Why Was No One Armed & Shooting Back In El Paso WalMart ?

[GLASNOST]

I'm just trying to help you out but you don't want any advice. You just want to complain but do nothing about it. It's no skin off of my nose but if you keep on bitching I might just keep trying to help you. How about them apples?

No you're dodging the question.

If a Supreme Court ruling can be changed by popular vote then you should be able to come up with at least one example

I have proven it cannot be done by informing you of the only 3 ways a Supreme Court ruling can be changed but you still think it can be done by popular vote.

So even if the SC could be overruled by popular vote ( and just to be clear it can't be) how long do you think it would take to do so and in that time who can I expect to come to my aid if the need arises?

Either stop bitching or get off of your ass and do something about. I have told you what needs to be done. All you have to do is figure out the best way to achieve it.

And you still won't answer the question

Why don't you tell me how to change the way our entire system of government works so as to allow Supreme Court rulings to be overturned by referendum vote? I can think of no other way that installing a different government that is not beholden to the Constitution

Obviously the simplest way would be to get rid of the Supreme Court

Nothing is "obvious". I get the impression that you are very lazy but not everyone can take the lead and I guess I can't criticize you if you don't understand English. You don't need to take the lead but you need to get off your ass and seek information from others. If you really care about your country and your countrymen then you will stop whining and get to work. There must be lots of Americans who are already at work on the problem .... and they need your support. But again, if you don't give a shit about the U.S. then you're not going to do a damn thing.

So you can't give me an answer to a simple question and you call me lazy.

So you would rather insult me and dodge and weave from one of the simplest questions that can be asked

So tell me what law do you change so that a referendum vote an be used to overrule a Supreme Court decision ?

And FYI "Get off your lazy ass and do something" isn't an answer to that question.

The fact is there are 3 and only 3 ways to overrule or change a Supreme Court decision and not one of them is to put that decision to a popular vote.

The average citizen cannot force the Supreme Court to overturn a decision I don't care how many of them want to it cannot be done without a fundamental change the Constitution or our system of government.

But if you think you know how then please feel free to tell us how it can be done

And if you refuse to a answer yet again It will just prove to me that you have no answer and you want to blame me for your ignorance

I've given you more than enough information to get started but if you are too lazy to do anything why should I care? I don't. You can sit in your own filth but don't blame it on me.

 

[GLASNOST]

So, if the problem is the police not showing up your remedy is to arm the country? Find out why the police are not responding properly and fix that problem rather than flooding the country with guns so every Tom, Dick, and Harry can spray the community with bullets. Duh!

I don't give a shit if anyone else is armed. That is their choice not mine.

And the Supreme court has ruled that no law enforcement agency is legally obligated to come to the aid of any citizen. So if I can't expect the cops to show up if I or my wife are in danger who should I expect to come You?

Have you ever heard of a thing called "Democracy"? Read my lips: If the law is inadequate then CHANGE IT. And if you do not have Democracy then get your ass off the sofa and introduce it!

Have you ever heard of a thing called a Democratic Republic? We don't change laws by majority vote in this country or don't you understand that?

And you dodged the question

If the cops have no legal obligation to come to my aid if I call who should I expect to defend me or my family if the need arises?

Well, to be fair, we can change laws by majority vote. What we don't do is restrict civil rights based on majority vote, which I believe is what you meant.

We cannot change a Supreme Court ruling by popular vote.

The Supreme Court ruled that no law enforcement agency has a legal obligation to respond to a call for aid from a citizen.

What law do you change to make Supreme Court decisions subject to a referendum vote?

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

That's the same old kindergarten stuff like "these rights shall not be infringed upon" or "The law clearly states that no law can be changed" or "No amendment can be amended." That's just kid's talk.

 

[protectionist]

View attachment 273760

What's your problem ?

 

[protectionist]

EVERY mass shooter is suicidal. Just not all have the guts to go all the way through it.

No they're not. The El Paso shooter wasn't suicidal. If he was he'd be dead now. He's alive.

If they don't have the guts to go all the way through it, they're not suicidal.

 

[Dana7360]

The El Paso Walmart shooter killed 20 people (so far) and wounded 26 more. He may well have fired some shots missing people also. It's pretty fair to say this nut fired at least 50 shots, and very possibly well more than that.

It takes quite some time to fire that many shots individually, as this guy did, walking aisle to aisle, through the store. If there had been an armed security guard, or any armed citizen with a CCW license, this guy could have (and should have) been stopped cold after the first 2 or 3 shots.

