this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
229 points (99.1% liked)

politics

29217 readers
2152 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MerryJaneDoe@piefed.world 4 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

The Constitution allows for the possibility of a gangster Administration. Checks and balances. The hope was that the Supreme Court and Congress would keep the executive branch in check.

The Constitution also recognizes that no system is perfect, so it adds the right to bear arms. Not for sport. Not for defense. The Second Amendment exists specifically to fight tyranny. Just in case the elections get rigged and an extremist party takes control.

Such an unlikely scenario, amiright?

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago

Yeah but there is no one left to oppose them. The rules don't apply. Who is going to stop them?

[–] BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

...the argument your making about the 2nd amendment is why it's now obsolete. When America was founded, firearms could actually be used to overthrow a corrupt government. They had practical utility. At this point, however, half the population armed with assault rifles wouldn't make a difference. A combination of the government's mass surveillance and superior firepower would put down the rebellion before it got off the ground

I'm of the opinion that the constitution should adjust to changing times. 18th century laws aren't geared to solve 21st century issues.

[–] MerryJaneDoe@piefed.world 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Totally agree with you, a handgun is no match for a tank. If the military wants to make war on citizens, they will lose.

However, there is more going on that meets the eye. Many members of the military would not want to shoot their own citizens. And armed citizens can still do more damage than unarmed citizens. In other words, the 2A forces an authoritarian administration to use violence in order to repress the citizens. It ups the stakes. And citizens can strike in ways that the military can't. Guerilla warfare tactics. They don't need to "win", they just need to disrupt, to spread fear.

But, yeah, with the current surveillance state, along with the culpability of the media, it seems a dubious proposition that armed citizens can save themselves from the fascists. Regardless, I have suddenly become a HUGE proponent of guns. Especially when I see the Black Panthers providing security for demonstrators. Respect.