no government shall bare arms against its own citizens
Is this some kind of quote? Because 90% of what all governments do is exactly that: using weapons against their own citizens.
Yeah. In Germany it's called the "violence monopoly".
thats like literally what the executive does
I think you are mixing this up with the function of the executive goverment in a state with alleged separation of powers (one of the fundamentals of democracy).
A president himself sending out forces is in fact not normal.
Especially when both that city's mayor and state governor explicitly do not want those troops there.
citizens are the government though. if they are not, its not democratic country.
Still, there should be no need to even threaten citizens with violence and if there is, it should be resolved mutually instead of just oppressing the people into submission.
Police officers are part of the government, they bear arms against citizens literally every day. The premise is entirely flawed.
Is it, or are you accepting a state of being that you should not?
What's happening is that the other two branches of our government have (mostly) abdicated to the Executive branch; therefore, absent the lower courts who can't act in real-time for the most part, Donald has carte blanche to do whatever he wants without any meaningful accountability.
Some court or another may intervene, but it can't happen quickly enough to stop what ICE is doing right now.
Not to mention that both the SCOTUS and other courts have ordered this administration to cease deporting people without due process, which they've unsurprisingly have gone on to ignore.
There has been no blanket ban, however many individual cases are being reverse and TRO's are flying in full swing. I'd suggest following this immigration attorney for a (very depressing) play-by-play including links to the filings.
This is the perfect time to army up and storm Fox News. Salem Media Group, OAN, the Heritage Foundation, and every other Nazi organization in the US.
Bearing arms against it's citizens is literally the entire point of a government. The state is just a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The only time a government is not bearing arms against it's citizens is when the threat of bearing arms against it's citizens is enough to get what it wants.
The point of a government is looking after its citizens.
I'm socialist that way. Although, am I? Even in the middle ages when a lord didn't look after his people he was in deep shit.
What a hopeless take. A governments role is literally to do things that individuals can’t - roads, schools, moon landings, etc.
Use of force against its own people is self harm and should not be something a government does.
It's not quite the same thing as deploying soldiers against protesters, but technically all of those things are done ultimately through the use of coercive and violent force. Don't want to go to school? Your parents will make you, because if they don't they could be imprisoned. Slightly inconvenience drivers by walking across a busy street not at a crosswalk? Could be fined or arrested for jaywalking. Pose a hazard to rocket launches by flying a makeshift aircraft in federal airspace with no flight plan? You know the drill. That's not to mention the funding for all those things, the violence inherent in which doesn't stop at taxes, but also is a central factor in maintaining the value of a currency in a variety of different ways.
Securing the resources to spend on communal projects that benefit the state is one of the many reasons that state employs violence against its citizens, yep.
Roads are a great example because across the world, major road projects were always built to speed up the military getting to and putting down rebellious provinces - bearing arms against their subjects.
All states are instruments of violence, that's their sole function. Anything they do that makes our lives easier is just the velvet glove over that iron fist. It's easy to pretend otherwise when the state hasn't turned its violence on you yet.
Fascism.
Well, a few things...
First and foremost, all authority is derived from a threat of force. Let's just get that out of the way.
Second, the "agreement" not to use that force on our own citizens has been steadily blurred by an increasingly militarized police force. What we've been seeing in terms of civil unrest in this country is the inevitable result of that. The police in this country have turned themselves into an occupying force.
Third, conservative media has been gradually instilling a desire for violence in conservative culture. They've been doing this for decades. They've been playing the same familiar tropes that enable cultures to engage in the practice of othering, which makes them ambivalent to the idea of violence being inflicted on people outside of their cultural identity.
Lastly, Trump doesn't give a shit about this, and neither do conservative representatives. Outright flagrant dishonesty is a pillar of cultural conservatism. Never believe what they are saying. They have a set of rules and protections that they apply to others, and an entirely different set that they apply to everyone else.
A, uh, government bearing arms against its citizens….why you ask…?
Tell that to the kids murdered at Kent State.
Trump found out that he can gas protesters. Permission was given to him for that church walk/photo op. No one did boo. So now, Trump is gasing protestors again.
When will you get gassed?.
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.
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.
they aren‘t shooting a ratm music video
Hidden arms
