550
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
550 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19240 readers
1629 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Well I sure feel safe.
I mean, 183 out of 1.4+ million is pretty small, even if you account for the ones they don't know about.
The problem isn't the small percentage. The problem is that if these people are in the right places, they can cause a lot of damage.
Bare in mind that the 2020 election was saved when a handful of people refused to follow Trump into fascism.
Sure, but again I think you're underestimating just how enormous the US military industrial complex is. It'd take a notable percentage of mid to high ranking individuals to cause a significant amount of damage to the US's military. You also have to consider the military isn't just service members, but also civilians and contractors, so add in another few million people to that number.
Jan 6th wasn't even remotely close to Trump actually succeeding in his half-assed coup attempt. The only real danger during that election was from the conspicuous attempts from Trump to get states to overrule the election results, which has nothing to do with the military.
I'm not saying this particular report isn't concerning, I'm just saying it isn't cause to become seriously worried for the future of the military's allegiance to the constitution and their impact on the democratic process.
What? I think you underestimate how blocking the certification process would have turned the entire US government and state legislatures against Trump and Pence. The courts would NOT have ruled in their favor, even with hard right courts. They'd most likely just defer the issue to Congress, where they'd then have to contend with both the House and the Senate, the majority of which was NOT on board with Trump's half-brained coup attempt.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3520160-pences-lawyer-told-him-blocking-vote-certification-would-likely-lead-to-court-loss-standoff-with-congress/
Even Pence's lawyer consulted him that they would almost certainly lose if he opted to block it.
And back to the original context of this whole comment chain, even the US military's top brass at the time all said they would NOT back Trump's claims and would absolutely not support his coup. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/563117-top-generals-feared-trump-would-attempt-coup-after-election-and-had-informal/
I don't see the vast majority of the top brass ever changing on that stance. There might be some extremist generals that would, but they'd be in the minority and certainly wouldn't go far and would quickly be relieved of duty.
Jan. 6 was a test run and went further than they expected. The real thing is probably coming and it's going to be bad. There's a chance of saving this country, but it requires a contingent of people realizing they're wrong and those people aren't you or I.
At the time it felt like that, but this SCOTUS thankfully seems unwilling to entertain his election BS.
Remember, SCOTUS is powerful because the US is a stable constitutional democracy. In fascist coups the judiciary is typically first put against the wall. All justices not named Clarence Thomas are smart enough to understand this.
I like turtles.
I fail to see how doing things like keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people and domestic abusers or making it harder to purchase one on the spur of the moment will make anything easier for them. Perhaps you can explain it to me.
yeah, because guns are stupid and never help anyone with anything, except in making unstable people worse.. only morons cling to guns for safety.. guns are for the weak and fearful..
Or you can just think they're cool like a car. Saying something is too dangerous to own is fucking stupid, we sell dynamite commercially and anfo by the ton. Bombings just aren't common because they're are reasonable licensing and registration requirements.
Don't you think the reason there are licensing and registration requirements for dynamite is because it's too dangerous to own?
It's clearly not too dangerous to own, it's dangerous enough to license.... That was my point.
And if you don't have a license, you are not allowed to ___ it?
Purchase or possess, yes.... You're taking a real slow route to a very obvious point.
Register, license and own whatever the fuck you want.
So....... own.
Without a license. You're being a dope, I'm for licensing and registration not a total ban. I'm not quite sure why you chose such a sequitous route good such a stupid point.
I'm having a little fun poking at you because you called another poster fucking stupid while missing their point entirely, and you called me dope while being completely unable to see the contradiction I was laying out in front of you.
I'll stop here, but you'll have better conversations online if you engage with people sincerely rather than jumping straight to insults about others' intelligence.
I didn't call anyone fucking stupid I said saying guns are too dangerous to own is fucking stupid. Someone can hold an ideal that is idiotic without being an idiot, don't be so thin skinned on sometime else's behalf. There is no contradiction dude, you were/are being a dope.
That's great advice, you should take it.
My dude, chill out. You'll have better conversations!
Amusing.
I'm trying to figure out your logic here. You seem to be trying to defend an undefendable position. Cars, afaik, typically require a license to actually own one, yet we don't consider them too dangerous for someone to own. Are they too dangerous for an unlicensed individual to own? Yeah, but most people can get a license for one.
On the other hand, anyone can own a sword or a crossbow, or (afaik) build a maser out of a couple microwaves if they want to (or until recently, build and own a flamethrower), so those must be perfectly safe to own. I can pull the electron guns out of old CRTs and build a device pretty much guaranteed to cause melanoma in anyone I point it at. I'm sure the people who end up with skin cancer would be happy to know that the hacked-together cancer-beam I created is perfectly safe because it doesn't require a license to own.
So I'm trying to figure out what your point is. You seem to be trying to say that if something is restricted, then it is "too dangerous to own" but that's obviously not true. Yet for some reason, you're trying to cling to this argument.
Congratulations. You figured out my point in your first paragraph.
guns are for addle-brained fools who can barely string two thoughts together
Yes yes, bigoted hyperbole solves everything and isn't at a projection of your insecurities.
and unsurprisingly guns are for people who like to defend themselves by projecting
How am I projecting anything? I've not said an ill word about or to you.
you hang onto those guns, son, i'm sure they help you
Oo and you assume I'm younger, want to project a bit more?