Cops have no constitutional duty to protect you

[Into the Night]

What did I say that was dumb? That he says he has his guns to protect against government tyranny, except that every single time the government has been tyrannical over the last 40 years he defends that tyranny.

So it would seem that he's lying about why he has guns.

Your hallucination won't help you Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm convinced most everyone on JPP has never actually read the Constitution in full.

Including you.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm sure that most did in school.
Who remembers everything from school, though?

And there's no guarantee that the teachers presented it properly, either.

Oddly enough, schools don't teach it.

 

[Into the Night]

I always laugh whenever I hear someone say they carry a pocket version of the Constitution on them...that's usually clue #1 that they've never actually read it.

The Constitution and The Bible are the only two things that certain people say they've read but actually haven't.

You don't get to speak for everyone, Sock. Omniscience fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

1. Most criminals are armed with guns that were first bought legally.

So?

2. As many as 300,000 guns go missing every year, and 90% of the time, the authorities aren't made aware.

Argument from randU fallacy. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' won't, work, Sock.

3. The primary means by which criminals get guns is via theft from people's homes or cars.

Argument from randU fallacy.

So you buy a gun to protect your home and car from criminals armed with guns they stole from homes and cars.

That's a cynical, bloody cycle that has done nothing to stem the flood of 40,000+ gun deaths every year.

It's not a question of IF you lose track of your guns but WHEN.

Attempted conclusion by fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

OK but this shooting happened at a school.

In other words, a 'gun free zone'.

 

[Into the Night]

You've never read the 10th Amendment - nor any part of the Constitution.

[FONT="]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/B][/I]
Now read the 2nd,

[I][B][COLOR=#333333][FONT="]A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[/FONT]

Perhaps it's the word "delegated" that confuses you? A right specifically enumerated means that the 10th is not pertinent to this situation.

An even better reference of that argument is the 9th amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

[Into the Night]

Which means...what?



"Well regulated".

You really should learn English if you are going to try to read the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Take this for what it's worth - which is probably nothing.

The brother in law of my brother in law is a detective for LAPD. So I see the guy at large family gatherings, but nowhere else.

Anyway, the subject of Uvalde came up and he had a very interesting take on it. He said if the cops entered the building without orders from command and someone was killed or injured, the cop would be civilly and criminally liable. His position was that the cops weren't cowards, but that our system is so fucked up that if they acted, they would end up in prison and broke as scapegoats for the situation. Basically, cops are paralyzed by the insanity of the laws that place liability on them for actions they are trying to prevent.

I don't know if this is right, but it does make sense.

That does not extend to stand by and do nothing while people are being killed.

 

[Into the Night]

yes, if that state law aims to take away the federal governments power or authority that was prescribed to them in the US Constitution.

Invalid test. Laws created by States MUST conform not only to their own State constitutions, but to the federal constitution as well. Each State is a member of the Union and is bound by that federal constitution just as much as their own State constitutions. The federal constitution DOES directly refer to States (government) and what they are limited in doing.

The 2nd amendment is one example. The 13th is another.

 

[Into the Night]

When was the California constitution ratified?

1879

When was the 14th?

1868

So then, the 14th predates the California Constitution, meaning that the State was ALWAYS compelled to follow federal law under the Bill of Rights.

[FONT="]No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States[/FONT]

The order of appearance does nothing here. The 14th amendment applies to all States, regardless of the day their constitutions were ratified.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't doubt that some idiot liberal/progressive DA/AG might try to make that case. I've seen enough fucked up cases where a cop follows a clearly unconstitutional order from a superior, yet the superior is never punished for giving the order.

And they should be.

 

[Into the Night]

that's not how federalism works.

Correct. Those portions of the Constitution of the United States that apply limits to States have always done so. The order of appearance means nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

Not true.



Not true.



You JUST said they bought them legally - you can't keep your own lies straight.



Aren't the overwhelming majority of deaths from firearms suicide?

Are you claiming that those who kill themselves steal guns from cars and homes?

We also note a sharp increase right around the time China and their vassals, the Vichy democrats, unleashed the Wuhan Designer Virus® on America and the world.

He's attempting to blame people that buy guns legally, which are then stolen by criminals; as the reason criminals have guns; and should be a reason to ban guns. It's fucked up reasoning based on a burden fallacy.

Guns are stolen from individuals, homes, gun stores, gun shows, etc. Criminals also buy guns from a variety of sources, some 'legal', some 'illegal'. Some even make their own guns.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

It's a matter of supremacy, Nicky.

The Constitution overrides lesser laws and rulings.

It doesn't override what it doesn't address.
That's why vague amendments, like the tenth, for example,
should be recognized as poorly written
and should be referenced far less often than they are.

 

[Into the Night]

The second is delegated, enumerated.



In proper working order. Heller made this extremely clear.

Not the meaning of 'well regulated', and Heller never changed the meaning.

The 2nd amendment discusses the inherent right of self defense. This right does NOT come from the 2nd amendment, but is inherent. Government is prohibited from interfering with this right. No matter how oppressive a government is, the right of self defense cannot be taken away.

This amendment discusses the right of a State to defend itself using militias (an army). That militia is 'well regulated', meaning is it organized and trained by the State for the purpose of self defense. That right is not to be abridged by any government in the United States.

It also discusses the right of an individual (the people) to defend themselves using any weapon (arms). This is NOT 'well regulated' (not an organized militia). It is the INDIVIDUAL's right of self defense. That right is not to be abridged by any government in the United States.

Now let's look at oppressive nations (such as the SDTC, the UK, North Korea). In each case people have the right to defend themselves. The national government ALSO has an inherent right to defend itself using again militias (armies and military) which are 'well regulated' (organized).

