Is the time right for a repeal of the 2nd amendment?

[Rau]

We are GUARANTEED the right to bare arms, as a part of an anti-tyrannical militia, to just so the government knows that they work for us and not the other way around.

I don’t doubt the Constitution (as a practical matter) provides that freedom. I just say it has had vast unintended consequences too. I continue to find belief in the latter factor you mention (keeping the government ‘in check’ by force of arms) not “credible”. The ballot box exists for that purpose, and with far fewer unintended consequences.

 

[Rau]

The SCOTUS declared the PD has no duty to protect you. So who does?

Wrong! No duty defined in the constitution.

 

[JonNC]

But far less persuasive!

Not according to the constitution

 

[Rau]

Rau:

But far less persuasive!

Not according to the constitution

Nonsense. The Constitution tells us what binds, not what amounts to a persuasive decision.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Wrong! No duty defined in the constitution.

Correct. But can lesser authorities place such duties on police? Not determined at this time yet.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Rau:

But far less persuasive!

Not according to the constitution

Nonsense. The Constitution tells us what binds, not what amounts to a persuasive decision.

Article 3, section 1

“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

Sounds to me like there isn’t any mention of what size majority is needed, and it’s not because the framers didn’t know the concept, as seen with impeachment and amendments.

5-4 has the same legal weight as 9-0

 

[AlNg]

The problem these apparently sub-human “leftists” have is that an individual is too dangerous to other individuals when they have quick and easy access to semiautomatic firearms.

Who are the apparently sub-human leftists you are talking about?

 

[JonNC]

Boatswain2PA:

The SCOTUS declared the PD has no duty to protect you. So who does?

Wrong! No duty defined in the constitution.

The Court ruled in favor of a community.

“Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.”

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Police are not duty bound to protect.

That is the responsibility, when police are not available,of the individual

 

[Rau]

But can lesser authorities place such duties on police? Not determined at this time yet.

Of course. In law. In job descriptions.

 

[Rau]

5-4 has the same legal weight as 9-0

I said that too Jon. You wouldn’t be making up a strawman would you?

 

[Rau]

Police are not duty bound to protect.

That is the responsibility, when police are not available,of the individual

This seems a vacuous argument. The court decided that a party should not be sued. So yeah, police have duties, and they are going to execute imperfectly often. What a revelation.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

5-4 has the same legal weight as 9-0

I said that too Jon. You wouldn’t be making up a strawman would you?

If it’s true, it isn’t a straw man

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Police are not duty bound to protect.

That is the responsibility, when police are not available,of the individual

This seems a vacuous argument. The court decided that a party should not be sued. So yeah, police have duties, and they are going to execute imperfectly often. What a revelation.

They are not duty bound to protect citizens.

 

[Rau]

If it’s true, it isn’t a straw man

You appear to be pretending we have a disagreement about what constitutes a binding decision of the court. We do not. I’ve noted that 5-4 is not persuasive.

 

[Rau]

They are not duty bound to protect citizens.

So when you call police their duties don’t require them to respond? 911 is a hoax?

If a policeman stumbles on a man beating a woman, he has no duty to intervene?

I did not know this about policing in the US. Perhaps this is another area requiring reform?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

because they think having no registry is essential in preventing confiscation.

Correction. Preventing a registry IS essential in preventing confiscation. See 1929 Germany as best example, although there are others.

The most effective way of preventing confiscation in the US is to do everything you can to solve the problems those who might want confiscation think they are trying to solve. But the more that gun-owners appear like they are preparing for war with society the more society is going to perceive them as a threat. If the NRA would just stop pandering to the absolutist position and support some modest forms of gun control, they could defuse much of the public anger toward them and make confiscation much less likely. Think of it this way, if there is a civil war and the NRA side wins, there will no longer be a US government left standing. You won’t have the nice vibrant and mostly peaceful society we have now. So what will you have gained?

 

[JonNC]

So when you call police their duties don’t require them to respond? 911 is a hoax?

No one says they don’t try, but if you live 15 minutes from arrival of law enforcement like I do, the option is s firearm. If it’s my wife, lots of rounds.

If a policeman stumbles on a man beating a woman, he has no duty to intervene?

He has no duty to “stumble upon” them, even if there’s a restraining order.

 

[JonNC]

I’m good if we don’t.

 

[MonteRCMS]

It is the CONGRESS that determines the jurisdiction of the Federal courts.

 

[Rau]

Rau:

So when you call police their duties don’t require them to respond? 911 is a hoax?

No one says they don’t try, but if you live 15 minutes from arrival of law enforcement like I do, the option is s firearm. If it’s my wife, lots of rounds.

If a policeman stumbles on a man beating a woman, he has no duty to intervene?

He has no duty to “stumble upon” them, even if there’s a restraining order.

So all that’s a non-event. A statement of the obvious. Nothing we needed to consult the Supreme Court about.