A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
Its illegal in the USA to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government
Technically, it isn't. As long as you're not being terribly specific about when and how it should be done, and as long as you're not 'inciting' people to do it.
But if you want to argue -- in a more abstract and academic context -- that the US government should be violently overthrown, that's perfectly legal and well protected under the 1st amendment.
I really hope no one takes it into their own hands to destroy all data centers and the billionaire oligarchs that own them. They'd be an absolute hero probably! Can't have that oh no.
Haha this is there sort of thing that got me permabanned from Reddit! π€£
Same! I got permabanned for saying we should slash tires of ICE agent vehicles so they canβt kidnap people and drive off. Also the reason for the username here.
Well its true ! I'd really hate for someone on the right side of history to accidentally destroy these data centers and all the bought off politicians responsible for them! That'd be really bad. It would be a detriment to the shareholders which we adore
I think they just censor free speech via private companies. Like the way they do their spying and gangstalking, and proxie wars. I don't think our place as American HUMANS is natural or where we would be if authenticity and genuinism was a part of Americas governing culture.
It is not illegal in the slightest as we are protected by the first amendment
"Let's overthrow the government"
I'm not going to jail over some random remarks
Them amendments are so well protected too. Didnt the government gun down a nurse for excercising their right to bear arms freedom of assembly?
The government has executed scores of people for exercising their right to bare arms.
Turns out you only have the rights the police are willing to respect. Which means you don't actually have any.
You put it in quotes. Like a big ole scaredycat
Let's overthrow the government, hang all the billionaires from highway overpasses, and set anyone who resists us on fire.
...
In... In Minecraft
Let's overthrow the government
But imminent incitement to violence will get you got
I always thought the 2nd was so the government had a militia to call upon should we be invaded.
It is, mostly.
It was basically the state's right to have an armed militia so that they may remain a free state.
The second amendment states "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." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution It gives the states the ability to have their own local military as well as private citizens the right to own weapons. Both of these were things the colonial power had outlawed prior to the revolution. The idea was to explicitly list things the previous tyrannical government had done to ensure the new government could not do the same thing. Now language and technology changes which leads to the current debate on gun rights in the USA.
Like isn't state guard a thing? Thats sound more like what they meant.
That is exactly what I would argue. And many others of course. That's the "well regulated" purpose. They didn't mean a bunch of fucking idiots with a fetish. They meant the people could always band together to fight for their freedoms. Because the nation didn't have a standing army at the time. It was a volunteer militia that gained the freedoms to begin with.
Well some historians say the 2nd amendment isn't about guns, which everyone already had back then, but says states should have their own military.
"Bear arms" means militarization. Not owning a gun. But using a gun.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
It actually was the nra lobbying that changed public and legal interpretation.
Owning a gun does little against tyranny.
But a state militia does.
That's what it actually meant.
The Second Amendment consistsΒ of just one sentence: βA well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.βΒ
Doesn't seems like it say "firearm" as well, so right to bear arm could just mean having a bear as a friend.
Or just his arms, but bears ain't got no arms therefore you get no rights.
Owning and carrying guns is not for overthrowing the government. That's absurd. It is however very profitable to convince people that's the case if you happen to be selling guns.
That's not what theyre for. Thats the thing we tell strangers. The guns are for shooting slaves.
"well regulated militia" means "a militia the state approves of"
While i highly recommend watching all 3 parts, specially if you're non-murican, this guy nailed it.
Even if it wasn't written down as a law before hand, a failed coup would still end up being considered illegal by the government that won against the coup.
Just as violently rising up against tyranny doesn't need to be explicity written down as legal for it to become legal if the revolution succeeds.
History and laws are written by the victorious.
Just to bring everyone up to speed, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that the whole spiel about a militia is basically irrelevant. Source: Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller (2008).
Love it or hate it, them's the facts. That said, plenty of other decisions have been overturned at a later date. Like the one that made black people less than equal to whites in Dredd Scott v. Sanford or the endorsement of segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson. So things might change at some point.
Itβs perfectly fine to advocate for a silent but violent overthrow. They can have my beans when they pull my cold, dead finger
Advocating is not illegal; inciting is.
Unless you're an oligarch of course. Then you can J6, Doge, destroy half the Whitehouse, etc.
Could you just please get on and do it. Get rid of that orange twat.
Sorry, I don't wanna get accused of being a "CCP Spy trying to sabotage destabalize America" and then DHS will declare my family as foreign terrorists, then have ICE raid my house and deport my dad, a non-citizen.
Cuz in this country, whenever a non-white person does something, everyone who looks like that is getting targeted in hate crimes...
Then the entire Chinese diaspora community would be like: "Why did this loser have to stir the pot and ruin it for the rest of us?"
This problem on the white dudes who voted him in.
Its illegal in the USA to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government,
if you fail, it is.
Weapons don't know and don't care what you do with them. A trigger pull while hunting is no different from the same trigger pull during a revolution. A strike of a knife while cutting cabbage is the same as a strike while chopping up your local equivalent of a secret policeman.
One could argue a hammer is meant to facilitate acts of rebellion but in reality it doesn't know jack shit what it's meant for, it's just happy to be there.
Also it's legal to own weapons/illegal to advocate for violent overthrow in many, many countries. It's the intentions that matter.
I think what OP is referring to is that many supporters of βgun rightsβ like to use the argument that the second amendment is key to the freedom of America because an armed populace cannot be controlled by an authoritarian government. I donβt particularly care for that argument, but if you run with it, it would make sense that the right of the populace to organize armed rebellion is just as important as their right to own and carry weapons.
A trigger pull while hunting is no different from the same trigger pull during a revolution.
90% of the difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle is what you point it at.
That's news to their earliest founding document
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
right to revolution
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government
is a duty. So, their declaration of independence is illegal?
Citizens united made it probable that foreign governments would act through intermediaries to pay for US policy against the American peoples interests
It really depends.
Merely saying that the administration needs to be guillotined isn't illegal because its protected by the Constitution's First Amendment.
However, such rhetoric loses such protection when it starts to manifest a particularity. So, saying "Guillotine Republicans because they fucking deserve it" is protected. Statements like "Guillotine Republican X at his address Y at Z p.m." are not.
Jan6 be there, will be wild
Here's a mad nerd sniping problem:
Imagine we took the 2nd Amendment completely literally. It is now unconstitutional to prohibit the ownership of any weapon, no matter the scale. Owning even thermonuclear weaponry is legal.
There hasn't exactly been a lot of free market innovation in the field of nuclear weapons design. There hasn't been a whole lot of competition in the field. And the government is optimizing for security, safety, and effectiveness, but not cost. But imagine if we did make it legal for private citizens to own nukes. Just how cheaply could they be made, if we applied the normal principals of mass production to them? Would they always be the playthings of the ultra wealthy, or could some Henry Ford of hydrogen bombs put a nuke in every garage?