As someone who has a CCW license, and is armed 99% of the time, when I'm walking around outside, it is amazing to me that there could have been that many people walking around unarmed and defenseless. Why? Don't they know something like this could happen at any time ?

In contrast, in 2002, a Muslim terrorist (Hesham Mohamed Hadayet) walked into Los Angeles Airport (LAX) armed with 2 handguns, plus magazines loaded with dozens of bullets. He shot and killed 2 people, and wounded 4. The airport was filled with people. The terrorist was shot dead right on the spot, by a security guard who was armed and ready to deal. Without that good guy with a gun, the airport would have been a bloodbath, just like this WalMart, and probably even worse.

This ARMED DEFENSE is what should have been the case in El Paso. How this guy could pull off what he did without getting shot, by a guard or CCW carrying citizen is mind boggling.

2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting - Wikipedia

There were armed people there but they never pulled the weapon out of their holster.

This good guy with a gun is the solution to these shootings is a bunch of garbage. As we saw in El Paso, those who do have a weapon don't use them and don't engage the shooter.

 

[hunarcy]

So, if the problem is the police not showing up your remedy is to arm the country? Find out why the police are not responding properly and fix that problem rather than flooding the country with guns so every Tom, Dick, and Harry can spray the community with bullets. Duh!

I don't give a shit if anyone else is armed. That is their choice not mine.

And the Supreme court has ruled that no law enforcement agency is legally obligated to come to the aid of any citizen. So if I can't expect the cops to show up if I or my wife are in danger who should I expect to come You?

Have you ever heard of a thing called "Democracy"? Read my lips: If the law is inadequate then CHANGE IT. And if you do not have Democracy then get your ass off the sofa and introduce it!

Have you ever heard of a thing called a Democratic Republic? We don't change laws by majority vote in this country or don't you understand that?

And you dodged the question

If the cops have no legal obligation to come to my aid if I call who should I expect to defend me or my family if the need arises?

Well, to be fair, we can change laws by majority vote. What we don't do is restrict civil rights based on majority vote, which I believe is what you meant.

We cannot change a Supreme Court ruling by popular vote.

The Supreme Court ruled that no law enforcement agency has a legal obligation to respond to a call for aid from a citizen.

What law do you change to make Supreme Court decisions subject to a referendum vote?

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

I do not dispute your point on Supreme Court rulings. I was addressing the statement that "We cannot change a Supreme Court ruling by popular vote."

 

[hunarcy]

Yes, you are running away. "harmonica" is right. What he wrote is true, logical, and correct. You are a coward in the face of the facts he gave you. Not only are you a coward but you are also dishonest but I guess they both go hand in hand. If you are keen on debating with adults then you should grow up and learn from the people who know more than you.

Oh wow, a lying child accuses me of running away. *yawn* What he wrote was not "true, logical and correct", it was trying to take individual instances that were weird and unique and implying they are common and expected. If you can't understand the difference, you're for more stupid than even I suspected. Now, go take your hurt feelings and sit in the corner because you are wasting the time of everyone who reads your posts.

I'm old enough to be your grandfather, Pussy Boy, so cut the crap and get to bed or I'll give you a spanking you'll never forget.

View attachment 273904

LMAO! Another internet blowhard. "child" does not refer to your age, silly child. It refers to your weak reasoning skills and overly emotional posting style. Now, back to the corner with thee.

 

[hunarcy]

I don't give a shit if anyone else is armed. That is their choice not mine.

And the Supreme court has ruled that no law enforcement agency is legally obligated to come to the aid of any citizen. So if I can't expect the cops to show up if I or my wife are in danger who should I expect to come You?

Have you ever heard of a thing called "Democracy"? Read my lips: If the law is inadequate then CHANGE IT. And if you do not have Democracy then get your ass off the sofa and introduce it!

Have you ever heard of a thing called a Democratic Republic? We don't change laws by majority vote in this country or don't you understand that?

And you dodged the question

If the cops have no legal obligation to come to my aid if I call who should I expect to defend me or my family if the need arises?

Well, to be fair, we can change laws by majority vote. What we don't do is restrict civil rights based on majority vote, which I believe is what you meant.

We cannot change a Supreme Court ruling by popular vote.

The Supreme Court ruled that no law enforcement agency has a legal obligation to respond to a call for aid from a citizen.

What law do you change to make Supreme Court decisions subject to a referendum vote?

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

That's the same old kindergarten stuff like "these rights shall not be infringed upon" or "The law clearly states that no law can be changed" or "No amendment can be amended." That's just kid's talk.

