Could you just please get on and do it. Get rid of that orange twat.
Sorry, I don’t wanna get accused of being a “CCP Spy trying to sabotage destabalize America” and then DHS will declare my family as foreign terrorists, then have ICE raid my house and deport my dad, a non-citizen.
Cuz in this country, whenever a non-white person does something, everyone who looks like that is getting targeted in hate crimes…
Then the entire Chinese diaspora community would be like: “Why did this loser have to stir the pot and ruin it for the rest of us?”
This problem on the white dudes who voted him in.
That’s not what theyre for. Thats the thing we tell strangers. The guns are for shooting slaves.
In the 21st century, we’re all slaves.
Liberal equality!
“well regulated militia” means “a militia the state approves of”
nah scotus said the militia dont count no more
Thats what i said.
no i know. this is just something i have to explain frequently to people who bought the NRA propaganda
Owning and carrying guns is not for overthrowing the government. That’s absurd. It is however very profitable to convince people that’s the case if you happen to be selling guns.
Just to bring everyone up to speed, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that the whole spiel about a militia is basically irrelevant. Source: Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller (2008).
Love it or hate it, them’s the facts. That said, plenty of other decisions have been overturned at a later date. Like the one that made black people less than equal to whites in Dredd Scott v. Sanford or the endorsement of segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson. So things might change at some point.
Well some historians say the 2nd amendment isn’t about guns, which everyone already had back then, but says states should have their own military.
“Bear arms” means militarization. Not owning a gun. But using a gun.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
It actually was the nra lobbying that changed public and legal interpretation.
Owning a gun does little against tyranny.
But a state militia does.
That’s what it actually meant.
The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
If not for that comma this would be a lot easier to understand.
Doesn’t seems like it say “firearm” as well, so right to bear arm could just mean having a bear as a friend.
Or just his arms, but bears ain’t got no arms therefore you get no rights.
Its illegal in the USA to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government
Technically, it isn’t. As long as you’re not being terribly specific about when and how it should be done, and as long as you’re not ‘inciting’ people to do it.
But if you want to argue – in a more abstract and academic context – that the US government should be violently overthrown, that’s perfectly legal and well protected under the 1st amendment.
I really hope no one takes it into their own hands to destroy all data centers and the billionaire oligarchs that own them. They’d be an absolute hero probably! Can’t have that oh no.
Haha this is there sort of thing that got me permabanned from Reddit! 🤣
Same! I got permabanned for saying we should slash tires of ICE agent vehicles so they can’t kidnap people and drive off. Also the reason for the username here.
I was banned for saying that in many countries in the not so recent past, that in the evening following a losing attempted Insurrection like Jan 6, the occupants of the White House would have been dragged onto the front lawn of the White House, and publicly executed.
It wasn’t a threat, just a simple historical fact. I had posted it several times with no notice at all, but after the Inauguration, Musk had his meeting with Spez, and thousands of active accounts like mine (12 years, 1 million+ karma) were permabanned.
aw at least y’all got banned for good reasons. me?
incorrigible luigiing
Well its true ! I’d really hate for someone on the right side of history to accidentally destroy these data centers and all the bought off politicians responsible for them! That’d be really bad. It would be a detriment to the shareholders which we adore
Like it’s illegal to say…
It’s more than just the government that needs to be overthrown, it’s the WAY we govern each other and ourselves. New constitution. No senate, 2000 house of reps members, no electoral college, direct elections by ranked choice, and while we are at it, provide food, housing, water, power and an info connection to every household in the country
New constitution. No senate, 2000 house of reps members, no electoral college, direct elections by ranked choice
lol, here’s my big copypasta version:
Election by lottery. Every eligible citizen is entered into the lottery to serve in the Senate. Each year on December 1st, 100 citizens are randomly selected to serve a 10-year term, to report to their duty by January 1st. The Senate will consist of 1000 of these people, with 10% of them replaced every year. (If a Senator dies, retires, or otherwise becomes unfit for office during their term, they are not replaced until their term ends, and the Senate will be slightly smaller than 1000.) The first year and the last year of your service in the Senate are special. During your fist year, you will be mentored by a more experienced Senator; you will have full voting rights, but you will be “Silenced” – not able to propose new bills/votes or address the Senate – until your second year. During your last year, you must choose at least one new Senator to mentor.
