hahaha people still talking about the constitution as if it fucking matters. even w bush tore the bill of rights into pieces, you think it has any relevance now? with a 6-3 insane-to-liberal ratio in the supreme court? no. you're fucked.
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
230 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19089 readers
5460 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There's talk of expanding the court before January
Talk you say? Buddy, even if the Democrats had the balls to try, it's already too late. Republicans blocked Obama from his constitutional right to nominate a new justice. You really think they won't do everything possible to prevent this?
Or if it did happen, you really think Biden is the one that will get to fill those seats?
that should've been done immediately after biden won. now it doesn't matter, the rulings already fucked everything. and whatever biden does will be undone in January
But if Democrats actually took meaningful action to prevent Republicans from steamrolling our rights, what will they campaign on next election?
"Terminate the constitution" ~ god king emperor
Is nobody fucking listening?
I assume this was the last American election.
Another thing: remember when he told the evangelicals they would need to vote again?
Yeah, that's also because Armageddon.
There will still be elections. Just like in China and Russia.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
My guy…
They can drop bombs on you from hundreds of miles away via an unmanned drone…
Would you people please remember the day and age we are in now? Holy shit.
Yes, this. I always laugh at the meal team 6 types that think they are going to be the Wolverines or whatever the fuck if Clinton, or Obama, or Biden were to get all tyrannical on them (yeah, right).
If some Democratic president were to ever actually go after these yokels like they imagine, they'd fold so goddamn fast.
And that goes for ANY group in the United States. But no one else but the extremist right jerks off about resisting Big Government with their little toys.
The guy operating the drone is still allergic to bullets. So is the politician giving the orders.
Submarines, stealth fighters, etc are good for fighting militaries, not anonymous armed civilians.
Insurrections armed with small arms drove the US military out of Iraq and Iran, and that's with none of the US military changing sides because they were being ordered to aguaranheir own people.
Shy of carpet-bombing cities and nuking the countryside, a tyrannical government can't fully shield itself from an armed population. And when they start committing that level of atrocity, the military starts breaking into factions.
The amount of digitaal surveillance that we're all under is a very powerful tool however.
load more comments
(7 replies)
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.
Indeed, just ask the Black Panthers how well that went.
Democrats can't do anything right. The party is beyond saving. The progressive element needs to splinter off and start actually working for the people
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?
Jim bob can’t, because they’ll kill him easily.
Now if there’s thousands of Jim bobs, all moving around, things get tricky. Now you need people on the ground looking for these people.
We spent 20 years in the Middle East fighting this exact kind of war, and guess who still exists? The fucking terrorists.
The terrorists in the middle east depend on the West not having the stomach to kill women and children.
Tell me if there will be any terrorists left in Gaza after Israel kills every man, woman, and child.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
You do realize that the people who wrote the Second Amendment had literally just finished violently overthrowing their "rightful" government (the British monarchy), right?
And they did so illegally, as would anyone else that tries it now. I'm not saying there is no imaginable situation where insurrection isnt warranted, righteous, and even necessary. But it will never be legal. If you disagree, please explain how you imagine the 2nd amendment would protect insurrectionists that kill government officials, police, or soldiers.
So? The person upthread never claimed the Second Amendment makes insurrection "legal," only that it makes it possible by keeping the populace armed. Why are you making a strawman argument?
They are arguing that the fundamental purpose 2nd amendment is to allow the overthrow the sitting government. To make it a legally protected right of the citizenry to take back a supposedly tyrannical government by lethal force and war. That is false.
He never said anything like that. You're reading your own interpretation into it and then objecting to that.
People are quick to forget the second amendment exists for situations like this.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" being the key point here.
the right cry foul saying they need to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Then literally elect an outspoken tyrant. Neo-liberals [...] forgot why the second amendment exists. [...] If it came down to it, toe to toe, left vs right, they'd get slaughtered.
some people are wholly convinced Trump is going to go full on fascist. [...] 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.
How do you interpret all that if not that the 2nd amendment exists to overthrow/incite war with a tyrranical government?
How do you interpret all that if not that the 2nd amendment exists to overthrow/incite war with a tyrranical government?
It does exist to do that. To make it possible. But you kept arguing that it existed to make it "a legally protected right," which is a different thing.
How many times do I have to explain to you that "possible" and "legal" are not equivalent before you finally get it?
What is the purpose of the bill of rights in the constitution? To establish a set of legally protected rights. If the 2nd amendment exists, as they said, for this exact purpose, then it exists to give people that right. It doesn't. It was to allow small trained militias to be formed to protect the homefront from outside threats. Not to destroy the nation they had literally just formed.
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.
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
Definitely part of it for sure. Part of a larger machine to weaken and stupefy the population.
load more comments
(11 replies)
Well-meaning but empty words it would seem.
No, but apparently there's an electoral mandate for it.
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.
Everyone knows exactly what Trump stands for.
There are 74+ million people who want a regressive fascist rapist in power.
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.
While I think this is a good level headed take, you're seriously underestimating how comfortable with fascism the average american voter truly is. If they readily accept "immigrants and queers did it" as an answer to their admittedly worsening living standards, when corporations are no longer even hiding their plunder, they were looking for a reason to turn on them anyway.
This is by design, and the democrats are just as much at fault. The US flag has been synonymous with torture, genocide, death squads, weaponized rape whether a Democrat or a Republican is at the helm, and it's only been the so-called hard leftist minority struggling for change within the US. As long as they reaped a tiny sliver of benefit from global imperialism, they were happy to shut up and tug for a bigger slice of the pie.
Now that they hardly even get the crumbs, parts of the electorate want to continue as usual, another part wants to get the whole world again so the crumbs alone can fill them up. But the US, from the ground up, has been designed so that you can only get a progressive in power by accident. If a fascist can get elected and immediately start wielding near-absolute power, you were always a corporatocracy with a fascist contingency plan.
load more comments
(4 replies)
No matter what the Roberts Supreme Court says, the president is not a king, and he is not entitled to ignore the law in order to do whatever he pleases.
"Hold my beer."
Trump and his ilk have one very strong play that they have used over and over and over again: Break the law and dare the justice system to do anything about it. Delay everything. Do whatever you want and avoid consequences.
Trump has stacked SCOTUS and the federal courts. Any outcome he doesn't like will just get appealed to someone whose mandate is "figure out how to shield Trump from consequences." If that's not a king, I don't know what is.
But it seems there very much is an electoral mandate.
view more: next ›