View attachment 273908

Yes, because to children, words don't have real meanings. It's all just "what I want"...like talking to a 2 year old.

 

[Blues Man]

No you're dodging the question.

If a Supreme Court ruling can be changed by popular vote then you should be able to come up with at least one example

I have proven it cannot be done by informing you of the only 3 ways a Supreme Court ruling can be changed but you still think it can be done by popular vote.

So even if the SC could be overruled by popular vote ( and just to be clear it can't be) how long do you think it would take to do so and in that time who can I expect to come to my aid if the need arises?

Either stop bitching or get off of your ass and do something about. I have told you what needs to be done. All you have to do is figure out the best way to achieve it.

And you still won't answer the question

Why don't you tell me how to change the way our entire system of government works so as to allow Supreme Court rulings to be overturned by referendum vote? I can think of no other way that installing a different government that is not beholden to the Constitution

Obviously the simplest way would be to get rid of the Supreme Court

Nothing is "obvious". I get the impression that you are very lazy but not everyone can take the lead and I guess I can't criticize you if you don't understand English. You don't need to take the lead but you need to get off your ass and seek information from others. If you really care about your country and your countrymen then you will stop whining and get to work. There must be lots of Americans who are already at work on the problem .... and they need your support. But again, if you don't give a shit about the U.S. then you're not going to do a damn thing.

So you can't give me an answer to a simple question and you call me lazy.

So you would rather insult me and dodge and weave from one of the simplest questions that can be asked

So tell me what law do you change so that a referendum vote an be used to overrule a Supreme Court decision ?

And FYI "Get off your lazy ass and do something" isn't an answer to that question.

The fact is there are 3 and only 3 ways to overrule or change a Supreme Court decision and not one of them is to put that decision to a popular vote.

The average citizen cannot force the Supreme Court to overturn a decision I don't care how many of them want to it cannot be done without a fundamental change the Constitution or our system of government.

But if you think you know how then please feel free to tell us how it can be done

And if you refuse to a answer yet again It will just prove to me that you have no answer and you want to blame me for your ignorance

I've given you more than enough information to get started but if you are too lazy to do anything why should I care? I don't. You can sit in your own filth but don't blame it on me.

You have done no such thing

I have asked you questions and you have not responded to any of them other to say get the law changed

There is no fucking law

The ruling was from a case where a woman sued a police force for not responding to her ex husband violating a protection order when he kidnapped their 3 kids then murdered them before committing suicide by cop even though violation of that law is supposed to result in immediate arrest

She sued

The SC ruled that her lawsuit was invalid because no police force has a legal obligation to come to anyone's aid

SO there is no law all there is is a ruling that will label any law attempting to hold a police force responsible if they don't respond will be deemed unconstitutional and struck down

So now how do you get a Supreme court decision overturned by popular vote?

 

[Blues Man]

I don't give a shit if anyone else is armed. That is their choice not mine.

And the Supreme court has ruled that no law enforcement agency is legally obligated to come to the aid of any citizen. So if I can't expect the cops to show up if I or my wife are in danger who should I expect to come You?

Have you ever heard of a thing called "Democracy"? Read my lips: If the law is inadequate then CHANGE IT. And if you do not have Democracy then get your ass off the sofa and introduce it!

Have you ever heard of a thing called a Democratic Republic? We don't change laws by majority vote in this country or don't you understand that?

And you dodged the question

If the cops have no legal obligation to come to my aid if I call who should I expect to defend me or my family if the need arises?

Well, to be fair, we can change laws by majority vote. What we don't do is restrict civil rights based on majority vote, which I believe is what you meant.

We cannot change a Supreme Court ruling by popular vote.

The Supreme Court ruled that no law enforcement agency has a legal obligation to respond to a call for aid from a citizen.

What law do you change to make Supreme Court decisions subject to a referendum vote?

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

That's the same old kindergarten stuff like "these rights shall not be infringed upon" or "The law clearly states that no law can be changed" or "No amendment can be amended." That's just kid's talk.

View attachment 273908

There is no law in this instance as I have tried to explain to you

 

[Blues Man]

I don't give a shit if anyone else is armed. That is their choice not mine.

And the Supreme court has ruled that no law enforcement agency is legally obligated to come to the aid of any citizen. So if I can't expect the cops to show up if I or my wife are in danger who should I expect to come You?

Have you ever heard of a thing called "Democracy"? Read my lips: If the law is inadequate then CHANGE IT. And if you do not have Democracy then get your ass off the sofa and introduce it!

