Senior Democrats in US cities are preparing to defend their communities in the event of Donald Trump’s return to the White House after the former president has repeated threats that he would use presidential powers to seize control of major urban centers.
Trump has proposed deploying the military inside major cities largely run by Democrats to deal with protesters or to crush criminal gangs. He has threatened to dispatch large numbers of federal immigration agents to carry out mass deportations of undocumented people in so-called “sanctuary” cities.
He also aims to obliterate the progressive criminal justice policies of left-leaning prosecutors.
“In cities where there has been a complete breakdown of law and order … I will not hesitate to send in federal assets including the national guard until safety is restored,” Trump says in the campaign platform for his bid to become the 47th US president, Agenda47.
Trump provoked uproar earlier this week when he called for US armed forces to be deployed against his political rivals – “the enemy within” – on election day next month. But his plans to use national guard troops and military personnel as a means to attack those he sees as his opponents go much wider than that, spanning entire cities with Democratic leadership.
Man, you have way more confidence in the military not being full of MAGA idiots than I do.
As someone constantly surrounded by people in the military - they’re almost all MAGA idiots, and the ones who aren’t are fence sitting “libertarians” who go right wing every time.
Curious are you surrounded by Marines? Because all the other branches poll about 30 approve /70 disapprove on Trump specifically. And the military has told him he can’t order this stuff before.
Army and Navy mostly
That’s weird then because Army and Navy really aren’t the pro-trump branches. Marines are on top for some reason, probably because they’re already kind of a cult. Then Air Force who pushes Christian Evangelism in the ranks. Then Army and lastly the Navy. The Army specifically hates trump for his actions as president. When he stole school funding from their kids and denied people were getting injured by Iranian rockets. To be clear this doesn’t mean the branches don’t still lean conservative. But if trump ordered them to go against all of their trained ethics they’d tell him to pound sand.
What about military leadership, though?
They can be changed
Only one person matters and his name is Scott Q. Brown, Jr., Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
A person who can and will be replaced.
That’s actually how it will go for pretty much everyone down the chain of command. Obey Trump or be replaced by those who will, except the traitorous fucks are already drawing up lists of people they know will obey, and by extension, those they know will not.
Look into Schedule F of project 2025. It’s a plan to replace the entire government with loyalists. And that includes the commanders of the military.
That will take years though. And even once it’s done the majority of the military will be ill trained and ill equipped.
The whole thing is set up to do it really fast. If there are procedures and red tape preventing it, they’ll ignore them.
It’s not the procedures and red tape. It’s the literal finding of bodies, transferring equipment, and mass production of more equipment. I’ll link the other response I made if you want to read the details.
It won’t take them years. It will take 5 minutes and the stroke of a pen. Hell, Heritage foundation probably has the complete order already typed up for trump to sign.
The good news is, historically, loyalists make shit military leaders.
They aren’t going to have an officer corp left is the point. We’ve seen Authoritarian take overs of professional militaries in history. And I admit the Heritage Foundation may have some ideas on how to speed up the timeline. But the biggest sticking point has always been finding the bodies to man the “special” unit and disarming the military at large so it can’t respond to the special unit’s provocation.
What will most likely happen is they will stand up a paramilitary force in parallel with the military, and illegally use funds to arm them. This force will be incompetent for a couple years, causing pain and suffering but without the manpower or training to actually act as an oppressive force. It will also generate a lot of backlash because it’s operation is illegal and it’s likely we’ll see some of them actually get arrested. In fact I would say in the event that it meets armed resistance in this period, trump will bring in a national guard unit. However the national guard unit is going to amplify any crimes being committed by his special force. Not as in make the crimes worse, but as in let the world know they’re happening with credible reports. The national guard will then be sidelined while the trump administration attempts to make a special military unit to support his paramilitary unit. Someone with the training and competence to bail them out. What he’s going to find is the group of soldiers who know how cities run, Civil Affairs, actually leans left (for Americans) and has empathy. (They didn’t go into the job that has you giving people electricity and teddy bears because they were heartless.) So they aren’t going to be much help.
I’ll stop there because this will quickly snowball into a whole ass paper. But you can see the gist of why it takes years and what the cost of a hurry up is. It’s worth remembering the the SA was a militant wing of a political party that beat people up. The SS was mostly made of already existing police officers. It took merging the Wehrmacht training lines with the SA and years of selective pressure, (including propaganda about Russians in the middle of a war.) to get the Wehrmacht to commit war crimes on the Eastern Front, and look the other way while escorting SS death squads around eastern Europe. That’s the fastest we’ve ever see a modern military transform. The Red Army purges for loyalty to Stalin took 2 years and was just a loyalty purge in an army that was already supposed to be loyal to him. Removing the officers in the US military who believe the Constitution is above the president will likely take longer because there is not a culture of post civil war loyalty to party over country.
