551
Republicans introduce extreme bill to ban lawsuits against Big Oil forever | Shouldn't Democrats... be saying something about this? (heated.world)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/36932203

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 68 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (9 children)

Why is it up to the democrats?

Because they're the only ones imbued with the power to defeat legislation on behalf of the people who are not themselves members of the fascist cult, though most of them are so deeply in the pocket of fossil fuel interests that they need snorkels to breathe.

Are the us population inept?

Yes, and no. The people in charge of doing things the legal ways are REALLY into stopping people from threatening their power and revenue streams by any means necessary or unnecessary up to and including mass murder.

Even peacefully protesting against oil pipelines is illegal in most jurisdictions and considered TERRORISM in some.

Ever tried to attack a tank battalion armed with just whatever rocks you are able to pick up from the ground, Gaza style?

That's about the power balance between regular people and powerful people in the US when the courts aren't available. Often even when they are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    If they're removing the people's only legal means of action/recourse, then the people will eventually resort to other means.

    You're totally right about the power imbalance, though. So many keyboard warriors conveniently ignore that...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -16 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    The second amendment imbues the people, us, the power to defeat legislation, on behalf of ourselves, from the Nazis in power.

    Literally, the Constitution gives us the power to kill the fascists currently in power, which is what will be required to get our country back, unless we just want to sit back and watch it fall, which appears to be the case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 39 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    The second amendment imbues the people, us, the power to defeat legislation, on behalf of ourselves, from the Nazis in power.

    Literally, the Constitution gives us the power to kill the fascists currently in power

    Nope. It was intended to facilitate national defense as an alternative to a standing army (which the founders were against having on principle), not defense AGAINST the government.

    Even if that WAS the intention, anything that civilians are allowed to own is styrofoam pebbles compared to the armaments of most local police departments, let alone the most overfunded military in the history of mankind.

    which is what will be required to get our country back, unless we just want to sit back and watch it fall, which appears to be the case.

    Nope. That's a false dichotomy. It's simply not true that firing handguns at the grotesque might of the US government is the only alternative to doing literally nothing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago*

    I had never quite realized just how much the second amendment was basically: we might need an army at a moments notice, certainly allowances of weaponry would be appropriate, even the organization of militias. And I don't know if the founding fathers or anyone back then could have imagined what the human population would grow to in a few centuries. This rule could never have accounted for a population of over 300 million, without even accounting for cultural and psychosocial alterations of time and technology. Back then maybe a militia could have effected a coup, but today it would be hopeless even if a large number organized they would be caught in surveillance dragnet and/or egregiously overmatched. Makes me feel like it should be harped on more that the second amendment in present context is too often misrepresented.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Nope. It was intended to facilitate national defense as an alternative to a standing army (which the founders were against having on principle), not defense AGAINST the government.

    Stop skipping over the part where it says "being necessary to the security of a free State". If the government infringes on our freedoms, like it currently is, the second amendment absolutely applies. It's a deterrent to threats both foreign and domestic.

    Nope. That's a false dichotomy. It's simply not true that firing handguns at the grotesque might of the US government is the only alternative to doing literally nothing.

    Yet again, you're wrong. You can't just vote out the corruption. As seen in how many decades, where the corruption has become more and more rampant, and unchecked?

    You should maybe learn about the civil war and the American revolution, where we literally fought and killed for the betterment of our country.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    When at least 30% of the population actively like what's going on, 30% hate it and 40% don't care either way then you have some serious issues that might not be solvable by diplomatic means, especially when everyone seems to have lost the tenants of statesmanship and it's developed into a shit-slinging match.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent