Archangel1313 @ Archangel1313 @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

244

Joined

2 mo. ago

That would be the definition of "law enforcement"...and that is illegal.

Nothing you just said, even makes sense. Did that sound profound to you? Because it isn't. Wishing for war, is an idiots "fever dream".

"...what happens will happen", is bullshit. We either make it happen or we don't. Blaming the people in power for our actions is no different than them blaming us for theirs. The entire point is to not do exactly what they want us to, like sheep being led to slaughter.

So, by that logic, protesters should use violence? Is that what you're saying? I mean, if the police are already going to frame them, then we should just give them what they want, and turn this into an all out massacre?

Man, you guys are trying so hard to start a civil war. it's pretty transparent at this point, who you're working for.

It was the ketamine talking.

Turns out, the government is actually pretty efficient.

This is going to run afoul of the Citizens United ruling.

No. The problem is, the situation will only get worse with escalation. Not better.

There is a massive difference between rubber bullets and live ammunition.

If you've already decided that you want a civil war, then Trump doesn't need to find an excuse. You're going to force his hand. And any possibility that those soldiers might be on your side, disappears.

Only if people go into this looking for it.

That's an Onion article. You can tell because Trump hasn't been shooting protesters for months already. That's what comes next. And that's when it stops being a protest, and turns into a civil war.

Don't be so eager to make that happen.

But, when you say, "they"...you are painting the entire protest as violent, unless you make the distinction that it isn't. And the vast majority of protestors are simply exercising their 1st amendment rights, in a perfectly legal manner.

The people setting those fires should absolutely be charged for their actions. But their actions don't negate the Constitutional rights of everyone else who is protesting. And calling in the National guard before the local authorities have declared the situation to be out of their control, is a direct violation of Constitutional law.

And THIS is what the 2nd amendment is actually for. California needs its own state-run militia to defend its territory from Federal overreach.

It was never about individual civilians owning weapons. All that would do, is give Trump a justification to invoke the Insurrection Act. But if the State of California itself is armed against tyranny, then the people's rights are being defended.

Escalation to violence is exactly what they want. It gives them all the justification they need to invoke the Insurrection Act, declare martial law and suspend your Constitutional rights. And not just in California.

This is what the internet is for.

“But you have a governor who let the city burn down, didn’t want water to be sent down to him,” Trump complained about Newsom and January’s wildfires. “I mean, I sent billions of gallons of water. I wanted to do it in the first term. He wouldn’t do it over. I don’t know, they have environmental reasons, but there were no environmental reasons. It’s, I think it’s just a political philosophy. But it’s lucky for the people in Los Angeles and in California that we did what we did.”

They dumped an entire reservoir full of water designed for agriculture purposes, into the fucking ocean! That reservoir didn't even connect to LA's supply.

Did Trump declare martial law while I was asleep? Because last time I checked, he can't deploy the military on US soil unless the country is in a state of emergency. And peaceful protests don't count.

...but, did it work?

For all the alarmists acting like this is going to pass...it won't. This is part of the normal process that all new legislation goes through. Politicians propse a bill, which contains everything they can think to include...throwing it all at the wall, just to see what will stick. Then it gets torn to shreds during the debate session, by legal advocacy groups and human rights organizations, who know exactly what kinds of legal challenges they can see coming a mile away. Anything that's garaunteed to get tossed out in court is discarded from the legislation.

Why? Because there's no point in passing legislation that can't actually be legally enforced. Law enforcement has been trying to get these kinds of "tools" implemented for decades. And the courts have all said, all the way along...no. You need a warrant for that kind of intrusion. They need probable cause to look at these things. They need a reasonable justification beyond, "I want to look, just in case". None of the shit in this bill is going to pass the legal smell test. Period.