

Without a Tea Party candidate, probably the most likely winner would be Bush, who would get the smallest popular vote among those three. Bush has a high enough horoscope score to beat Trump in this scenario, and Trump is too much of an outsider to party ideology to prevail in such a House Republican vote. Bush is used to these kind of wacky conditions; after all, he got his brother elected during one. I don't know if the people would sit still for it this time. If the popular vote for Trump is great enough, and public pressure great enough during the deadlock, the Republicans might swallow him and avoid the backlash.

The rules:

http://lwv.org/content/who-will-elec...college-system

The Twelfth Amendment clarifies the procedures for so-called "contingent elections"-those that are thrown into the House and Senate for lack of an Electoral College majority.

The following rules regulate the House's choice of the President:

Only the top three vote getters in the electoral college are to be considered.
Regardless of its population and number of representatives, each state delegation in the House has only one vote, for a total of 50 votes. The District of Columbia, which sends a nonvoting delegate to the House, has no vote.
The state's choice is determine by a vote within its delegation. If that vote is a tie, the state loses its vote.
A winning candidate must receive the votes of a majority-26-of states.
There is no limit to the number of ballots in the House. If the House fails to choose a President by Inauguration Day, January 20, the Twentieth Amendment requires that the Vice-President-elect, provided that the Senate has chosen one, serves as President until the House makes it choice. The Senate follows these rules in its selection of the Vice-President:
The choice is between the top two vice-presidential vote-getters in the Electoral College.
Each senator has one vote, for a total of 100 votes (no vote for the District of Columbia).
A Vice-President must be elected by a majority-51-of the whole Senate.
If the Senate also fails to elect a Vice-President, the Succession Act of 1948 provides that the Speaker of the House shall act as President until a President is chosen. The law was enacted under authority given to the Congress by the Twentieth Amendment.

Although the procedures for the way the House and Senate vote are set by the Constitution, there are no rules governing how individual members of Congress vote in such contingent elections in the House and Senate. Members are free to vote as they please within their state's delegation. It is conceivable, under these circumstances that the House might select a President of one party and the Senate, a Vice-President of the other.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

What would cause those people to rebel against their government? If it goes that far we will be at war with each other at that point.

I don't see that it has to go that far. Some people are willing to rebel violently even if they have no chance to win. Crazies will resort to anything, and their hopes for support are misplaced.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

The truly scary thought though is that the alternative to new parties emerging from the ashes of the old might well be serious political repression by terrified elites. Merge the two parties into one Democratic-Republican Party (this was the case during the Madison and Monroe Eras) and ban all others. Have a one-party authoritarian state. It's been done before elsewhere and I suspect that the prevalence of armed militias in the Early Republic may have been what prevented this outcome then and allowed politics in the 1840s and 1850s to BE chaotic--but remain democratic.

Those supporting the likes of Hillary Clinton would be too liberal to go that far. All we have to fear, is the Republicans winning. We've seen what Bush and Cheney did.

Hillary would not do things we like, such as pardon Edward Snowden, and maybe not even close Guantanamo or repeal the Patriot Act or the NSAA provisions. But that's still a long way from outright repression. And militias cannot prevent an authoritarian state from ruling now. Nor was the anti-slavery movement OR the secession movement held at bay by peoples' militias back then either.

The Democratic-Republican Party would be too small. The people are mostly polarized into right and left. Bush and Hillary and their supporters would not be able to come together to stave off the extremes. They are themselves too far apart.

Interesting article about how the Clintons have created a "postmodern political machine"--which the Obamas appear to be attempting to emulate. See http://www.the-american-interest.com...tical-machine/

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Those supporting the likes of Hillary Clinton would be too liberal to go that far. All we have to fear, is the Republicans winning. We've seen what Bush and Cheney did.

Hillary would not do things we like, such as pardon Edward Snowden, and maybe not even close Guantanamo or repeal the Patriot Act or the NSAA provisions. But that's still a long way from outright repression. And militias cannot prevent an authoritarian state from ruling now. Nor was the anti-slavery movement OR the secession movement held at bay by peoples' militias back then either.