Have you ever heard of a thing called a Democratic Republic? We don't change laws by majority vote in this country or don't you understand that?

And you dodged the question

If the cops have no legal obligation to come to my aid if I call who should I expect to defend me or my family if the need arises?

Well, to be fair, we can change laws by majority vote. What we don't do is restrict civil rights based on majority vote, which I believe is what you meant.

We cannot change a Supreme Court ruling by popular vote.

The Supreme Court ruled that no law enforcement agency has a legal obligation to respond to a call for aid from a citizen.

What law do you change to make Supreme Court decisions subject to a referendum vote?

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

I do not dispute your point on Supreme Court rulings. I was addressing the statement that "We cannot change a Supreme Court ruling by popular vote."

We can't.

As I said before there are only 3 ways to change a Supreme Court ruling the popular vote isn;t one of them

 

[protectionist]

If the cops have no legal obligation to come to my aid if I call who should I expect to defend me or my family if the need arises?

It isn't "who", it is WHAT.

 

[GLASNOST]

View attachment 273760

What's your problem ?

I have none. If it's not a problem for you that your countrymen are shooting each other up for no reason, I can take it. Can you?

 

[GLASNOST]

Yes, you are running away. "harmonica" is right. What he wrote is true, logical, and correct. You are a coward in the face of the facts he gave you. Not only are you a coward but you are also dishonest but I guess they both go hand in hand. If you are keen on debating with adults then you should grow up and learn from the people who know more than you.

Oh wow, a lying child accuses me of running away. *yawn* What he wrote was not "true, logical and correct", it was trying to take individual instances that were weird and unique and implying they are common and expected. If you can't understand the difference, you're for more stupid than even I suspected. Now, go take your hurt feelings and sit in the corner because you are wasting the time of everyone who reads your posts.

I'm old enough to be your grandfather, Pussy Boy, so cut the crap and get to bed or I'll give you a spanking you'll never forget.

View attachment 273904

LMAO! Another internet blowhard. "child" does not refer to your age, silly child. It refers to your weak reasoning skills and overly emotional posting style. Now, back to the corner with thee.

You are confused but I knew that from the beginning.

 

[Blues Man]

View attachment 273760

What's your problem ?

I have none. If it's not a problem for you that your countrymen are shooting each other up for no reason, I can take it. Can you?

.003% of the population gets murdered by a person using a gun and most of the perpetrators are criminals and legally prohibited from possessing a firearm

 

[GLASNOST]

Have you ever heard of a thing called "Democracy"? Read my lips: If the law is inadequate then CHANGE IT. And if you do not have Democracy then get your ass off the sofa and introduce it!

Have you ever heard of a thing called a Democratic Republic? We don't change laws by majority vote in this country or don't you understand that?

And you dodged the question

If the cops have no legal obligation to come to my aid if I call who should I expect to defend me or my family if the need arises?

Well, to be fair, we can change laws by majority vote. What we don't do is restrict civil rights based on majority vote, which I believe is what you meant.

We cannot change a Supreme Court ruling by popular vote.

The Supreme Court ruled that no law enforcement agency has a legal obligation to respond to a call for aid from a citizen.

What law do you change to make Supreme Court decisions subject to a referendum vote?

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

That's the same old kindergarten stuff like "these rights shall not be infringed upon" or "The law clearly states that no law can be changed" or "No amendment can be amended." That's just kid's talk.

View attachment 273908

Yes, because to children, words don't have real meanings. It's all just "what I want"...like talking to a 2 year old.

I'll just have to take you over my knee again.

 

[GLASNOST]

Either stop bitching or get off of your ass and do something about. I have told you what needs to be done. All you have to do is figure out the best way to achieve it.

And you still won't answer the question

Why don't you tell me how to change the way our entire system of government works so as to allow Supreme Court rulings to be overturned by referendum vote? I can think of no other way that installing a different government that is not beholden to the Constitution

Obviously the simplest way would be to get rid of the Supreme Court

Nothing is "obvious". I get the impression that you are very lazy but not everyone can take the lead and I guess I can't criticize you if you don't understand English. You don't need to take the lead but you need to get off your ass and seek information from others. If you really care about your country and your countrymen then you will stop whining and get to work. There must be lots of Americans who are already at work on the problem .... and they need your support. But again, if you don't give a shit about the U.S. then you're not going to do a damn thing.

So you can't give me an answer to a simple question and you call me lazy.

So you would rather insult me and dodge and weave from one of the simplest questions that can be asked

So tell me what law do you change so that a referendum vote an be used to overrule a Supreme Court decision ?

And FYI "Get off your lazy ass and do something" isn't an answer to that question.

The fact is there are 3 and only 3 ways to overrule or change a Supreme Court decision and not one of them is to put that decision to a popular vote.

The average citizen cannot force the Supreme Court to overturn a decision I don't care how many of them want to it cannot be done without a fundamental change the Constitution or our system of government.

But if you think you know how then please feel free to tell us how it can be done

And if you refuse to a answer yet again It will just prove to me that you have no answer and you want to blame me for your ignorance

I've given you more than enough information to get started but if you are too lazy to do anything why should I care? I don't. You can sit in your own filth but don't blame it on me.

You have done no such thing

I have asked you questions and you have not responded to any of them other to say get the law changed

There is no fucking law

The ruling was from a case where a woman sued a police force for not responding to her ex husband violating a protection order when he kidnapped their 3 kids then murdered them before committing suicide by cop even though violation of that law is supposed to result in immediate arrest

She sued

The SC ruled that her lawsuit was invalid because no police force has a legal obligation to come to anyone's aid

SO there is no law all there is is a ruling that will label any law attempting to hold a police force responsible if they don't respond will be deemed unconstitutional and struck down

So now how do you get a Supreme court decision overturned by popular vote?

Don't be so lazy. I am not going to do it for you. Be happy I am pointing you in the right direction.

 

[GLASNOST]

Have you ever heard of a thing called "Democracy"? Read my lips: If the law is inadequate then CHANGE IT. And if you do not have Democracy then get your ass off the sofa and introduce it!

Have you ever heard of a thing called a Democratic Republic? We don't change laws by majority vote in this country or don't you understand that?

And you dodged the question

If the cops have no legal obligation to come to my aid if I call who should I expect to defend me or my family if the need arises?

Well, to be fair, we can change laws by majority vote. What we don't do is restrict civil rights based on majority vote, which I believe is what you meant.

We cannot change a Supreme Court ruling by popular vote.

The Supreme Court ruled that no law enforcement agency has a legal obligation to respond to a call for aid from a citizen.

What law do you change to make Supreme Court decisions subject to a referendum vote?

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

That's the same old kindergarten stuff like "these rights shall not be infringed upon" or "The law clearly states that no law can be changed" or "No amendment can be amended." That's just kid's talk.

View attachment 273908

There is no law in this instance as I have tried to explain to you

Now you are just being stupid.

 

[GLASNOST]

Have you ever heard of a thing called "Democracy"? Read my lips: If the law is inadequate then CHANGE IT. And if you do not have Democracy then get your ass off the sofa and introduce it!

Have you ever heard of a thing called a Democratic Republic? We don't change laws by majority vote in this country or don't you understand that?

And you dodged the question

If the cops have no legal obligation to come to my aid if I call who should I expect to defend me or my family if the need arises?

Well, to be fair, we can change laws by majority vote. What we don't do is restrict civil rights based on majority vote, which I believe is what you meant.

We cannot change a Supreme Court ruling by popular vote.

The Supreme Court ruled that no law enforcement agency has a legal obligation to respond to a call for aid from a citizen.

What law do you change to make Supreme Court decisions subject to a referendum vote?

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

I do not dispute your point on Supreme Court rulings. I was addressing the statement that "We cannot change a Supreme Court ruling by popular vote."

Are you blind?

We can't.

As I said before there are only 3 ways to change a Supreme Court ruling the popular vote isn;t one of them

Are you blind?

 

[Blues Man]

Have you ever heard of a thing called a Democratic Republic? We don't change laws by majority vote in this country or don't you understand that?

And you dodged the question

If the cops have no legal obligation to come to my aid if I call who should I expect to defend me or my family if the need arises?

Well, to be fair, we can change laws by majority vote. What we don't do is restrict civil rights based on majority vote, which I believe is what you meant.

We cannot change a Supreme Court ruling by popular vote.

The Supreme Court ruled that no law enforcement agency has a legal obligation to respond to a call for aid from a citizen.

What law do you change to make Supreme Court decisions subject to a referendum vote?

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

That's the same old kindergarten stuff like "these rights shall not be infringed upon" or "The law clearly states that no law can be changed" or "No amendment can be amended." That's just kid's talk.

View attachment 273908

There is no law in this instance as I have tried to explain to you

Now you are just being stupid.

If you know then give me a link to that law.

You don't understand how the Supreme Court and their rulings work