817
Opinion: Brace yourselves: whatever crazy, awful things Trump may have done to date, it’s only going to get worse
(www.theglobeandmail.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025
817 points (98.5% liked)
politics
20563 readers
5707 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And American still just going to whine on the internet and do nothing about it.
If anything this has completely vaporized the "checks and balances" democratic system everyone was so obsessed about.
Americans need to update the constitution where people have the power to dethrone a dictator as of right now theres nothing right?
I was thinking about this last night. If we fall, can (do we have the will) we write a better Constitution?
They already have it.
The 2nd amendment.
Ah yeah, my semi automatic hunting rifle is really going to stop the armored military and the drones, and the mass data collection. Me and 1000 other people sure will make a difference right up until they shut off the internet and mow us down.
Tanks, jets, and rocket launchers are good against other armies. They're pretty shitty against anonymous civilians. It's why the US lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And in the US, the civilians would have 2 other advantages:
Only if your army isn't willing to go on a genocide.
We live in a budding techno-fascist police state. Your argument depends on anonymity. That is almost completely lost on the modern America. Hong Kong is one if many examples over the last 15 years. They'll find you. They'll disappear you. Sure. Buy yourself a gun and load up on ammo. It will do you lots of good when they break your door down if you actually prove to be a credible threat.
People don't have to be part of an organized, traceable resistance when everyone has guns and the targets aren't military in nature.
United Healthcare lost its CEO to a random dude lone gunman while he was walking down the street.
The idea is to make everybody a potential threat to those who abuse power. But one side of the political spectrum decided that guns are bad and disarmed themselves, so 90% of the guns are owned by fascists.
The US has way better surveillance of irs own cotizens than it had of Afghanistan. They will send Homeland Security after any militia before it becomes a credible threat to them.
If the end result is the same, fighting is the only choice.
Search for "Winter on Fire"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzNxLzFfR5w
can't get it without logging in
I agree that a full scale war against the US military using small arms is probably not likely to go well for those attempting it, but assassinating a president is a different thing altogether. America has assassinated many presidents.
Luigi mangione is being tried as a terrorist with the maximum sentencing of the death penalty
Just sayin'
What Luigi did was just.
However, the 2A is specifically, ahem, targeted at removing government.
The 2A was about maintaining state militias to catch runaway slaves and to suppress slave rebellions. The south wanted it, the north didn't care. At the time the amendments were being written, here was little to no discussion of the idea that an armed citizenry would be able to resist state tyranny. They had just fought a revolution and had a very clear idea of what it took to break away from England. It was a lot more than farmers with hunting rifles or posses of slave-catchers.
I'm not saying that armed resistance is not necessary. I'm just saying the 2A was never really for that. But there are many examples of barely armed citizen's movements overthrowing governments. Without compliance, without legitimacy, their power can be broken.
I'd somehow never heard this argument before, so I found some random article about it: https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2023/06/slavery-militias-and-methodologies-thoughts-on-carl-boguss-madisons-militia
I can't speak to the quality of the source above, but they argue that your basic thesis is true, but is not the full story. All the former colonies (including non-slave states) wanted militias instead of a peacetime national military, which was as much or more of a driver for adoption of the 2nd amendment than the idea of using militias for appearing slave rebellions.
But that's just literally the first article I read about it, so I dunno.
The other data point that's useful is that, in the Continental Congress and in the political debates that led to the writing of the Constitution, there were constant complaints (mainly from the southern states) that northern states were negligent in maintaining the readiness of their militias. After the Constitution was written, this continued, and was one of the main reasons that US military leadership was predominantly southern: they got early military experience in their state militias.
The GOP shows that yes, you can say the quiet part aloud and still have supporters
I agree that what he did was just, the government which is supposed to uphold the 2nd amendment does not was my point.
Yeah lol that would never happen.
If americans can't even form strong, lasting peaceful protests how could they form an armed resistance against literally the most advanced and powerful military in the world? Even US police is equipped with military APCs - what is your glock gonna do about that?
The 2nd amendment never made sense in the contemporary world. The casualty rate would be 1 to HUNDREDS just through sheer technological and skill difference and no uprising can possibly sustain that.
Yeah but this sort of cartoon type of dictator is not realistic.
They always have some public support and as long as you lie and control some useful idiots it's never going to be an ideal rise up people think it would be. It'll be chaos with some resistance that'll be marked as terrorists and nothing will be clear enough for "taking down some baddies with me" scenarios.