• Don_DickleOP
    link
    fedilink
    127 days ago

    I mean correct me if I am wrong sending in the National Guard/ Military and using force against civis breaking the constitution? I thought that was the whole point of the second amendment. Not taken to the extreme people do. But lets say the national guard open fire on civilizans protect people who have green guards or whatever would not a constitutional lawyer have a field day going after the government?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      226 days ago

      You definitely seem to have the second amendment backwards, as others have mentioned.

      Additionally, the US government has turned the military on its own protesters several times. The Kent State massacre, The Battle of Blair Mountain, and the 1967 Detroit riots are all instances where they murdered civilians and faced no consequences. It’s completely legal and, in all three of those cases, was happily endorsed by much of the populace.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      327 days ago

      You may be misremembering the 2nd amendment:

      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.

      It doesn’t say anything about the government being prohibited from using force against citizens. It’s about citizens being able to have firearms (arguably, with the caveat that they’re part of a militia, but that’s a whole other discussion).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        0
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        (arguably, with the caveat that they’re part of a militia, but that’s a whole other discussion).

        Arguably, it’s the same discussion. Theoretically, the National Guard is the [organized] militia, and the fact that it’s fighting against the people instead of defending them just goes to show how perverted it’s become from its original purpose.

        By the way, I say “[organized]” because the “unorganized militia” is defined as:

        all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States

        (Yes, you read that right: even the ‘dreamers’ and asylum-seekers the thugs are trying to deport count as militia as long as they’ve declared that they want to become citizens. Also, yes, the definition is sexist and really ought to be updated to be gender-neutral.)

        Also by the way, the National Guard/militia is supposed to be under the control of the state governor, not the President. So that’s another way this is fucked up: I would argue that Trump is violating the 2nd Amendment, on to of everything else, by usurping the militia.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          127 days ago

          Many states actually have literal “state militias,” they’re just not activated. The National Guard is more of a federal, centralized military force than a militia.