If selected, service in the Senate is considered mandatory, like being selected for a military draft. Individual Senators can be excused from service or allowed to retire before the end of their 10-year term, but only with approval from a 66% supermajority vote of the Senate. (This is important to help avoid selection bias in the Senate. Otherwise, certain demographics may be underrepresented if that demographic is more likely to refuse service or retire early. It’s also important because the people who don’t want to be in government are exactly who we need in government. If citizens are allowed to refuse service in the Senate, that would bias selection toward the type of people who want power, which may defeat the entire purpose.) Being a Senator should still be a prestigious, respected, and well-paid position, of course – that will only further encourage people to accept their selection if chosen.
If, at any time or for any reason, the Senate has less than 500 Senators, a special selection will be performed immediately, and enough random citizens will be selected to bring the total number of Senators back up to 1000. (This includes the very first selection, since you’d be starting with 0 Senators, which is less than 500.) Since 100 new Senators must be placed every year, replacing the longest-serving ones, some of these Senators chosen in ‘special selections’ may end up serving terms of less than 10 years. (For example, in the very first year of the Senate, 10% of the Senators chosen will only serve for one year.)
The Senate can vote to “Silence” individual Senators – to prevent them from proposing new bills/votes and prevent them from speaking to address the Senate, with a 66% supermajority vote. This can be a temporary punishment or a permanent injunction for the remainder of that Senator’s term, at the Senate’s discretion. Must have an individual vote for each individual Senator to be Silenced – you can’t Silence entire voting blocs with a single vote. Silenced senators, though, will still be in the Senate and will still vote just like any other Senator.
The Senate may (optionally) appoint a Chief Officer, who serves as the head of the Executive Branch, at the Senate’s pleasure. The Chief Officer (and indeed any official in the government outside of the Senate and Judicial Branch) can be removed and replaced at the Senate’s discretion at any time, with a simple majority vote. This Chief Officer can be a Senator, but doesn’t have to be. Doesn’t even have to be a citizen. It can be literally anyone the Senate agrees on (except for any previous Judge or Commander in Chief). Or, if the Senate chooses, they can have no Chief Officer at all, and instead have the heads of each individual department of the government report directly to the Senate. In the event of an exactly tied vote in the Senate (which will probably be very rare), the Chief Officer (if one exists) may cast the tie-breaking vote.
The Senate may (optionally) appoint a Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, only if the Senate has declared war on another country. They may choose to appoint any General or Admiral who is currently serving or has previously served in the military to this role. The Senate will delegate control of the country’s military to the Commander in Chief, who may make sweeping and rapid decisions about the military without consulting the Senate, on the presumption that their experience and ability to respond quickly will enable them to achieve better military results than the Senate or Chief Officer could. The Commander in Chief may only serve during times of declared war, and must step down from their position at the end of the war, ceding control of the military back to the Senate (optionally through the Chief Officer). Like the Chief Officer, the Commander in Chief can be removed and/or replaced at any time with a simple majority vote from the Senate, even if the war is still ongoing. No single person can serve as both Chief Officer and Commander in Chief – not concurrently nor successively.
The Senate will also vote to appoint judges to the higher courts, including the Supreme Court, with a 57% vote required for successful appointment. They may only nominate well-qualified and experienced judges who are well versed in the law and the (new) constitution. These judges will serve for 20-year terms, after which they must retire and may never again serve in government in any other capacity. They can only be removed and replaced with a 75% supermajority vote from the Senate. (To prevent a constitutionally misguided Senate from quickly and easily replacing any judge that rules their new law to be unconstitutional.) And their most important job (as is supposedly the case already) is to rule on whether or not laws passed by the Senate and actions taken by the Executive Branch are allowable and enforceable according to the (new) constitution.
This ensures:
-
The Senate always consists (mostly) of regular people with no political background, and people who are not particularly associated with or beholden to the ultra-wealthy.
-
Some institutional knowledge and experience is built up and retained – at any point, ~10% of the Senate will have 9+ years of experience in government.
-
There will be reduced motivation for ‘lobbying’ and bribery. Since nobody is running for reelection and election campaigns as a whole are a thing of the past, Senators have no need to seek out donations and campaign contributions. They will not be concerned about their voting record having impacts on future campaign contributions. (And if any of them are greedy, well, the Senate is in full control of Senator’s salaries. If they want more money, they can just vote to give themselves more money. No need to seek out bribes.) There’s also no need for the society as a whole to go through the effort and expense of election campaigns anymore – now they can put this effort and money into more useful causes.
