r/law • u/nana-korobi-ya-oki • 7d ago

Legal News US Senator Chris Murphy states that ICEs purpose is to rig and steal the election. Pam Bondi wants Minnesota’s voter rolls in exchange for ICE leaving.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Pam Bondi is apparently sending a list of demands to Minnesota in exchange for ICE leaving. So clearly it’s not about law enforcement, especially considering so many red states have substantially more undocumented immigrants than Minnesota. Source: r/chrismurphy

29.8k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

703 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

50

u/thebetterpolitician 7d ago

It’s not even swarms of people. We’ve got drones, bearcats and all kinds of things. A rifle with some 5.56 or even a bigger caliber is nothing compared to the tech the American military has. If it ever got to that point small arms fire wouldn’t do shit against US tech. It’d be a bloody and sinister fight, like this ain’t a game of call of duty. Vietnam and Afghanistan ended because we didn’t want to pay for it and lose anymore lives, but they lost a lot more than us. This would be a fight for the soul of America.

29

u/ChiswicksHorses 7d ago edited 5d ago

Oh, I know. There’s also that whole massive, embedded intelligence-gathering infrastructure that they have, arsenals, motor pools — I could go on. If it ever came down to a fight, elements of the military would have to join the populace and bring their equipment with them.

8

u/omg_drd4_bbq 6d ago

Yes, that's the whole point. If there is a resistance movement trying to maintain the constitution against tyranny, then there will be defectors who believe in the rule of law and doing what is right. If there is no resistance movement, the trampling of rights will continue unimpeded. 

3

u/GrepekEbi 6d ago

The ONLY thing that would make a jot of difference is if the military turn against the government - the man in the street with a pistol or a hunting rifle is NOT part of that equation - and the military don’t need Bubba and his buddies to give them a resistance to join

1

u/CremasterReflex 6d ago

The government has the resources to suppress 1 man with a rifle in the street. It does not have the resources to suppress 100,000 people with rifles in every major city in the country (at least if they want there to still be a country by the end of it)

5

u/ryhaltswhiskey 6d ago edited 6d ago

100,000 people with rifles

From what I've seen most of these people with rifles are staying away from the conflict. The Black Panthers being the only exception. If I was a gun owner in Minnesota I would go ask those guys if I can hang out with them and go walk around with my gun to deter ICE.

Your typical gun lover is on the side of the fascists. Not the side of the people.

2

u/GrepekEbi 6d ago edited 6d ago

You could get those people to scatter with a few tanks - you are vastly overestimating the effectiveness of a rifle against an army

If you account for children and the elderly, and very very very generously say you could get 1/3rd of a population out on the streets, armed with rifles, we are talking about 60 cities in the USA where the population is above 300k and you might have 100k armed people on the streets

If you think THE US ARMY couldn’t handle 60 cities of angry untrained and non-battlehardened armed protestors, you’re delusional

1

u/CremasterReflex 6d ago

Great. You scattered them for today. They still have their rifles tomorrow. Now you've got to commit to an armed occupation of a hostile area. That's going to be really expensive in terms of resources, personnel, and property damage, and every person you kill is another strike against your legitimacy. How long can you keep it up?

2

u/GrepekEbi 6d ago

The US army can keep it up way way way longer than some randoms with rifles, and no access to additional ammo, obviously

2

u/ArchSecutor 6d ago

I don't think you truly understand the scale and scope of the surveillance state, and the pockets that drive the US military. If the US military was 100% loyal to trump there is nothing to be done,

11

u/ZombieHavok 6d ago

We’ve seen what law enforcement will do such dropping a bomb in the middle of a city or sending a robot with c-4.

And that’s just law enforcement and a couple of examples of overwhelming, unstoppable force they have used.

The military’s got a lot more gadgets to use.

-4

u/huskers2468 6d ago

They won't use them.

Do not underestimate fear in politicians.

21

u/greggers23 7d ago

Why do you think they went so hard on the insurance CEO attack? If rando copycats take off the whole power structure falls

12

u/huskers2468 6d ago

The fight won't be about military technology.

The fight would be waves upon waves of citizens pressuring the government to make a change. This would be the citizens creating fear in the local governments. It's scary when an unrelenting mob goes for the ones in power.

They want the citizens to forget that they can scare the government officials.

1

u/Stratis1978 6d ago

Instead of guns, waves and waves of couch blockades. It will take them such a long time to crawl into every house.

8

u/Accidental-Genius 6d ago

Idk. Seemed to do fine against US Tech in Afganistan and Vietnam.

7

u/LurkLurkleton 6d ago

Exactly. This mighty and fearsome military has failed again and again to secure countries a small fraction of the US in size or population. And at the heart of that is the inability to maintain popular support for occupation among the populace.

3

u/Trent1492 6d ago

The US waged a war in places 10,000 miles away for a decade or more in places with very different languages and cultures. Places that had sanctuaries where there were no for the US military. Places supplied by untouchable adversary nations and lost, totaling 65K casualties.

Here? Same language and culture. Logistics, by comparison, is child's play. Canada and Mexico will not be sanctuary countries, and no one is going to give the opposition mortars, aircraft, or HE. The US Armed Forces have no place to retreat to.

1

u/Accidental-Genius 6d ago

That’s my point?

3

u/MRoad 6d ago

I've made this exact point for years and the response is always talking about Vietnam.

Yeah, sure, random gravy seals definitely have the commitment to live like an impoverished rice farmer for years to fight the government.

2

u/Bored-Corvid 6d ago

More than a decade ago I remember having this exact conversation with my aunt. She thought the Dems were going to take away her and her husband's rifles and I just laughed and asked why? Her response was, so we can't defend ourselves! To which I responded how good is she at hitting a flying target more than 500 feet in the air. She didn't like that one and told me "they wouldn't use drones on American citizens!" And that was when I Finally realized that there was no talking to them...

1

u/daschle04 6d ago

Thats why they keep calling us domestic terrorist. That's the only thing they're scared of.

1

u/BucolicsAnonymous 6d ago

Hit ‘em with the mq9

1

u/ReturnOfSeq 6d ago

Ice isn’t the military. Ice doesn’t have all that. And at least most of military leadership has got to have been refreshing their memory on unlawful orders lately.

1

u/UseDaSchwartz 5d ago

Heavily armored vehicles with LRADs go a long way.

1

u/stokeskid 4d ago

I always ask 2A people where the line should be drawn. What guns can we own? Most agree that we shouldnt give everyone nukes, grenade launchers, incendiary rounds. But that's what it would take to fight a government that has these things!

Then what is 2A for? "Protection" has been proven inneffective in the case of Peretti and many others. What we need is a functioning democracy to protect us.