- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Their fantasy is specifically a David Koresh moment where the ATF and FBI come at them for fucking children.
Well, based on the average marksmanship displayed by most American shooters, those cops and soldiers can probably expect to go about their business with absolute safety.
If they are willing to defend facism and defend a dictator…then what’s the problem?
At some point your “I’m just doing my job” becomes, “I support an American dictatorship.”. Do you not have morals? Your “job” has now become antithetical to the American Democratic Ethos - you are now a de facto traitor to your country. Last I checked, traitors are an enemy of the state.
…so again, what’s the problem?
American Democratic Ethos
Not sure which slaveholders or Manifest Destiny folks you’re putting on a pedestal, but even if—big if—America’s dead once had admirable and pro-humanity values, today’s terrified, uneducated, unhappy, unkind, impoverished shithole does not.
Being an awful person appears to reflect perfectly these last generations of the American Empire.
then they came for the civilians. And I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a civilian.
Yeah Thomas Mann’s poem is still relevant and more people need to read it and understand it.
If you “only follow commands”, you are still implicated in every action. If you are a cop you are literally one of the checks in the system of checks and balances.
stop, I can only get so erect
If you ever bought a gun because you thought you would use it to kill the people you hate the most, stop and consider that I am one of those people
Oh yeah the very nice police force that has absolutely not been systematically trained to shoot first and ask questions later when things go south?
Yeah no shit buddy. It’s come to that point. I like you Pete, but don’t bury your head in the sand on this one. American soldiers defend fascism.
2018 was a different time
No it wasn’t. Hell, it was even 2 years into the first Trump term.
Do you think he would say anything different now?
I think his audience has shifted
In what ways?
What has Pete done to make you believe he is going after an audience that would disagree with this statement and/or that he would now disagree with this statement?
Your initial comment was that “2018 was a different time” I’m trying to understand what you think has changed so drastically since then.
I think a lot of people stopped listening to the rad libs like Maddow and became disaffected from the Democrats since then. those folks are (at least around me) engaging in more radical acts of resistance than the marching-and-shouting that dominated the public actions of that time. so while buttegieg probably hasn’t shifted much, and might think he’s still talking to those same people, many of them are no longer listening.
No, we knew it was fascism then too.
Nah, every time pete pops up it’s something stupid that makes me like him less and less.
Maybe because he would be a fairly normal right wing figure in another country?
They’re talking about how this tweet is from 2018. Different situation then.
I like you Pete
Why, though? He’s a Neoliberal proponent of Reaganomics Lite and McKinsey grad (but I repeat myself) who keeps failing upwards.
It seems to be the only cure for fascism, sadly.
I think this is directed at the right
If the government comes for me, they’re bringing more people than I can shoot. The first answer to that, is to prevent that from happening through political action. The second is that you don’t respond to that with a gun.
Everyone on Ruby ridge was armed, everyone in Waco was armed. They’re all dead for their troubles. A gun won’t fix that problem.
“Armed resistance never works” says the uneducated and ahistorical American with no understanding of the world outside the fascist empire they live in.
I didn’t say armed resistance doesn’t work. I said your gun isn’t going to work.
You need a gun to join an armed resistance, Einstein. Surrendering your guns prevents your ability from joining an organized resistance.
Pretty sure I pull up with a semi full of fertilizer and I’d be their bestest friend.
It’s not about the reality of defending yourself from tyranny with homicide. It’s about the psychological comfort that the warped fantasy brings.
If you are as good as dead either way, why do you think it’s better to go down without a fight?
Being disarmed won’t save you, it just makes you an easier victim of the same forces.
The 2nd amendment LITERALY states it to use against the gov…
Ahem…
“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.”
Where, exactly?
I know reading context isn’t easy for Americans so let me, a foreigner, explain it to you.
That document was written about 10 years after the Americans launched an armed insurrection against their government so they could pay less taxes and due to a grievance about parliamentary representation. In this context when they write about a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a “free State,” they actually imply that the security guarantee is against a tyrannical state of which they had recently been at war with. They understood that the free state (for white landlords) was precarious and could change so they believed that the hedge against that was local participatory militias. To note here is a “well regulated militia” in this era implies the adoption of military rank and file and internal regulations, not governmental imposed regulations on the existence of the militia or the weaponry itself.
I know reading is very hard. I hope with practice you may someday be able to read and understand context. It takes a lot of effort to become literate. Good luck on your journey.
so they could pay less taxes and due to a grievance about parliamentary representation
They did primarily because they wanted to expand their settler colonies further into native lands while the British government had tried restricting settler expansion.
The “free state” was never about preventing oppression of the citizens or launching an insurrection against the state. I don’t know where this bizzare view comes from, since the constitution literally defines treason against the state to be punishable by death.
Good explanation. Really no need for the insults though.
Ahem…
They kinda asked for it.
Nah, atp Americans that don’t understand their own constitution need to have snark thrown at them.
Being that fucking stupid is costing people their lives.
Truth hurts sometimes
You are correct, but implying something is not the same as literally stating something
In this context when they write about a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a “free State,” they actually imply that the security guarantee is against a tyrannical state of which they had recently been at war with.
No, it doesn’t. Read Article 8, as it describes what the militia’s purpose is. At the time “the people” meant “the states”, as each state was to be secure in it’s own abilities and authorities to manage it’s militias. The purpose was to put down insurrections and slave revolts.
Remember, also, that to be “in the militia”, you were also reporting for regular muster and inspections. By the government.
Considering there are only 7 articles to the constitution I assume you mean Article 1 Section 8 which defines the ability of the federal government to call forth a militia but does not itself impose any substantive limits on the militias beyond that? Is that the article you are referring to? Maybe you should re-read it. Well regulated language is conceptually distinct from congress’s power defined in A1 § 8 to organize and discipline a militia once its activated. The text also imposes no federal prohibition on state or unorganized militias from setting membership or arms. If it isn’t prohibited by the language of the document, it is allowed.
Yes, sorry… the militia clause, as its known
The purpose of the militia is to put down insurrection, not to engage in it.
The word “regulated” has had only one actual meaning… the same as it means to regulate interstate commerce.
And only a couple of years later, the militia acts passed.
At the time “the people” meant “the states”
Please take a government class before continuing with your understanding of the Constitution
Please read why the 14th amendment extended the bill of rights to apply to people…
That’s not what the 14th amendment does
The 14th provides birthright citizenship, outlines that states won’t imprison people without due process, covers congressional proportionality, and makes insurrection/treason cause for not being eligible for office
Seriously, take a constitutionality class, you need it
I pray you actually read what people point you too:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
No it doesn’t. The role of the militias were to be called up to put down insurrection and slave revolts.
I’d love to see some reports of “gun toting Americans” blasting the shit out of ICE agents. The problem is ice agents and gun toting Americans are the same group.
that’s a fucking lie. there’s plenty of armed leftists. not enough (yet) but plenty.
join us. there is no other way to stop the dystopia from spreading.
We’re not all in the same group… I’m not an ICE agent, but I am a gun toting
Americanworking class person.I have noticed that ICE usually wants to conduct their splashy raids in areas with very low gun ownership, e.g., NYC, Boston, etc.
Your terms are acceptable.
It also involves the fantasy that you and your freedom buddies will survive a serious encounter with US armed forces because you have camos and tactical boots.