-
Nobody can have a lifetime career as a Senator. Every Senator will come from a non-political background and will probably be expecting to return to a non-political life after their 10-year term. They will (generally) understand the struggles and perspectives of common people, and (unless they’re very old when selected) they will expect to have to live as a common person under the laws they passed once their term ends – if they vote to pass a terrible law, they’ll have to experience the consequences of that terrible law later.
-
As the saying goes, “Those who want power the most are the ones you least want to have power.” In this system, the Senate will be full of people who never wanted or asked for power, and the people who want and seek power won’t be able to get it by running for the Senate, at least, because there’s no way to try to be a Senator – it’s all just random luck. (Though they could still seek out positions in the Judicial Branch, the Executive Branch, or private industry. In the first two cases, it would be up to the Senate’s judgement to prevent them from gaining that power.)
-
The Senate will always be (approximately, statistically) representative of the people. Generally, all demographics and ideologies of the citizenry will be proportionally represented. (If the country is 50% female, you can expect ~500 Senators to be female. If the country is 7.2% gay, you can expect ~72 Senators to be gay. If 12% of the country is black, you can expect ~120 Senators to be black. If 20% of the population is atheist, you can expect ~200 Senators to be atheists. Etc.)
-
No powerful “President” or “Prime Minister” or anything will exist. The Chief Officer (if present at all) is only there to be a manager on behalf of the Senate, to handle the day-to-day mundanities of running government services and/or respond to urgent situations that are developing too quickly to organize a vote in the Senate. The Chief Officer’s power is inherently fragile and limited, because they can be replaced quickly and easily at any time if they displease a majority of the Senate.
You lost me at electing senators by lottery. We have a population that reads at a fifth grade level.
No joke, this is has the vibe of my fictional worldbuilding/lore stuff
I like it
-
I think they just censor free speech via private companies. Like the way they do their spying and gangstalking, and proxie wars. I don’t think our place as American HUMANS is natural or where we would be if authenticity and genuinism was a part of Americas governing culture.
Laws need to be enforced too. If they are routinely violated without consequences, they lose all meaning.
Laws are made to be broken.
That’s exactly how ICE operates. Due process is out the window. People are getting arrested, tortured and deported KGB style.
It’s perfectly fine to advocate for a silent but violent overthrow. They can have my beans when they pull my cold, dead finger
Rest in peace Mr. Moore.
Rip a god
Like totally, insanely illegal.
I always thought the 2nd was so the government had a militia to call upon should we be invaded.
It is, mostly.
It was basically the state’s right to have an armed militia so that they may remain a free state.
The second amendment states “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.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution It gives the states the ability to have their own local military as well as private citizens the right to own weapons. Both of these were things the colonial power had outlawed prior to the revolution. The idea was to explicitly list things the previous tyrannical government had done to ensure the new government could not do the same thing. Now language and technology changes which leads to the current debate on gun rights in the USA.
Like isn’t state guard a thing? Thats sound more like what they meant.
It’s hard to read because of how it’s written, but you likely have to read it backwards. People can bear arms, why, Because states may need a skilled well regulated militia.
That is exactly what I would argue. And many others of course. That’s the “well regulated” purpose. They didn’t mean a bunch of fucking idiots with a fetish. They meant the people could always band together to fight for their freedoms. Because the nation didn’t have a standing army at the time. It was a volunteer militia that gained the freedoms to begin with.
should we be invaded
More to protect against native American raids in response to continued encroachment and slave rebellions. These are what militias are effective against.
A militia doesn’t stand a chance against an organized european army, the revolution plainly proved that as the US was losing until they organized the Continental army and put Washington in charge.
Its illegal in the USA to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government,
if you fail, it is.
Even if it wasn’t written down as a law before hand, a failed coup would still end up being considered illegal by the government that won against the coup.
Just as violently rising up against tyranny doesn’t need to be explicity written down as legal for it to become legal if the revolution succeeds.
History and laws are written by the victorious.
