Defense of slavery decisions points to ultimate need for armed citizenry

Via David Codrea

Anti-gun Oregon Democrat State Senator Chuck Riley says the Supreme Court was “right for the time” for upholding the enslavement of blacks as Constitutional. His comments came after questioning by gun rights advocates who were attempting to understand his rational for supporting citizen disarmament edicts, and was recorded by videographer “LaughingAtLiberals.”

The Library of Congress

“But that wasn't the end of it,” blogger Gateway Pundit noted. He embedded a second video, where Sen. Riley and his staffers were unable to explain how the “universal background check” edict would work at stopping violent criminals, or do anything besides provide a registration list of gun owners.
As for Riley's slavery concession, we've seen such precedent-driven disconnects with freedom before, even with checks and balances in place. Without them, things get even worse. An activist court empowered to make up law on its own has the potential to impose enslavement via a complicit executive branch. A tyranny-minded legislature can write edicts that do the same, providing they can get them enforced without judicial restraint. An unchecked executive can use all sorts of justifications to impose despotism. And all three branches working in concert have pretty much brought us to the point where “shall not be infringed” has been rendered meaningless beyond what those in power will politically tolerate -- for now.
That’s why the growing new paradigm represented by the “I will not comply” movement represents such a threat to those who would rule. Because ultimately, when the system results in tyranny, an armed people retain the power to nullify bad enforcement just as informed jurors have the power to nullify bad edicts. Of course the outcome of that is not assured (what is?), but to those who have made the choice between defiance and surrender, it beats the alternative.
That leads to some fair questions for the individual leaders of self-designated “gun rights groups” that call for enforcement of existing Intolerable Acts (gun laws), and who actually have publicly joined with anti-gunners in disparaging civil disobedience activists as “extremists”: If, years from now, with a shifted Supreme Court majority enabled by an unchallengeable electorate (something foreseen by another Oregon Democrat), a new ruling reverses Heller and says it’s Constitutional for the government to start rounding up registered guns and jailing anyone who has not obeyed, will you urge defiance and resistance, or will you ask your members to plead with their oppressors (and send a donation)? If the former, why wait until things become so desperate? And if the latter, why shouldn't we know now if you ever envision a line in the sand?