• Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.caM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    They’re really targeting California as a whole now. The state that supported the union so much over history. Republicans must really feel jealous that it is the richest state.

  • ShittDickk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    So an unelected figurehead of the federal government has come to my state, had a senator I voted for arrested over asking a question which is his civic duty to ask, and has now made threats at removal of my elected govenor as well as an elected mayor of one of the cities here.

    At which point would these actions be considered tyrannical enough to provide a decent argument for a use of the 2nd amendment in court?

    • monotremata@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The 2nd amendment just says the government can’t take away your guns. It doesn’t say anything about it being okay for you to use them against the government.

      I mean, hell, police kill people all the time, but the courts treat having a gun on your person as a reason the cops had to shoot you. So they can’t take away the gun, but they can take away your life for having it.

      Basically you can use it as a security blanket to rock yourself to sleep at night, but get anywhere near the gestapo with it and you die a “terrorist.”

  • Ethalis@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Apart from the obvious “arresting a senator for asking questions” thing, is whatever’s happening on this picture standard procedure for arresting an unarmed, unthreatening person in the US? It looks like they’re arresting a terrorist or a dangerous suspect