Weapons don’t know and don’t care what you do with them. A trigger pull while hunting is no different from the same trigger pull during a revolution. A strike of a knife while cutting cabbage is the same as a strike while chopping up your local equivalent of a secret policeman.
One could argue a hammer is meant to facilitate acts of rebellion but in reality it doesn’t know jack shit what it’s meant for, it’s just happy to be there.
Also it’s legal to own weapons/illegal to advocate for violent overthrow in many, many countries. It’s the intentions that matter.
I think what OP is referring to is that many supporters of “gun rights” like to use the argument that the second amendment is key to the freedom of America because an armed populace cannot be controlled by an authoritarian government. I don’t particularly care for that argument, but if you run with it, it would make sense that the right of the populace to organize armed rebellion is just as important as their right to own and carry weapons.
I wonder what would happen if the second amendment was about proper organization of that “militia” instead. It’s often the deciding factor between success and failure when it comes to rebellion, even when you’re outgunned.
A trigger pull while hunting is no different from the same trigger pull during a revolution.
90% of the difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle is what you point it at.
That and tens of thousands of $ needed to make it perform well in modern war. It’s wild how much combat sniper scopes sell for, let alone some of the ammo needed in significant quantities.
Dude, Amen!! Some of my friends might dry heave at some of the purchases I’ve made and the amount I’ve spent 😅. Yet I’m a drop in the bucket compared to others!
You sound like someone with a lot of guns and experience with them.
No, I can’t even own a rifled gun yet, just subbed to some units and like checking out their gear.
And yet you state your opinion with such confidence. Wild.
My opinion? Checking how much something costs is free and is a fact
edit: some examples for you, Archer TSA-7 is $15k, SAFRAN JIM LR is $20-30k used. Mk211 is $100 a pop, but even if we’re talking about hunting-adjacent rounds high quality 338 and 308 are still expensive
Son, I’m 50 with a case full of reach out and touch someone, and I casually ring steel at 200 yards with a model 80 in 308 (which is a favorite sniper round by the way) with a couple hundred bucks of redfield scope. 20 rounds is $30.
Just because you can find expensive toys doesn’t mean that is what it takes to do the job.
Don’t believe the hype.
If I kick a man to near death do I get charged with assault with deadly weapon for wearing shoes?
Shoes and hammers/knives/other heavy blunt (or not) objects are kinda different, also I don’t know your local laws, so maybe you will?
Difference is most countries are aimed at self-defence… as in against home invaders and such…
The US 2nd amendment seems to be intended for “protection against a tyrannical government”…
Since they (founding fathers) just protected against a tyrannical government, I’m pretty sure they wanted firearms to be fully legal to own in the future to be able to “easily” do the same thing they just did. I just don’t think they realized how good the tyranny would get at propaganda and misdirection! They knew and had seen this before, they understood the reason behind it. A well regulated militia- at least to me- meant the organization of people to take a stand against the government (bc at the time there were no military branches). Therefore if the corrupted politicians of the time tried to arrest or stop from being overthrown, the people’s militia could work to replace the gov with new individuals!
I honestly think, looking back, the formation of the military (or at least 1 reason) was to protect the gov from its people, but the excuse that it’s for foreign threats was used. Outside of a few smaller attacks and WWs, nobody has really “attacked” America in nearly 250 years. Everything else has been self initiated or inflicted; and, personally, I sort of feel the gov keeps all those willing to “fight” tied up in the military, keeping busy fighting other wars so there really is no chance of a domestic uprise… Obviously all speculation and just presumptions based on actions… I’m no expert!
Edit: at least the last part feels that way. Things are getting really bad at home, so what do we do? Start the first draft in roughly 50 years! Again, not an expert…
That’s just collective self defense, though.
I can’t speak for every country but that’s not the case here. As long as you aren’t breaking laws nobody cares if it’s meant for defending against home invaders or collecting dust in a collector’s storage.
Shhhhhh stop trying to bring logic into this…
We overthrow the government routinely (every 1 to 6 years based on the election cycle). It is just illegal to advocate to overthrow it ahead of schedule…
That doesn’t sounds like an overthrow, more like an intended part of the system.
Overthrow would be like:
“Alright folks lets delete the senate and the electoral college, slaps podium in the house of representatives lets rename this this thing ‘Parliament’ and have proportional representation”
But we could do that, there is the constitutional convention procedure that would do exactly that.
