this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
104 points (99.1% liked)

Politics

11391 readers
34 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.

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] thebardingreen@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz 34 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

This has been true since forever. As soon as people other than them want to carry guns, especially people of a different skin color, religion or sexual orientation, they are 100% pro gun control.

Exhibit 1: California, Ronald Reagan.

[–] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The Black Panther is also a great example

[–] FerretyFever0@fedia.io 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, that was the Ronald Reagan thing they mentioned lol

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 7 points 3 weeks ago

Well, at least we're all on the same page.

[–] French75@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 weeks ago

Exhibit 1: California, Ronald Reagan.And neither party has taken their foot off the gas since.

[–] CreamyJalapenoSauce@piefed.social 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

All they stand for is fascism

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 1 points 3 weeks ago

idgᚦi: take advantage and get yourself ready?

Gun rights for the in group, no gun rights for the out group.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

MAGA Is Proving How Little It Actually Cares About ~~Gun~~ Rights

Let's be clear here...

[–] tangentism@beehaw.org 2 points 3 weeks ago

They care about their rights.

Rights for me, not for thee

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 17 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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.

From my cold dead hands