Archangel1313

joined 6 days ago
[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 23 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 42 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 11 points 16 hours ago

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.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 35 points 18 hours ago

Russia has no one to blame but Putin, for NATO getting so close to their borders.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 113 points 19 hours ago (11 children)

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.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

...but, did it work?

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 44 points 3 days ago (6 children)
[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 21 points 3 days ago

And just like they did in Maine, California will sue him and win.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 79 points 4 days ago (8 children)

It dissolves...but into what? Sounds like a recipe for a petroleum salt water mix that's probably just as toxic as melted plastic, unless all the petroleum is removed.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

As usual, this doesn't actually make any sense. I genuinely wonder if Trump understands anything people around him are even talking about...or if all of his interactions with others, are just a series of Charlie Brown adults "mwa-mwa"ing at him while he struggles to pay attention.

view more: next ›