• Infynis
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s where the second amendment actually does come in for once

        • MagicShel@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          If you don’t have enough people to win the war by picking up pens and voting, you definitely don’t have enough to win by picking up guns and shooting.

          • PunnyName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Depends. You might not even need to shoot. Those anti mask fuckers got what they wanted by protesting while armed to the teeth.

            • MagicShel@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              If they lose by less than the margin of Covid deaths that’s going to be hilarious. Until they realize that it was a conspiracy all along and they were tricked into not masking.

            • MagicShel@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              5 months ago

              No. You’re going to have to walk me through the thought process that led you to ask that. My whole point is if you can’t win through voting, don’t try to start a war because you aren’t going to win that either.

              • Steve@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                Sorry that was half a thought. The country is divided 50/50, both sides see themselves as good and the other evil. Anyone starts shooting and you got a civil war.

                • Crikeste@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Republicans have already started shooting. Just look at the rise in hate crimes over the last 8 years.

                • rayyy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  The country is divided 50/50, both sides see themselves as good and the other evil

                  Well one side views it that way. The other side sees themselves as intelligent, compassionate and informed while they see the other side as confused, angry, misinformed and violent.

        • Crikeste@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s the literal reason for the 2nd amendment, there is no arguing that fact.

          • havocpants@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I just finished Lost Judgment, he’s probably out prosecuting his own client for a different crime at his own defence appeal as we speak. Oh, I thought you said Takuya Yagami.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Have you tried voting for the party that wants to remove corruption and expand the packed court?

        • PunnyName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Not with First Past The Post voting still a huge factor in how things play out. I do vote local, however.

          But violence solves lots of problems.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            ???

            FPTP reduces your options to 2 (sometimes 3) and one of the options literally holds the stances you express worry about.

            • PunnyName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              FPTP prevents 3rd party candidates from being viable. Until we get an Alternative Vote, there’s little that can be done to get third parties successfully winning elections.

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                and? Just vote for the candidate who best represents you. Bonus points if they want election reform.

                • barsquid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Why bother limiting it to candidates? I could just write down the person who best represents me.

                  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    If they’ve got a 0% chance of winning then you’re throwing your vote away and paving the way for the worst candidate. As I mentioned, FPTP reduces the number of viable candidates, but you still have a choice.

                • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Throughout all of human history, the only treatment for a plague of conservatism has been direct violence. Pacifism has never cured conservatism.

                  It’s unfortunate that the normal people must walk on egg-shells when discussing the cure for a disease while the diseaae itself publicly calls for extermination of the normal people. If the normal people are to survive this, we must prepare and train together. That means discussing this issue and how to solve it. Unfortunately, there has never been a peaceful solution to this problem. Violence has always been required.

                  If you have an alternative treatment for this disease, please feel free to share it. Otherwise, why insult those of us who are willing and able to address this problem?

                  • slackassassin@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Violence requires a very high bar that has not been met. Not yet anyway, and those who have gone through it would tell you it’s wise not to be so flippant. And that bar hasn’t been met for you either obviously, regardless of the key clacking, but cool user name.