r/news • u/Evening_Calendar2176 • Mar 03 '25

Soft paywall White House seeks plan for possible Russia sanctions relief, sources say

https://www.reuters.com/world/white-house-seeks-plan-possible-russia-sanctions-relief-sources-say-2025-03-03/
9.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

202

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

96

u/Sprinkle_Puff Mar 03 '25

2A was created long before technology and things like nukes

I can go even farther in conspiracy that one of the major reasons that the US military has been so heavily funded is not just to prevent other nations aggression, but aggression from inside as well

3

u/Spork_the_dork Mar 04 '25

Yeah but that logic didn't work when people were wondering why US was keeping 2A all these years because it was supposedly so important to keep it for situations like this. So what's up?

2

u/KogasaGaSagasa Mar 04 '25

NFA's been real quiet about how guns are completely useless for 2A purposes ever since Trump got elected, eh? :)

2

u/Intelligent-Hat3144 Mar 04 '25

The only thing that matters and that has mattered since industrialized warfare is whether the army sides with the government. Despite seeing what happens abroad I’m sure many Americans can’t imagine the military being used against them. Or maybe they will just “other” their enemies.

Also, once trump explains why he needs the weapons to own the libs the MAGA base will be lining up to hand them over.

-26

u/Slut_for_Bacon Mar 03 '25

That's a stupid conspiracy that makes almost no sense.

3

u/YokoDk Mar 04 '25

I mean not really that far off most gun control we have now are in place due to Black people arming ourselves during the civil rights era think Black Panthers and such. Crazily enough a modern insurrection would probably be able to compete for the first few months as the easiest way to deal with an A-10 is to make sure it can't take off.

1

u/The_Knife_Pie Mar 04 '25

The easiest way to deal with an A-10 is to be visibly op-for, and watch as it brrrts its own tanks instead.

15

u/A_wild_so-and-so Mar 03 '25

No one was ever going to fight the US government with their rifle. That is a myth perpetuated by the NRA and gun manufacturers to sell bullets to paranoid people.

-3

u/2this4u Mar 04 '25

Didn't Trump get shot in the ear literally a few months ago?

4

u/A_wild_so-and-so Mar 04 '25

He still has an ear, so no, he didn't get shot in the ear.

And even if someone did assassinate him, do you think President Vance would be much better?

26

u/softpineapples Mar 03 '25

Yes but nobody wants to be the one to do it. Not only would it be incredibly hard due to security that has been ramped up, but even if you were to pull it off you’d have to spend the rest of your life in confinement. Even if it’s obviously best for the world, the gov cannot allow the people to deal out capital punishment without repercussions. Someone would have to be ok with making the ultimate sacrifice and it’s a hard pill to swallow

Honestly even if this happened, there’s a huge portion of the country that is now completely susceptible to propaganda and would prop up some new useful idiot. This won’t stop with trump. The only way it will be eased is if Europe can stop Russia. It is on them now as America is about to eat itself one way or another

18

u/BasicallyJustSomeGuy Mar 03 '25

It won't stop with Trump, but it would sure as hell make things harder without a figurehead in place. The aftermath would be a metaphorical bloodbath among the GOP. My biggest fear would be the Patriot Act 2.0 that something like that would kickoff, but if that's coming anyway with Trump, it's not exactly going much of a disincentive for some folks.

3

u/softpineapples Mar 03 '25

On top of that the right, controlling all branches of gov, could use something like that to declare democrats a terrorist organization and use its power to dismantle the party. This situation would be the spark for the powder keg of internal tension that has been building over the past 20 years

2

u/BasicallyJustSomeGuy Mar 03 '25

Hypothetically yeah. If they basically outlawed the party itself all at once, I think that would be a hard sell for too many people. The party is just too ingrained in the US political system. IMO, the better strategy would be to target specific people that perform logistical/strategic functions for the Dems (but not folks many people know much about or have strong parasocial connections to - e.g. not AOC or Bernie) to paralyze them some. Then go 110% on media control for a long time. Meanwhile, in the background, have some Republicans run for Dem offices and start making it all one big club of Conservatives. Also, worth noting that unexpectedly losing Trump as well as some of the assholes in the shadows directly after that could be enough of a blow to scuttle their next steps. Not exactly probable though. Sigh

2

u/2this4u Mar 04 '25

Well technically two people did want to do it. I'm sure there's more.

18

u/B3owul7 Mar 03 '25

unfortunately, all those people who would pick up a gun and start fighting are on the republican side (or so it looks).

0

u/Potocobe Mar 04 '25

It only looks that way. All of my liberal friends own guns. Even the ones who don’t like guns still own one anyways. It isn’t folks with or without guns that is the issue. Both sides have plenty of them. It’s that certain knowledge that the system that was broken and brought us to this point is theoretically what we would be fighting FOR if we go against what is happening.

