comment: >
  
  I don’t think so. The sheriffs are claiming the law is a violation of the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution, not the state constitution. The US constitution doesn’t give them this power, in fact they aren’t even mentioned, as the poster said.
context: "I hate Illinois Nazis." Blues Brothers. >
  
  First, not as many people in Germany in 1930's carried guns as a form of self defense. Most gun owners were people who hunted for sport or to sell wild game at market.
  Second, even if every German Jew was armed they still wouldn't have been able to stop the NAZI's. They had the police, military and their own paramilitary forces that were better armed and trained.
  Third, this doesn't strip anyone of any Constitutional rights. >
  
  
  Second, even if every German Jew was armed they still wouldn't have been able to stop the NAZI's. They had the police, military and their own paramilitary forces that were better armed and trained.
  
  You're going to ruin someone's fantasies with talk like that. >
  
  They legit rolled over entire standing militaries in short order and these fucking inbred hillbillies practicing on stationary PBR cans here at home think they'd be able to do a goddamn thing to our military if they ever backed a despot. It's not 1776 and any fascist at the helm of U.S. forces wouldn't have them playing with kids gloves like we were in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It'd be scorched Earth. >
  
  To be fair, the United States just lost a war to a bunch of goat farmers. But I don't think the average American is anywhere near as brave or experienced as your average Taliban insurgent. >
  
  The difference here is the Taliban was well armed and trained by both the US military and the Russian military. They were formed from the remnants of the competing groups in the region during the 80s when the US was arming the Mujahideen to fave the Russian backed groups. Taliban, isil, all of the current groups are in power because of us.
  The US military just helps make guns available here in the states. They're not directly training the hillbillies. The military hillbillies are coming back and training their own groups of hillbillies. But I wouldn't call that as effective as being trained by the richest nations in the world to overtake existing government systems like the radicals in the middle east got. >
  
  I do not understand the distinction between police and sheriffs…except that sheriffs are elected?  Can someone explain this to me? >
  
  Police are city mostly. They are sworn officers and "employees" 
  Sheriffs are usually elected and work for the County they are sheriffs of.  Deputy sheriffs work under the elected sheriff and the county and are unelected. >
  
  Many thanks for the clarification. >
  
  Basically police departments have no jurisdiction outside of their city. Sheriffs are there to enforce the laws outside of city limits. >
  
  But, police can break laws right? Cause is that not what there doing, going against what is said? >
  
  Sure they can. Weed is still federally illegal. All places where police and sheriffs don't arrest for it are technically breaking the law. 
  The only real reason you don't have the marshalls and fbi kicking in pot shop doors is that it would be inconvenient without local support. >
  
  Bad news... Sheriffs are not in the constitution. >
  
  I think he pretty clearly meant the U.S. Constitution. >
  
  Then he's unaware of the fact that states are bound by the US Constitution and their state constitution.