Too long? You can skip to here -
Their speed up plan likely creates significant barriers to their end goal and will actually make a total military conversion take longer. Historical methods will take several years but use less political capital and generate less backlash while it’s happening. America is 336 Million people. If we use common numbers, that’s 210 million adults (chosen because it’s close enough and easily divisible by 3), 70 million Democrats, 70 million apolitical, and 70 million Republicans. If you start actually oppressing people you can expect the non far right republicans to join the democrats in opposition. You now have ~105 million people in passive resistance. If you want to occupy a population that large (Not taking geography into account) you need 10.5 million soldiers. That’s how impossible this paramilitary project is. They literally cannot provide that many soldiers unless one in three of their hardcore supporters signs up.
While there are likely quite a number of people in the service who would put the constitution first, there’s also a disturbing number of Trump supporters, up and down the ranks,
The Air Force is particularly infested due to a somewhat sleazy church that Cadets at the Academy are sort of forced to go to.
https://religionnews.com/2012/07/12/debate-reignites-over-religion-at-air-force-academy/
That sort of shit has been going on long enough that you have officers in pretty high position who are Christian Dominionists, or these days called Cristian Nationalists. People who want to tear down the constitution and replace it with the Bible.
Still, he won’t have the full support. But he’ll have a lot. Especially with local police stations and such.
Which is where things like the Florida State Guard come in.
The Heritage Foundation is already building out lists of loyalists and where they’re going to work if Trump wins. So yeah, it won’t be instant, but it will be pretty fast.
Oh yeah. I’m not saying there’s no support. I’m saying the military won’t support him. I fully expect people to resign from the military and join whatever shitty special thing they put together.
I’m saying that Trump will pare down the military until the only people left are supporters, which will be a disturbingly high number of people, including officers.
They won’t all quit to join his new paramilitary group, he’ll turn the military itself into his own paramilitary group. Starting with purges, and then promotions for lackies.
Yeah that’s scary shit. My feeling is that to the extent there is a such thing as the deep state, it consists of these entrenched military and intelligence institutions, powers, and traditions, and when it comes to Trump vs. the Constitution, my money is on the deep state doing the right thing. They’re not just going to let themselves all be replaced leaving no adults in the room. As soon as it became obvious that that was the plan and it starting to happen, I predict, with my magic crystal ball, a military counter coup, which might take a variety of forms, perhaps even ones appearing to be natural causes. I don’t know, I try not to make predictions because they always come true and now I feel like I’m causing the things to happen. /s
Kennedy fired his chairman of the Joint Chiefs. For planning to blow up some Florida hotels to get causus beli to attack Cuba. it was called operation northwoods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
And this is why I am dumbfounded that the majority of the left is anti-2a…the people who are gun owners unfortunately vote red, because they’re single issue voters or Republicans. All the dems would need to do to completely destroy the GOP would be drop the anti2a rhetoric and they’d sweep every election until the GOP died and another party came to compete.
I have never once heard an elected democratic politician (or serious candidate) speak against the 2nd amendment or even allude to repealing it. The only conversation I have personally seen/heard surrounding “gun control” is all about background checks/red flag laws which are supported by the majority of democratic and republican voters in every poll I’ve seen. All of the so-called “anti2a” rhetoric comes from the right in the form of fear mongering. That is to say (with no intention of being condescending), maybe stop listening to what right wing news outlets and politicians say Democrat’s are saying and just listen to what democrats are actually saying… You might be surprised at how sensible their ideas actually are on this issue.
You’re… you’re kidding right? The fuck are you talking about…
There’s literally an entire subreddit that documents every time a ban or confiscation comes up.
https://old.reddit.com/r/NOWTTYG/
You must be completely ignoring everything said on the Democrats side.
Uhh no…AWB, age limits, handgun bans, gun tax, mag limits, waiting periods, NFA… I could go on and on. You must not be from the USA if you think they only talk about BGC and ERPOs.
I love how you immediately think I’m listening to right wing garbage. You do know there are a large and growing amount of left leaning people who are gun owners now right? Trump admin helped increase that number tenfold. You might want to read more into what you think the dems are saying, because it’s not just ERPOs and BGCs…
It’s almost like having guns freely and widely accessible with few restrictions leads to a lot of death and injury, and the group with higher empathy has a problem with that.
Yes because other places without firearms, have no crime at all…
No gun crime, that can be said quite easily. Or at least the numbers of shootings are small enough that they make international news when they happen.