The Democratic-Republican Party would be too small. The people are mostly polarized into right and left. Bush and Hillary and their supporters would not be able to come together to stave off the extremes. They are themselves too far apart.

You have a lot more faith in the Clintons than I do, Eric. I look at how far the Clintons pulled the Democratic Party to the Right in the 90s. And Hillary's propensity for military intervention. A lot of repression can be done in an era of war than an era of peace. Woodrow Wilson appeared to be a liberal too, and he gave us an Espionage Act that Hillary would like to prosecute Snowden and Assange under and a Sedition Act that was held unconstitutional by the courts. If Bernie Sanders can be compared to Eugene V Debs, Hillary Clinton can be compared to Edith Wilson--who might have gone far if her husband had not had a stroke and later died.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, it doesn't have to go that far. I am predicting a right-wing rebellion by those paranoid about gun control, which is already ready to pass, save for the right-wing congress. When that goes away in the 2020s, gun control will sweep in. Then, militias may rebel. Not on the scale of the civil war, but on the scale large enough to turn off most Americans and empower the government to take their guns away. But repeal of the 2nd amendment may not follow from this. Thus, the government will put down the violent gun control opponents, and take their guns away. But they will be considered criminals who have forfeited their right to guns under the gun control law and the second amendment alike.

I'm not sure where the impetus for gun control will come from. I checked the question of gun control and millennials thinking that millennials might be more predisposed to gun control and to taking guns away from paranoid parents and lo and behold, found that if anything, Millies (who are the generation most likely to hold and use guns in an organised fashion) favour permissive gun legislation. See ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/millennials-mysterious-support-for-permissive-gun-laws/2015/12/07/5eb9d0c2-9d20-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html . Which is rather surprising, at least from a Boomer point of view. Then again, it's hard to expect the kind of faith in government that restrictions on gun ownership would entail from a generation that is hurting enough to answer a call for a (still peaceful) revolution.
This country has had a long history of armed insurrection and in many cases, the insurrectionists had their demands met. I'm thinking about unions staging revolts all through the first half of the20th Century in mining counties that had widespread popular support and finally resulted in the institutionalisation of United Mine Workers in the 1930s. And farmers who confronted sheriffs and would not allow them to enforce foreclosures in the 30s. None of which makes it into contemporary history texts.
What you are proposing requires regeneracy to start next year under a Sanders Administration. First we get a more equitable society that Millies have a stake in. Then the Right gun owners are isolated. Which will not happen under Establishment (Clinton, Bush or Kasich) business as usual and probably not under a Trump Administration. Unresponsiveness on the part of an entrenched Establishment is what could cause mass insurrection in the 2020s, which would probably start over an ignored or suppressed call for a constitutional convention. And would be very difficult to put down due to the small size of the US Armed Services and likely sympathy for rebels on the part of servicepeople. Even drones can be hacked and turned against their masters.

A good example of the kind of quid pro quo Millennials are rebelling against when they rebel against Hillary Clinton. Hillary helps a Swiss bank avoid indictment under US law and Bill Clinton pockets millions in speaking fees from the same bank. See http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...g-fees/400067/

I am getting so sick of this kind of divisive BS.

If Clinton gets the nomination because of racial identity politics then I will have lost all hope in this country, because it would show that we are not a coherent society but just a collection of splintered demographic units fighting for influence and patronage.

And then these idiots will wonder why we end up with a President Trump...

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

It could turn into 1824 all over again--with the election going to the House--who can vote for whoever they want (the Senate chooses the VP). And what complicates matters is that the representatives of each state caucus and each state gets one vote. So we could see a Republican House going for an Establishment Republican. Or voting for Paul Ryan. Or splintering until January 20, wherupon Joe Biden takes office by default as Acting President.

The prospect of Biden as President without being elected would not seem to offer a stable basis to govern.