this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
231 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2561 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

He never said anything like that. You're reading your own interpretation into it and then objecting to that.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.