Nothing to stop a Dem declaring any emergency. But as we have seen with Trump’s EO’s, they can be challenged and injuncted by the courts. I would expect, in response to the behaviour of Dems to stymie constitutionally valid EO’s by judge-shopping and successfully imposing injunctions on EO’s the didn’t like, and forcing them through the court system, that constititutionalist reps and senatores would do likewise against what would be obviously unconstitutional EO’s. It might perhaps divide the military and law-enforcement between constitutional and anti-constitutional factions, if a Dem President tried to bypass the courts. But it wouldn’t be a given that the military and law enforcement would back a president trampling on the constitution.
The last two years have already proven they will.
I agree.
Oh I can cite it. You have just not given me any reason to do your homework for you.
My only “way” is to point out that there will be no revolution, and even if there is, wannabe Internet warriors won’t be the ones fighting it.
The former is unfortunate. The latter…not so much.
To make it clearer.
“No prior restraint” is a good argument. One can even make it a winning argument if done correctly.
“We need guns to protect us from government overreach” is a stupid argument.
They are already cutting the barrels here.
Not everybody on the internet is a wannabe.
And yet a historical argument. Over and over.
Most of you are.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, though. 
No it’s not.
You might not know this, but we’ve been at war for the past 18 years against a determined enemy. Experience counts.
But you feel free to speak for yourself.
Tick tock…
Let me help you out.
Why is it a stupid argument?
Because it doesn’t work.
Because if the government wants to overthrow you, they will and guns won’t stop them.
Mostly because it’s not how government will overturn our representative republic anyway.
It won’t be through marching soldiers or armed policemen through the streets.
It’s not even that “government” will be the one doing it…but those in whom the real power lies.
And why is your opinion the truth?
I wouldn’t call it “the truth”…I would call it a more informed opinion of reality because I am aware I am biased and actively try to avoid believing something first (by no means am I even close to perfect).
The other reason is we’re armed to the teeth yet our freedoms have been eroding for decades and guns haven’t stopped that one white. Why? Because they aren’t eroding via policing power.
I say this as a gun owner and strong 2nd Amendment supporter by the way.
But I don’t support 2A because I believe guns check government.
I support 2A because of the principle of no prior restraint. Just because someone MAY commit violence with a fun does not mean we should assume evil intent ahead of time and greatly restrict access.
Freedom means danger. I don’t want to give up freedom to feel safe.
