MAGA has abandoned a philosophical 2nd Amendment belief in favor of the National Guard

[Jason Warfield]

As I was reading other threads on the subject of the National Guard in DC, and the possibility of Trump trying a repeat for Chicago and here in Baltimore, I came to the realization that a philosophical tenet of the 2nd Amendment crowd (most MAGA-mites) have been cast away in favor of using the National Guard to curb crime as that is the will of Dear Leader Trump of the MAGA Socialist Party.

A reason often cited here (incorrectly, I might add) is the belief that citizens need to be armed against the tyranny of the government. To protect the Constitution and liberties, American citizens should be armed and ready to fight the government, especially in overreach.

We have seen Trump abuse this power to call in the National Guard where it is not needed and threatens to do it in other places. He has made a statement of dictatorial power. Folks on this very board have expressed the desire to allow the federal government to use troops for crime-level problem that doesn't exist over the law and Constitution...often appealing to one's emotions of what is more important, your safety or your liberties as enshrined by law and the Constitution.

Whatever Dear Leader decrees, the MAGA Socialist faithful will fulfill even if it means abandoning their own beliefs.

 

[RF667799]

As I was reading other threads on the subject of the National Guard in DC, and the possibility of Trump trying a repeat for Chicago and here in Baltimore, I came to the realization that a philosophical tenet of the 2nd Amendment crowd (most MAGA-mites) have been cast away in favor of using the National Guard to curb crime as that is the will of Dear Leader Trump of the MAGA Socialist Party.

A reason often cited here (incorrectly, I might add) is the belief that citizens need to be armed against the tyranny of the government. To protect the Constitution and liberties, American citizens should be armed and ready to fight the government, especially in overreach.

We have seen Trump abuse this power to call in the National Guard where it is not needed and threatens to do it in other places. He has made a statement of dictatorial power. Folks on this very board have expressed the desire to allow the federal government to use troops for crime-level problem that doesn't exist over the law and Constitution...often appealing to one's emotions of what is more important, your safety or your liberties as enshrined by law and the Constitution.

Whatever Dear Leader decrees, the MAGA Socialist faithful will fulfill even if it means abandoning their own beliefs.

You must think it's time to dust off the ol' muskets. That's a tricky thing to time just right. Sometimes it's too late for ballots but too early for bullets.

 

[bythoughts]

I don't get this. How are you saying MAGA is opposing Second Amendment? Obviously shooting the National Guard would be a bad idea, but are they opposing letting the people have guns? The guns are still a safeguard to liberty, because if those troops were to turn their backs on the Constitution and start executing a coup, there would be issues.

 

[phoenix2020]

As I was reading other threads on the subject of the National Guard in DC, and the possibility of Trump trying a repeat for Chicago and here in Baltimore, I came to the realization that a philosophical tenet of the 2nd Amendment crowd (most MAGA-mites) have been cast away in favor of using the National Guard to curb crime as that is the will of Dear Leader Trump of the MAGA Socialist Party.

A reason often cited here (incorrectly, I might add) is the belief that citizens need to be armed against the tyranny of the government. To protect the Constitution and liberties, American citizens should be armed and ready to fight the government, especially in overreach.

We have seen Trump abuse this power to call in the National Guard where it is not needed and threatens to do it in other places. He has made a statement of dictatorial power. Folks on this very board have expressed the desire to allow the federal government to use troops for crime-level problem that doesn't exist over the law and Constitution...often appealing to one's emotions of what is more important, your safety or your liberties as enshrined by law and the Constitution.

Whatever Dear Leader decrees, the MAGA Socialist faithful will fulfill even if it means abandoning their own beliefs.

I get what you're saying although I don't know if it will come to that. Ultimately the true litmus test for MAGA ideological purity will in fact be the 2nd Amendment; the logical end-state for MAGA is to prohibit any liberals or other opponents of MAGA from owning guns. However this is a population that has made the 2nd Amendment a key part of their identity. Therefore it's an interesting question as to how they would react if Donald told them that 2nd Amendment rights needs to be withheld from Democrats. Would their loyalty to Donald overrule their belief in the 2nd Amendment as a universal right? Would their hatred of the left grease their wheels sufficiently to justify carving out exceptions to the 2nd Amendment? I truly don't know the answer.

I do suspect that, knowing our local forum MAGA, if Donald told them that the 2nd Amendment should no longer apply to anybody opposed to Trump or MAGA, at least a handful would sign on.

If Trump can over time position the National Guard as a suitable offset for the 2nd Amendment that MAGA come to believe is firmly in Trump's control, then yeah, perhaps they'll think "yeah we can start cutting people we dislike off from the 2nd Amendment and that's okay because Trump controls the National Guard."

