You're viewing a single thread.
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?
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).
(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.
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.
Fascists do not respect human rights or constitutions.
State govts can mobilize their national guard. The guard is the only military component that can be "deployed" on American soil for combat or civil support like riot control or disaster relief
Active duty and reserve bases exist in the US of course but are generally forbidden from being used for combat operations or enforcing domestic policies on US soil. It's called Posse Comitatus
I mean correct me if I am wrong sending in the National Guard/ Military and using force against civis breaking the constitution?
Depends on what the NG does.
They can be used as 'protection' which would mean a defensive role in the case of civilians engaging in violence. I think the Insurrection Act has to be invoked in order for NG troops to go on the offensive, but I only know what I've read online and am no expert.
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.