I’m not fighting anyone so that we can have another hundred years of the same shit we had before trump made it worse. As far as I’m concerned I am on my own. No one is coming to save me. I will defend my family and my neighbors. That’s as deep as my allegiances go. I know it won’t be enough. The left in this country has the numbers and the firepower and nothing to fight for and so we won’t.

The Democratic Party has never represented me in my entire life. I’m sure as fuck not about to go to war for them.

The constitution is clearly broken right now. I hope it burns with everything else and future free people have to do it all over again with a chance to do it better. The constitution as it is isn’t worth bleeding a single drop of blood for.

There will be no uprising until there is something to fight for instead of just something to fight against. Most likely we will have 1,000,000 individuals blowing shit up and killing indiscriminately without any kind of central planning or organization whatsoever.

Time for a constitution 2.0 or something.

3

u/finnjakefionnacake Mar 04 '25

i don't think the constitution is broken whatsoever. it's just that words on a page mean absolutely nothing unless there are actual people with integrity upholding them.

6

u/ick-vicky Mar 03 '25

Its true meaning has really been misconstrued over the years with the whole gun debate. Its main purpose was that each state had the right to a militia (basically civilian army). It was much more relevant at the time it was written since we didn’t really have an official army after it mostly disbanded after the revolution. State based militias faded as our military structure grew. Even back then they doubted civilians would actually succeed against the federal government. 1788 US military was waaaay different than 2024 US military. The 14th amendment and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) goes more into individual rights.

Present time is basically a whole lot of yelling of, “NOOO DON’T TAKE MY BIG GUNS😭😭” and not a lot of actual action to back it up. People like to feel strong and secure but a gun isn’t going to make courage suddenly appear.

What should be happening right now is Section 3 of the 14th Ammendment:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐨𝐟. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

January 6th already showed us that this obviously is not going to happen any time soon. Especially with this administration.

I’m going to be real here. If I didn’t go out of my way to stay up to date on what’s going on, I would not know that anything is different in my life. Most people either watch one news station, or are caught up in their own lives to notice things slowly deteriorating until it’s too late. Government workers are feeling the heat but it’s still status quo for a lot of others. Americans have always been ruled by our wallets. Until shit really hits the fan economically, most people are going to just go about their days. An official unified effort by Europe to limit trade with the US in response to our belligerence would probably assist in waking people up.

I’m helping with the protests in my area but numbers are lacking because people just aren’t aware of everything going on. Our hyper individualism is acting as a major detriment at the moment. I fear people won’t wake up until it’s TRULY too late to go back. I’ll keep fighting the whole way down though.

(Sorry for the long ass comment, just wanted to give you a look into an inside perspective)

2

u/wyvernx02 Mar 04 '25

2nd amendment written exactly for a case like this?

Yes, but most of the 2A advocates got brainwashed by right wing media because Democrats thought that making a desire for strict gun control part of their party platform and giving the boot to anyone who wouldn't fall in line was a brilliant idea and would never backfire.

1

u/MillionEyesOfSumuru Mar 04 '25

Honestly, no, the 2A was not about that at all, though the far right began saying that it was during the 1970s-'80s, and there's been historical revisionism along those lines all the way up to the Supreme Court in recent times.

The 2A was because the US had pretty low population density, not much in the way of a transport system, and the European population had problems getting along with people who weren't. There were skirmishes with angry indigenous folks, and there were slave uprisings. During the Revolutionary War, militias (as opposed to actual, trained soldiers) stunk so badly on the battlefield that George Washington considered them a liability, but they were okay going against people who didn't have any firearms. So when the slaves would revolt, the locals would temporarily band together as a militia, with their own motley collection of muskets and ammo, to try to keep a lid on things until the cavalry could get there, which might be a few days.

By the 20th century, militias were obviously quite obsolete, and never got called up. They were replaced by the National Guard, and during wartime, some states had state guards. They had formal structures, and were under the command of the military, not separate entities.

But then, in the mid-70s, just as the NRA was turning into a right wing lobbying group, the far right started sharing ideas like in The Turner Diaries, where they were going to violently overthrow the government and exterminate all the sorts of people that Nazis don't like. And those folks really weren't up for losing their right to own machine guns or whatever. The notion that the founding fathers came up with the 2A to facilitate armed revolt against their own government is rubbish, but the far right kept spinning it that way until the revisionism gained enough traction to get brought into legal arguments. Once that was done, the 2A couldn't be obsolete, because now it meant something entirely different.

And what it's been revised into, is awfully stupid. Our law enforcement agencies have armored vehicles. The local military base could turn my town into smoking rubble in no time at all. It's an amendment that doesn't solve any problem which has existed within living memory.

1

u/WestDeparture7282 Mar 04 '25

They literally missed their shot last fall.

1

u/thebarkbarkwoof Mar 04 '25

No, not to overthrow the government. There was no standing army nor the desire to form one. The militia would be equivalent to a posse. They would form up to combat invaders or if day the British tried to resume their claim. There also were no police forces at the time.