Senior Democrats in US cities are preparing to defend their communities in the event ofĀ Donald TrumpāsĀ return to the White House after the former president has repeated threats that he would use presidential powers to seize control of major urban centers.
Trump has proposed deploying the military inside major cities largely run byĀ DemocratsĀ to deal with protesters or to crush criminal gangs. He has threatened to dispatch large numbers of federal immigration agents to carry out mass deportations of undocumented people in so-called āsanctuaryā cities.
He also aims to obliterate the progressive criminal justice policies of left-leaning prosecutors.
āIn cities where there has been a complete breakdown of law and order ā¦ I will not hesitate to send in federal assets including the national guard until safety is restored,ā Trump says in the campaign platform for his bid to become the 47th US president,Ā Agenda47.
TrumpĀ provoked uproarĀ earlier this week when he called for US armed forces to be deployed against his political rivals ā āthe enemy withinā ā on election day next month. But his plans to use national guard troops and military personnel as a means to attack those he sees as his opponents go much wider than that, spanning entire cities with Democratic leadership.
https://lemmy.world/comment/12950998
Letās stop acting like the person youāre discussing firearms with is a gop supporterā¦yea?
None of my sources are gop driven linksā¦soā¦have fun.
39% support among Democrats. Not all Democrats, not a plurality, and not even a majority.
Two of those fucking links went to the same stupid bill from 1994 that a handful of people put forward as an alternative to the assault weapons ban, and one of them is goddamn sticker on Amazon. You really are grasping at straws here.
I can understand the appeal for repealing the 2nd amendment, since a lot of people consider it too vague to have any real meaning, and the conservative loaded SC has determined that āwell regulated militiaā extends to groups of racist hilljacks in a pickup shooting unarmed black men.
That being said thoughā¦ 39% of Dems oppose it, which means that the Democratic party as a whole is 61% in favor of keeping it.
So, are you gonna take the L and delete your comment, or are you gonna post another wall of bullshit that you didnāt even bother to read before calling it gospel and spreading it over the fediverse?
So those %39 arenāt really Democrats? Got itā¦
Lol no theyāre not, and the Amazon link is for a book from a Democratā¦but okā¦
Yea noā¦ itās only people who are antigun that find it vagueā¦ itās got commas and states two things. The people should be able to bear arms and that the militia should existā¦ because at that time both sides considered a standing army to be a no goā¦so history tells us itās not vagueā¦ just antigun groups do.
Lolā¦yea cause 39% is so little.
You mean are you going to keep whining because you donāt know history and think dems are pro2a?
Strawman argument. My counter-point as a whole was not that everyone wants to keep the 2nd Amendment, but that Democrats do not want to repeal the 2nd amendment. It has less than 50% support in the party. To further express why you are attacking a strawmanā¦
So those %8 arenāt really Republicans? Got itā¦
I think the only people who find it straight-forward believe that any number of mass shootings, school shootings and random shootings is acceptable, as long as there are no more restrictions of any kind on their ability to purchase, sell, and use any weapon.
Also, most constitutional law scholars who had fucking doctorates in this shit find it vague.
Still <50%ā¦ Lol?
Are you acting like you do know the history of 2A movents in the US? Donāt make me laugh.
Anymore bullshit opinions pieces and Amazon links you want to spam here as āevidenceā?
Thatās not what a strawman argument is, the original user stated that no dems want to ban the 2nd, I have clearly provided sources that state this is bullshit.
This is a strawman, as itās not part of the original argument.
Heyā¦ another strawmanā¦
Yea no they donāt, unless theyāre antigun, then it magically becomes vague.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Here there is an entire section dor scholarly comments.
Lol yea cause 1/3rd is a tiny amountā¦also straw man.
Lol sure thing, I donāt know what Iām talking about.
Ah left leaning sources that disagree with you are now ā¦bullshitā¦damn
Woooo boy. I really donāt need to say anything here. Your previous comment pretty much cements you as a conservative troll, and anyone that makes it this far down is clearly going to see it.
Yeaā¦not a conservative or a trollā¦but I guess thatās what I get from arguing with people who canāt back their shit upā¦you going to call me a nazi fascist next as well?
Says the guy posting Amazon links and duplicates of the same old failed bill from 30 years ago as evidence for their claims that the current Democratic party wants to eliminate the second amendment.
Says the guy who thinks that 39% of a group holds more sway over policy than the remaining 61%
Says the guy who literally tried to build a no-true-scotsman strawman 2 posts ago, and then just did DARVO shit when they got called on it.
Thereās only 2 options here. Either youāre a conservative trollā¦Or, you are using conservative troll fallacies to āback upā conservative troll propaganda, and you just canāt recognize it.
So whatās it gonna be?
Yea a book and bills from Democratsā¦but it doesnt count.
Lol head in sand
Rofl yea sure thing, itās sad that any criticism of the left, is met by the same ānuh uhā response as the right wing idiots. Also youāre the one doing the no-true-scotsman by suggesting all of my links are not democratsā¦
Iām not either, but you really should look in the mirror and ask yourself why your rebuttal is literally the same shit the idiots on the red team do.
Itās gonna be, Iām getting tired of the deflection and you putting fingers in your earsā¦ youāre boring me now.