• RyanDownyJr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Unfortunately, it’s added to the list of “so sue me” which is basically this administration response on anything they have done in the last year and change

      • MerryJaneDoe@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        The Constitution allows for the possibility of a gangster Administration. Checks and balances. The hope was that the Supreme Court and Congress would keep the executive branch in check.

        The Constitution also recognizes that no system is perfect, so it adds the right to bear arms. Not for sport. Not for defense. The Second Amendment exists specifically to fight tyranny. Just in case the elections get rigged and an extremist party takes control.

        Such an unlikely scenario, amiright?

        • BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          …the argument your making about the 2nd amendment is why it’s now obsolete. When America was founded, firearms could actually be used to overthrow a corrupt government. They had practical utility. At this point, however, half the population armed with assault rifles wouldn’t make a difference. A combination of the government’s mass surveillance and superior firepower would put down the rebellion before it got off the ground

          I’m of the opinion that the constitution should adjust to changing times. 18th century laws aren’t geared to solve 21st century issues.

          • MerryJaneDoe@piefed.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            Totally agree with you, a handgun is no match for a tank. If the military wants to make war on citizens, they will lose.

            However, there is more going on that meets the eye. Many members of the military would not want to shoot their own citizens. And armed citizens can still do more damage than unarmed citizens. In other words, the 2A forces an authoritarian administration to use violence in order to repress the citizens. It ups the stakes. And citizens can strike in ways that the military can’t. Guerilla warfare tactics. They don’t need to “win”, they just need to disrupt, to spread fear.

            But, yeah, with the current surveillance state, along with the culpability of the media, it seems a dubious proposition that armed citizens can save themselves from the fascists. Regardless, I have suddenly become a HUGE proponent of guns. Especially when I see the Black Panthers providing security for demonstrators. Respect.