There Is No Constitutional Mandate for Fascism
No matter what the Supreme Court says, the president is not a king.
Archived at https://archive.is/3iShU
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
Na you're right better to just roll over and die. The war in the middle east we won decisively without question because bombs. Same with Vietnam.
American military relies on three things. American people who want to fight, logistic networks and symmetrical warfare. Take away one of the legs like in the middle east and the us military becomes useless.
Try again.
Guerrilla resistance could prevent the US military from ever implementing full-on fascism in this country no matter the military, to that much I agree. But you'd need people to give a shit. They really do not seem to.
You just don’t get it.
There's a reason why America stopped doing conscription during Vietnam. Turns out that 90% of folks can't be trained to willingly shoot people and a large fraction of the remainder would sooner shoot their own commanding officer than some poor foreign kid.
And what about when they threaten those people with killing their family, friends, and anything else they hold dear? What about demanding them or go to jail? Lose their home? Lots of things can happen.
Are you not aware that draft dodging was a crime?
You might want to lower your expectations a bit. :)
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.
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.
Tell me if there will be any Republicans left to vote after Trump goes full Blair Mountain on the 60% right-wing Teamsters that refuse to cross a picket line.
The coddled doughboys in the hard right are not going to be resilient like some of these other cases. They just aren't. TBH, there are very few Americans that would have that kind of temerity. People live very, very soft lives here.
This is why the people who scream "resist" don't. They/you always operate under the assumption it's just a guy and a group of crazy people.
You think civilians with guns are going to thwart an army?
Sure, if they are coming after you directly and you've got nothing else to lose, it would make sense to make a stand.
But if you preemptively show that you are a threat then you will be bringing that upon yourself, and possibly others, needlessly. We have seen this before, as another user pointed out, with Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Do not make yourself a target and a danger when the threat against you is just shitty laws that benefit the wealthy.
Civilians did thwart an army. Look at the middle east. We didn't win shit, we just left.
It worked in the middle east because the government had to avoid offending the sensibilities of the American people. Imagine how it would go if the American people had been indoctrinated completely into a fascist hate frenzy.
That would never happen in America, of course ( /s ). However, imagine what war with America would be like with a fascist government firmly in control.
Imagine what would happen to the minority of civilians who would engage in revolt?
The fact is the U.S. is still a democracy. If there were enough people to win in a fight against the government, they could just vote in who they want. As much as it makes me sick to say it, that's what they just did.
It's probably prudent for me to mention a few things, one I don't personally think that's where this is going, at least not yet. Two I'm aware of the sheer size and number of Americans would need to whole heartedly participate. I'd never expect that many to even get off the couch. I was more directing the sentiment of "resistance" that so many keyboard jockey liberals keep throwing around. I would not start or attempt to lead or even advocate for this level of action so prematurely. What I failed to articulate was I was operating under the assumption america had a civil war at the same scale of our first, or like other countries have had.
To your point, tangentially, if it were left v Trump 'regime', they'd (Trump regime) probably have support from Russia at the very least. We already know how limp dick NATO is. It would be a blood bath with a pinhole path to victory.
Do I believe it could happen or work with the current state of our country? No. Do I think we'll get there? No. Do I want it to? Still no. My point was if the left want it they should put their money where their mouth is and that it's not impossible for a well organized civilian army to "win" to some effect. Especially since something like that is bound to cause some splintering in the military.
I'd say at this point the left's response, if they want to stop the decline of the country, is to abandon the Democratic party and form a new party that actually puts the needs of the 99% above the needs of the 1%.
Communism and Socialism have no chance in the US, but a social democrat is probably pretty close to what the majority of Americans want.
Of course, I'm not talking about a group that only surfaces once every four years. The presidency shouldn't even be a thought. Instead, we need a progressive party, dedicated to people, and working at the local and state level to fix what we can there.
I agree. Would help if the party didn't accept corporate money, like the Sander campaign before the DNC fucked him over.
Do not make yourself a target and a danger when the threat against you is just shitty laws that benefit the wealthy.
Bold of you to assume that's the only threat.
I mean, that was meant to be an obvious oversimplification.
You know they got drones, right?
You're bringing guns to a drone fight.
Drones can't search houses for contraband or arrest dissidents.
If Trump starts blowing up whole neighborhoods in search of insurgents he's just going to manufacture more insurgents.
Neo-liberals (diet conservatives basically) are so busy jerking themselves off about how great they are, forgot why the second amendment exists.
That isn't why the second amendment exists, but you're too busy jerking yourself off about how much better you are than "liberals" to know that.