this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
98 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4220 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 hours ago

"Terminate the constitution" ~ god king emperor

Is nobody fucking listening?

[–] bluejay@lemm.ee 12 points 3 hours ago (4 children)

People are quick to forget the second amendment exists for situations like this.

"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."

"being necessary to the security of a free State" being the key point here. I find it ironic that every time anyone tries to pass any gun legislation the right cry foul saying they need to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Then literally elect an outspoken tyrant. Neo-liberals (diet conservatives basically) are so busy jerking themselves off about how great they are, forgot why the second amendment exists. Despite all the cries for help, scared of fascism, they did nothing to actually prepare for the perceived threat. If it came down to it, toe to toe, left vs right, they'd get slaughtered. They're afraid of guns.

Now am I saying we need a violent coup d'etat? Nah. But some people are wholly convinced Trump is going to go full on fascist. Do things like invoke the insurrection act, declare martial law and suspend habeas corpus. To those people, y'all need to rethink your stance on arms. If it's coming and you want to stop that freight train? That's war. And you're not ready.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 2 points 13 minutes ago

Waco & Ruby Ridge.

People don't forget. They just get their asses handed to them when they try.

How the hell is Jim Bob going to fight the federal government with his AR-15 when the government can drop a missile on him from a remote control drone?

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 9 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

The 2nd amendment is not and was never meant to be a permission slip to use against the sitting US government, tyrannical or otherwise. This is a rhetoric, a myth, a deliberate misinterpretation that has spread far, but holds no basis is reality. It is absurd on the face of it.

The idea you are proporting is that there is a legal window for insurrection in the constitution so long as it is used in defense of a "free state" against a supposedly tyrannical administration. If such a legal window exists, it would mean that A) there are such times that violent overthrow of the government is sanctioned by said government, B) that any old member of a violent coup gets to determine that their actions are legal by their intent to secure a free state, and C) that if any semblance of the original government survives the coup attempt, that their hands are bound by the constitution and the attempted violent overthrowers can face no legal consequences. What's more, this supposed right will be upheld by the government that is, again, so tyrranical as to make it legal to destroy it at gunpoint. This is just patently foolish to believe.

Make no mistake. If you or anyone else attempts to or does use violent force against ANY form of the US government, you will be violently resisted, arrested or killed by that government. You will not be given any protection from the 2nd amendment for this, ESPECIALLY under a tyrranical administration. If you choose to take such action, just know that you do so under no protection under the law and you will either win, die trying, or spend the remainder of your life in prison. Those are the only outcomes. You will be inciting a civil war. Also if you do win, good luck creating a new stable government in a politically divided nation after a violent overthrow.

[–] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Thank you. There was no real professional army when the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights was drafted. The Continental Army was disbanded and the militias were where most of our fighting forces came from in the War for Independence. "You will find a gun behind every blade of grass". That is why the 2nd Amendment was drafted. "Well regulated" ment trained and prepared to fight.

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 14 points 3 hours ago

Honestly, Democrats should just en masse go full pro-gun, and push the "to protect ourselves from tyranny" narrative and fucking dare Republicans to disagree.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

People are quick to forget the second amendment exists for situations like this.

and that's why we have the highest prison population per capita on the planet: criminal charges are the last good way to deny someone access to firearms

[–] bluejay@lemm.ee 6 points 3 hours ago

Definitely part of it for sure. Part of a larger machine to weaken and stupefy the population.

[–] VubDapple@lemmy.world 20 points 4 hours ago

Well-meaning but empty words it would seem.

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 11 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

No, but apparently there's an electoral mandate for it.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 13 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Disagreed, the Democratic party suffering a temporary implosion does mean most Americans are on board with what the Republican party is proposing. Exit polls showed a lot of voters were basically at "I don't believe the Democratic party when they say Trump is a threat to democracy and human rights because I think the system will protect us from that, but I do believe I'm spending more on groceries than I was four years ago and I think Republicans will fix that because they're good at business stuff," which I think we both know is a very wrong take on what's about to happen, but that's a population we can work with to resist fascism.

The average American isn't ragingly hateful, they're just profoundly uninterested in anything happening outside their own life (probably because they work 60+ hours a week and are still one car crash or medical event away from being destitute) and really need the "marginalized people will suffer and die" constantly shoved in their face for them to recognize that. That is not good, but I believe it is a solvable problem.

[–] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Very well stated. Thank you. There were 16 million people that voted in '20 that sat out and wouldn't vote for either candidate. He got his base to the polls, but that's it, and did not grow his support at all. Dems lost 10 million votes that came out for Biden (what the hell did the DNC do with the $1 Billion??!?!). That's not a real mandate.

But it seems there very much is an electoral mandate.