Oh ok. So SCOTUS will be working with the same set of facts that let to the PA dismissal? The fifth circuit and the Texas Supreme Court rejected GOP cases before the election about drive through voting on similar grounds of waiting too late to contest it. I think it’s definitely plausible they could kill it on procedural reasoning
Plenty of people would get up off their asses. We have sunday gun day, and statements from militia and veterans as proof of that saying they would defend in a heartbeat if the law broke down. So you'd be surprised. But only keyboard warriors bark about it. So yea thats dooming, because relenting to a fight means all decorum and law has been lost. So you are either overly eager to fight, or enjoy barking about it more than doing about it.
You don't have a 2A tool or a plan, membership or anything except machoman promises that read like the back of a t-shirt. I'm just done. There are like a hundred keyboard warriors I see every day vowing to defend the country but always deferring to someone else to do it first. If there are still court cases and people dealing with the legal shit then all this talk about a diy reckoning is cringe as hell. Doomers like you went real quiet when Hillary got off and Obama got off, so if Trump lets Biden get inaugurated no reason to expect you'd suddenly log off and get up in arms
From wikipedia:
The Plymouth Council for New England sponsored several colonization projects, eventually establishing the permanent Plymouth Colony in 1620 which was settled by English Puritan separatists, known as the Pilgrims.[3] The Dutch, Swedish, and French also established successful American colonies at roughly the same time but most of these eventually fell under the rule of the British Crown.[4]
In 1765, many Americans, known to day as the Patriots, grew upset with what they saw as overreach by the British Government. This started the Revolutionary War. They listed their grievances in the Declaration of Independence. Essentially, many colonists believed that since they were not directly represented in Parliament, many laws passed by Parliament, and specifically tax related laws such as the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act, were illegal according to the Bill of Rights 1689, and were a denial of their rights as Englishmen.[5][6] They adopted the phrase "no taxation without representation" as an unofficial motto. The revolutionary war officially ended in 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. This marked the official end of monarchy in the United States with George III of the United Kingdom being the last monarch.[7][8]
According to legend, George Washington, First President of the United States, was offered the position of "King of the United States," but turned it down in favor of a Republican government.[9]
If they were so in favor of monarchy, why didn't they enact one when they had the chance?