Good Read On Saber Rattling & The 2nd Amend. Please Read

[Solus]

In a discussion over what our elected officials should do, I was asked what I would do if I were that official.

My answer then and now remain the same. (this discussion occurred while walking the streets in Chicago in 1976)

I could never vote for any issue that I felt was wrong, that violated the Constitution, no matter how many of my constituents were in favor of it.

A majority of 51% (or 99%) can not, in our Constitutional Republic, take away the rights of the other 49% (or 1%) of the citizens.

There are many issues that do not matter constitutionally, like perhaps, should the US convert to the metric system.  There are pros and cons and I may feel one course is "better" in the long or short run for the country, but I would generally defer to the will of my constituents in this type of vote.

As I have heard on this forum several times, you must stand for something, and as an elected official, what I stand for will not be swayed by popular vote.

The person I with whom I was having this discussion said he would never vote for me.

That is fine.  I would say to the voters,  Know where I stand on the issues because that is how I will vote on them.

[Fatman]

Guys, lets be calm here. (everytime I say this I need to duck and cover BUT, sometimes it needs to be said.). This vote, or any other votelike it, has major implications as to what Congress is or should be. The Clinton Impeachment, where the vast majoriy (67% approval rating) didn't want him impeached is another. We have two choices.
Option 1, the democratic option- Congressmen are instructed delegates who vote the way their district wants, regardless of their own feelings, sort of like a lawyer who is payed to be your advocate.
Option 2, the republican one- Congressmen are trustees free to excersize their own judgement voting for the common good as they see it and then be held accountable in either 2 or 6 years to the voters for what they did.
Option one, you vote for them doing what they say, option 2, you vote for folks to act in your interest. The point being that if you vote for option 1, you will get the rule/tyranny of the majority. If you choose option 2, you get reps who will do what they please and then explain it to you. Neither is ideal, but lets hear which option you prefer before pointing fingers. Finger pointing is good, but we need to know what standard we should have before doing so.
FQ13

Number 2 is the eight choice, as number 1 is mob rule. Unfortunately, things have changed radically in recent times. The Founding Fathers feared political parties, and now we see why. Our elected officials tow party lines to the extreme now, and tend not to vote for what they feel is in their constituent's best interests.

The 'other' legislative body, the Senate, was set up to be elected by the State Legislatures to protect the interest of their State, and negate any party line crap that might come from the House. In short, the Senate was intended to be free of national party interests, and watch out for the interest of their State. 

The 17th amendment put the Senate elections into the hands of the Great Unwashed popular vote, removing the State legislatures from the picture.  This was to 'end corruption in the process'. Oddly enough, it was corruption in Illinois that prompted this. The unwitting result is both bodies now fall heavily under national party pressures, and both are elected by a largely uncaring and ignorant population.  I say 'ignorant' rather than 'stupid' because I consider our current situation a product of a primary and secondary education system that indoctrinates rather than teaches critical thinking.

Fix that, and we get our country back.

[twyacht]

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
(Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
President Thomas Jefferson

"It is customary for republican governments to be bound by constitutions, and this is grand idea. The question does arise, however, about what recourse the citizen has when the government disregards its own constitution, as is the case with our own Tenth Amendment. What do you do if your government does not obey its own laws? Our Declaration declaims that when governments do not observe the God-given rights of man, it is not only the right but the duty of the people to alter or abolish them. The Declaration of Independence may not be the supreme law of the land - which is the Constitution - but it frames our philosophy of government and serves as a guide for those who respect our traditions. More people should."
Col. Jeff Cooper

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson Papers

"Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment."
Mike Huckabee

***last one is my favorite as it pertains to the OP ***

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
Charles Austin Beard, American Historian, 1874-1948