This is the very essence of the difference that should exist between a President and a King. From Federalist 69:
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.
The failure of the Republican party to support this kind of check on Presidential power is why we’re having this crisis now.
40 years of villifying gun ownership.
I’m a Democrat with dozens of guns, but most Dems I know have been indoctrinated into thinking gun ownership is support of child murder.
It is, and you’re a limp dick loser for owning them. Its a hobby that routinely leads to school shootings and mass murders, and defending it means you’re either a selfish moron, or a truly evil person.
…But the democratic party hasn’t disarmed anyone. No serious effort to do so ever goes anywhere, and any attempts to regulate guns usually fail or are ineffective. Even when they had a majority, they didn’t ban guns. To think this is something they were ever seriously interested in is silly, and probably a sign you’ve been spending too much time on internet gun communities (which are pretty much all far right conspiracy shit holes)