And also, the cops in those countries tend not to shoot people or pets. Like ever. Cases where an officer is forced to discharge their weapon are also international news stories.
But here in the states, we wouldn’t know any of that, because here there are two or three mass shootings per day.
Just let that dichotomy sink in a bit.
These countries also have safety nets and generally give a shit about their citizens. The usa doesn’t have any of that.
We need to end qualified immunity here big time. Also something other countries(western) don’t have. 1 in 38ish deaths via firearms are from police. That’s including suicides which account for 66% of all gun deaths in the usa.
No there is not. This is the issue with data from the anti2a crowd, it’s like talking to the anti-abortion groups…made up and fully exaggerated shit.
https://www.cnn.com/us/mass-shootings-fast-facts/index.html
It was one per day for a while there, but the numbers have been up the last few years.
So yes, two or three per day.
As a note, a mass shooting is defined as a shooting where 4 or more people are injured or killed, not including the gunman.
Don’t know how many times I’ve got to say this but the GVA is junk data.
Here is one from the 2024 list…it states 1 dead 9 injured…but if you go to the article referenced you have to go to another to see that…gang shooting surprise…
https://www.wsmv.com/2024/10/14/police-say-five-people-involved-jefferson-street-mass-shooting-had-gang-affiliations/
Even better is the 9 people injured, were injured after the shooting, and not from the gun fire(usually crowds panic and people get hurt from running). So no not what should be considered a mass shooting but it’s there because of some bullshit definition. The public hears mass shooting and thinks random person shot up a mall…not “gang members got into a fight and shot each other”
Are you saying that a gang shooting isn’t a mass shooting? Why? Are they not people?
In countries with sensible gun laws, the gangs don’t have guns.
The gangs still exist, because we’re humans, but they don’t have easy guns and thus, there are no mass shootings,
Don’t know how many times I’ve got to say this but the GVA is junk data.
Here is one from the 2024 list…it states 1 dead 9 injured…but if you go to the article referenced you have to go to another to see that…gang shooting surprise…
https://www.wsmv.com/2024/10/14/police-say-five-people-involved-jefferson-street-mass-shooting-had-gang-affiliations/
Even better is the 9 people injured, were injured after the shooting, and not from the gun fire(usually crowds panic and people get hurt from running). So no not what should be considered a mass shooting but it’s there because of some bullshit definition. The public hears mass shooting and thinks random person shot up a mall…not “gang members got into a fight and shot each other”
idiot, other places without firears have far less, and taking away of guns always lowers the violence. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes far less firearm deaths. Not less crime or other deaths… it’s a reason London had a higher knife homicide rate than NYC at one point. It also helps that those other places have safety nets and support their citizens.
They aren’t anti 2a. They’re anti extremist interpretation.
If they had the ability to repeal the 2nd, they would. The end goal is alway complete removal. Let’s stop acting like its not.
They say with zero evidence.
I never understood why it’s something that Dems want to hide. There is a pretty damn large portion that want to repeal the 2nd.
https://time.com/5216782/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment/
https://newrepublic.com/article/166628/democrats-repeal-second-amendment-guns
https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-joint-resolution/81
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/09/opinions/gun-reform-second-amendment-repeal-uvalde-shooting-press/index.html
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/repeal-second-amendment-gun-control/
https://www.amazon.com/Repeal-Second-Amendment-Safer-America/dp/1250244404
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a19608552/major-owens-second-amendment-repeal/
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2019/bills/SCR42_.pdf
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2022/07/11/jayland-walker-highland-park-uvalde-second-amendment/7809531001/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p
Because the poll has somehow vanished…
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/one-in-five-americans-wants-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/
So can we stop pretending that support to repeal and ban all guns isn’t something that is the end goal?
Lmao, throwing the kitchen sink at us and hoping we won’t check the details?
Retired Supreme Court Judge
Opinion article saying Democrats should, by a staff writer
A House Bill from 20 years ago with no co-sponsors, that didn’t even make it out of committee.
A Podcaster’s opinion article
Opinion article saying Democrats should, by a staff writer
College Professor wrote a book
The law saying you can’t have fully automatic weapons, (LMFAO, really? you think that’s a repeal of the second?)
An article about the the representative from number 3, who again, acted alone, admitted he acted without party support, and admitted it was little more than a political stunt. Thank you for giving us the first real evidence that Democrats are not trying to ban guns or repeal the second.
Some state legislators asking for a clarifying amendment. Which, (checks notes), yup completely ignored by the party.
A paywalled opinion piece by a staff writer.
Your Seattle Times article puts those numbers in the correct light, because 39 percent isn’t a majority or anywhere near enough to force action on the national level.
