←back to thread

115 points perihelions | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.446s | source
Show context
atoav ◴[] No.44452285[source]
Which explains why the administration has acted the way it did.

What has the US become? I am not surprised by the fact that Trump is a fascist, this is a thing I knew in 2016. What surprised me is how little popular resistance he has gotten and with which ease the US population gave away its rights.

I remember a time where americans scolded me online for my countries laws preventing certain types of speech (related to nazi insignia and Hitler), you guys do realize that if your government can just make up bullshit about you and send you to a torture camp abroad without due process, that free speech is no longer free?

Back then you people were adamant that your second amendment was there to protect free speech. But my suspicion back then was that this was mostly a thing guys who grew up in the comfort of a first world civilization would say to come across as tough and manly. And guess what.

replies(9): >>44452586 #>>44452604 #>>44452632 #>>44452683 #>>44452684 #>>44452696 #>>44452699 #>>44453683 #>>44460135 #
rgblambda ◴[] No.44452684[source]
>were adamant that your second amendment was there to protect free speech

I've gotten into arguments with people (usually non Americans who tend to have an American tinge to their accents from consuming so much U.S. media) who are very pro 2nd amendment and wish their country had similar.

I always ask "How do you destroy an M1 Abrams or F-35 with a licenced hunting rifle?". They usually say "Well at least they have that" then quickly move the discussion on to something else.

Anyone who's seen an episode of Cops knows how much protection a firearm provides you against law enforcement. Zero.

replies(4): >>44452738 #>>44452800 #>>44452898 #>>44453719 #
matwood ◴[] No.44452738[source]
At an individual level you are correct, but that's not what the 2nd amendment was about. An armed populace can stand up to a government. All you have to look at are the wars that the US has lost - Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind.

With that said, it's moot since a large portion of the population wants an authoritarian dictator/king. I'm not sure if the founders addressed the issue of the people possibly wanting a king again.

replies(5): >>44452900 #>>44453096 #>>44453245 #>>44453752 #>>44457869 #
js8 ◴[] No.44453096[source]
> With that said, it's moot since a large portion of the population wants an authoritarian dictator/king. I'm not sure if the founders addressed the issue of the people possibly wanting a king again.

You're wrong, twice. Most population doesn't want a dictator king. And founders actually put protections against such scenario, in the form of supreme court.

The actual scenario you're facing is the majority of supreme court (and congress) wanting (or willing to bend a knee to) a dictator king.

replies(3): >>44454195 #>>44454203 #>>44454642 #
ethbr1 ◴[] No.44454642[source]
> the majority of supreme court

Pointing out that if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had retired under Obama the SC wouldn't now be as extreme.

Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

replies(1): >>44457320 #
1. archagon ◴[] No.44457320[source]
I’m sure the Republicans would have found some way to ratfuck that appointment.
replies(1): >>44458134 #
2. ethbr1 ◴[] No.44458134[source]
Not under the 111th supermajority Congress (2009-2011).