 

[uptower]

The guns are still a safeguard to liberty, because if those troops were to turn their backs on the Constitution and start executing a coup, there would be issues.

Well if the president was a "colored" fella in a tan suit I'm sure that would be an issue...

 

[ataraxia]

I don't get this. How are you saying MAGA is opposing Second Amendment? Obviously shooting the National Guard would be a bad idea, but are they opposing letting the people have guns? The guns are still a safeguard to liberty, because if those troops were to turn their backs on the Constitution and start executing a coup, there would be issues.

Contrary to right wing mythology, the purpose of the 2A is not to enshrine the right to insurrection, as insurrection is unconstitutional.

 

[reinaert]

Contrary to right wing mythology, the purpose of the 2A is not to enshrine the right to insurrection, as insurrection is unconstitutional.

We also know this, because the early states separately provided explicit right to revolution, and spelled out the conditions under which it is rightly invoked.

Here is NH's:

Article 10

"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

Here is NH's separate right to bear arms (amended 1982):

Article 2

"All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."

 

[Fletch]

We also know this, because the early states separately provided explicit right to revolution, and spelled out the conditions under which it is rightly invoked.

Here is NH's:

Article 10

"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

Here is NH's separate right to bear arms (amended 1982):

Article 2

"All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."

Unless you are tryng to argue that an oppressive government isnt a threat to 'all persons', Article 2 applies to Article 10

 

[bythoughts]

Well if the president was a "colored" fella in a tan suit I'm sure that would be an issue...

I remember I predicted it wouldn't take long after a right-wing shift for the silly left-wing expression "people of color" to return back to the original usage. You'd think a party so laser-focused on semantics (as a refuge against doing anything else) would notice more about their semantics.

I'm not actually sure who you mean. I would have guessed Obama, but I don't think of him in tan suits.

But any non-Trump president would not be using the National Guard in law enforcement, and it's not even clear Trump will really try to talk them into staging a coup that overthrows the constitutional US government. After all, they seem less than enthusiastic so far.

I still don't see how they are related to gun control, unless there are still some unconstitutional local gun laws on the books that they are being asked to enforce.

 

[Tangmo]

I don't get this. How are you saying MAGA is opposing Second Amendment? Obviously shooting the National Guard would be a bad idea, but are they opposing letting the people have guns? The guns are still a safeguard to liberty, because if those troops were to turn their backs on the Constitution and start executing a coup, there would be issues.

The American armed forces have fought suffered and died for and in the defense of democracy since 1776. Nothing has changed about the US military. The defense and preservation of democracy is what the military oath is and does.

It is blatantly open, plain and clear the opponents and haters of democracy are Putin-Trump-MAGAs who adore dictatorship. It's Trump-MAGAs who are for and about their Single Party 21st Century Uniquely American Fascism.

 

[bythoughts]

The American armed forces have fought suffered and died for and in the defense of democracy since 1776. Nothing has changed about the US military. The defense and preservation of democracy is what the military oath is and does.

I really hope you're right, because we may well see this put to the test. Trump keeps replacing top officials and breaking norms. The military has constant turnover, and the people coming in might be those less repulsed by the notion of action inside the U.S.

 

[Blue Dog]

This is slightly off topic, but where those who supported Bundy, Weaver and Korean. “Conservatives” were execrating an encroaching federal government. They were protesting and going after federal law enforcement.

I wonder why this scenario is different…..

 

[Tangmo]

I really hope you're right, because we may well see this put to the test. Trump keeps replacing top officials and breaking norms. The military has constant turnover, and the people coming in might be those less repulsed by the notion of action inside the U.S.

The Army and the Navy began meeting their recruiting goals before Trump was elected again, since early '24. The same is true of the delayed enlistment joiners into this year. I haven't heard any concerns over enlistees over the past 18 or so months to include delayed enlistees into this year.

What's true is that when it comes to the armed forces liberals overwork their critical skills into a frenzy. Indeed, even when armed forces ain't broke liberals are hard at work trying to figure ways to fix it. Liberals also spend way too much time finding things to hope for even when there's no need of their often overwrought concern.

I'm old enough to remember the t-shirts that had "No Fear" printed on 'em that you couldn't give to a liberal for free. Where would a liberal be without fear is a thing I've always wanted to know.

 

[reinaert]

Unless you are tryng to argue that an oppressive government isnt a threat to 'all persons', Article 2 applies to Article 10

Knew someone would be specious.

Re-read 2.