So no. The answer is no. Because despite using eleven sources you could not find any evidence the democrats are actually trying to ban all guns. Even if we repealed the second amendment it wouldn’t ban all guns, it would just open the opportunity to regulate them.
I will however say that every time the GOP offers thoughts and prayers over the bodies of children, that number grows and once it reaches a tipping point a ban will be inevitable and there will be no glorious civil war because support will just be that high. If the GOP backed off for even a second and allowed red flag laws and universal background check, and had their state AGs prosecute those laws then there would be less shit for law abiding gun owners to wade through. Which is why 75 percent of Americans support Universal Background Check and Gun Licensing. The country is still willing to work with you, that may not be true in a another decade with a hundred more high profile mass casualty events at schools.
? You asked for sources, I provided them and you complain…way to start out.
A democrat appointed judge. Guess he doesn’t count some how.
Ah yea another Democrat that doesn’t count…got it.
So…a bill from a Democrat…but doesn’t count…this is going to be a trend with you isn’t it?
Another Democrat that doesn’t count…
Yep definitely a trend…
A democrat got it… doesn’t count
I forgot how death by 1000 cuts doesn’t count…you sound like a anti-abortion mouth piece saying abortion can still be had in other states, but it’s fine to be banned in red ones.
Sooo yep… doesn’t count because they’re not true Democrats? I hear this a lot from Republicans when they try and refute points…
So…(Checks notes) Not a real Democrat…got it.
Another not real democrat…man you really think very few people are Democrats.
So 39% aren’t real Democrats is what you’re saying?
Got it no real Democrats…
Why are we talking about the shit stains in the GOP?
You do realize a good chunk of the GOP supports ERPOs right? But again why are we talking about the GOP? That wasn’t your question.
We’ve had 15 mass shootings in schools since Columbine… we’re going to need to have way more each year to get to 100 in under a decade. UBC requires a registery, but most people are to stupid to know this…and gun licensing is a joke.
None of that is going to stop or even dent gun deaths in this country.
If I have to acknowledge everyone who self identifies as a democrat then you have to acknowledge the Republicans and pro 2A groups are terrorists who should be hunted down and renditioned. After all, we’re counting what every single person who self identifies with the group says right? Not their actual platform or actions?
Let’s stop following GOP propaganda by pretending that it is.
https://lemmy.world/comment/12950998
Let’s stop acting like the person you’re discussing firearms with is a gop supporter…yea?
None of my sources are gop driven links…so…have fun.
39% support among Democrats. Not all Democrats, not a plurality, and not even a majority.
Two of those fucking links went to the same stupid bill from 1994 that a handful of people put forward as an alternative to the assault weapons ban, and one of them is goddamn sticker on Amazon. You really are grasping at straws here.
I can understand the appeal for repealing the 2nd amendment, since a lot of people consider it too vague to have any real meaning, and the conservative loaded SC has determined that “well regulated militia” extends to groups of racist hilljacks in a pickup shooting unarmed black men.
That being said though… 39% of Dems oppose it, which means that the Democratic party as a whole is 61% in favor of keeping it.
So, are you gonna take the L and delete your comment, or are you gonna post another wall of bullshit that you didn’t even bother to read before calling it gospel and spreading it over the fediverse?
So those %39 aren’t really Democrats? Got it…
Lol no they’re not, and the Amazon link is for a book from a Democrat…but ok…
Yea no… it’s only people who are antigun that find it vague… it’s got commas and states two things. The people should be able to bear arms and that the militia should exist… because at that time both sides considered a standing army to be a no go…so history tells us it’s not vague… just antigun groups do.
Lol…yea cause 39% is so little.
You mean are you going to keep whining because you don’t know history and think dems are pro2a?
Strawman argument. My counter-point as a whole was not that everyone wants to keep the 2nd Amendment, but that Democrats do not want to repeal the 2nd amendment. It has less than 50% support in the party. To further express why you are attacking a strawman…
So those %8 aren’t really Republicans? Got it…
I think the only people who find it straight-forward believe that any number of mass shootings, school shootings and random shootings is acceptable, as long as there are no more restrictions of any kind on their ability to purchase, sell, and use any weapon.
Also, most constitutional law scholars who had fucking doctorates in this shit find it vague.
Still <50%… Lol?
Are you acting like you do know the history of 2A movents in the US? Don’t make me laugh.
Anymore bullshit opinions pieces and Amazon links you want to spam here as “evidence”?
If we ever have the ability to repeal the 2A then the GOP is already in shambles and we’ll have the opportunity to make all kinds of other reforms that makes it impossible for them to recover.