The people outnumber their governments by an insane ratio. If the people rise up and unify in overthrowing said oppressive government, NOTHING CAN STOP THEM. It does not matter how oppressive that government was or how much military they have, for in such situations, the military usually splits apart.

 

[Into the Night]

again, that's not how federalism works. If a state makes a law that is in direct conflict with the US Constitution, then it is indeed an unconstitutional state law, however, if that state law does not infringe on the powers granted to the federal government, then it's a completely valid state law.

It is not how federalism works. Invalid test. Paradox. Irrational.

Any law (State law included) that is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, even if that law does not infringe on the powers granted to the federal government. You cannot create a law in conflict with the Constitution of the United States and call it a valid State law.

Quite a bit of the Constitution of the United States DOES APPLY TO THE STATES as well. I have already listed several amendments that apply to the States (such as the 2nd). I have also listed several amendments that do not apply to the States (such as the 1st). I have also already listed several articles that apply to the States as well as the federal government.

Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

This section has not been repealed or modified by any amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

All of these apply to the States. Every individual, no matter where they may be, have the inherent right of self defense. The right of the people of the United States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That's the people of EVERY STATE, dude.

NO government, be it federal, State, county or parish, city, or town, has any authority to ban or limit any type of gun or any other weapon. NONE of them may infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. NONE of them may try to take away or limit the inherent right of self defense in any way.

 

[Into the Night]

You're confusing confederate with federal.

{[h=4]What is the main difference between federal and confederal?[/h][FONT="]The main difference is how much power constituent units vs. national government have. In a confederacy, power and sovereignty belong primarily to the units, while in a federation they are shared between the units and the national government.}

https://study.com/academy/lesson/un...=In a federal form of,held at the state level.

The United States is a federation, has a federal government that is empowered as a national legal entity within the specific enumerations and constraints of the constitution. The 14th Amendment is a significant part of constitutional authority granted to the federal government. We are not a confederacy.

[/FONT]

A confederacy is also 'federal' by nature, but that's a strawman. The Constitution of the United States is being discussed here, not any confederation document.

The United States was organized as a federated republic. This is what it means for those unfamiliar with the terms:

A 'republic' is government by law (a constitution). That constitution declares and creates a government and gives it certain limited power and authority. It has NO authority outside that constitution. A constitution may only be amended by the owners of that constitution, or it isn't a constitution.

A 'federation' is layers of government. In the United States the States MUST also be a republic, as specified in the Constitution of the United States. That means every State MUST also have a constitution, which serves to declare the State government and organize it, giving certain powers and authority to that government. That government has NO authority outside of that given specifically by the constitution, just like the Constitution of the United States. Again, only the owners of that constitution have the authority to amend it, not the government so created by it.

The owners of the Constitution of the United States are the States (as government) and through them, the people. The ONLY way to amend the Constitution of the United States is by a vote taken by each State, and the States themselves forwarding that as a single vote for amendment.

The ONLY way for the Constitution of any State may be amended is for the people to vote for it (a supermajority is usually required, as specified in that constitution).

No court has any authority to change or interpret any part of any constitution. All courts gain their authority through Article III of the Constitution of the United States. No court is higher than any constitution.

Now let's discuss the 14th amendment:

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 1 refers specifically to the people of the United States. That includes the people of every State. It also specifically places limits on State governments. In other words, States are specifically bound by the provisions of this section.

Section 2 again refers specially to State limitations. All State governments are bound by this section. NOTHING in this section removes the authority of a legislature to choose the electors for the State which are used to vote for President and Vice-President. Article II was not repealed by this section. IF a State has a popular vote for such (they all do these days), it is an ADVISORY vote to the legislature of that State, which are the ONLY ones with the authority to certify such a vote...not any department in the executive branch of that State!

Section 3 places limits on who may be elected as President or Vice-President, and upon representatives elected either at the federal layer or the State layer. NOTHING about this section overrules Section 1 or any other part of the Constitution of the United States (which the Democrats tried to do!).

Section 4 seems to be a paradox, but it is not. It is placing limits on debts of the federal government and upon State governments. That limit means any debt caused by reparations is null and void. In other words, neither any State nor the federal government is liable to pay 'reparations' and indeed is effectively prohibited from doing so. The Democrats ignore this.

Section 5 simply gives Congress the authority to enforce this amendment, including enforcing it upon the State governments.

This is yet another amendment that does apply to the States as well as the federal government. It does not matter when a Stated joined the Union. It still applies. States do not get to pick and choose what part of the Constitution of the United States they get to ignore.



Note that Democrats ignore this amendment...usually by taking a snippet of it out of context. Democrats deny and discard the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions.
It should also be noted that the government of California no longer recognizes the Constitution of the United States nor the Constitution of the State of California. It has left the Union (but still has representation!!!). The current form of government in California is dictatorship. I call it the SDTC now (Socialist Dictatorship of the Territory of California). Like all dictatorships, it is filled with misery, crime (supported by the Elitists), theft by fascism and oligarchy. People that can flee it, even abandoning everything including their land to get out while they can.

It's a miserable sight traveling through there now. I avoid it...it's too depressing to see it. I fear the only way people are going to regain their authority and restore anything like a republic is going to necessarily be by violence. They themselves will have to put down the crime, including those supporting it in Sacramento and various city governments.

 

[Into the Night]

It doesn't override what it doesn't address.
That's why vague amendments, like the tenth, for example,
should be recognized as poorly written
and should be referenced far less often than they are.

The 10th amendment is not poorly written, Sock. It's the law. It is very clear:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It simply says that the federal government has NO authority outside what is specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States.
It also simply says that the State governments have NO authority outside what is specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States or the constitution of that State.

The people retain that authority.