this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
100 points (99.0% liked)

Politics

11153 readers
185 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of the most left-wing figures in American public life. Her recently retired GOP colleague Marjorie Taylor Greene is just as far on the right-wing side of the political spectrum. Yet the two are united in seeing the killing of Alex Pretti on Saturday by ICE agents as a constitutional crisis.

Rebuking Vice President JD Vance, Ocasio-Cortez wrote, “You are defending the open killing of everyday Americans for exercising their Constitutional rights.”

Taylor Greene explained the constitutional rights that were violated in this case:

I unapologetically believe in border security and deporting criminal illegal aliens and I support law enforcement. However, I also unapologetically support the 2nd amendment. Legally carrying a firearm is not the same as brandishing a firearm. I support American’s 1st and 4th amendment rights. There is nothing wrong with legally peacefully protesting and videoing.

Politically, the constitutional violation that is likely to pose the most trouble is the Second Amendment. The Republican Party, including Donald Trump, has long taken a maximalist position on gun rights, resisting even the most popular restrictions such as limits on automatic weapons. The radical right, which is in many ways the progenitor of Trump’s MAGA movement, has long warned that gun control is a step on the path toward the end of freedom in the US. Toward this end, the right has presented the most inflammatory version of famous cases where government agents faced off against gun owners, as in the Ruby Ridge standoff in 1992 and the Waco siege in 1993.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 17 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

"There must be in-groups that the law protects but does not bind, and out-groups that the law binds but does not protect." That's all it is. That's all it's ever been.

They are worse than villains from a child's story.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 5 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Liberals that thump law do not comprehend this.
Fascists blatantly do not follow laws.
Only anarchists seem to get this dialectic.

I go shorter for the below 5th grade reading comprehension:

Laws protect rulers, not civilians/subjects.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

This feels more like the Rattenfaenger.

ETA: Shit, that's not going to make sense domestically. The Pied Piper of (sigh) Hamelin. Der Rattenfaenger von Hameln feels more correct to me.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

The scamming class are the rulers, correct. And we are the rattenfaengers, being betrayed by Blue and Red Nazis alike. So either we take away their their scamming authorities, or we let them continue scamming us.

I choose the former.