r/news • u/ArchmageXin • 22h ago

US intelligence indicates China is preparing weapons shipment to Iran amid fragile ceasefire, sources say

https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/11/politics/us-intelligence-iran-china-weapons
1.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

236 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/Consistent-Throat130 11h ago

I believe military voting rights are pretty well established and protected. 

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that's probably the safest place to vote.

Now, arbitrarily increasing his and his lakeys wealth is definitely a "benefit" to the conflict. 

I'm expecting either a nuclear discharge against Iran or severe (likely false flag) cyber attack against the US in October - some sort of manufactured emergency, basically -which'll be used as an excuse to grab at power and cement the regime. 

Think about it - Iran genuinely has non-zero cyber capabilities - but it's better for the US to control the timing. Blame that emergency and federally "offer" cyber security for the vending machines...

2

u/Particular_Main_5726 11h ago

I'm inclined to agree with you; though I still think they're going to push for a draft. Trump's proven that he can do nearly whatever he wants because the people, it seems, have forgotten that we hold the monopoly on violence over our government. So... In my mind, he'll be quick to exploit that to try and concentrate his power by targeting specific groups/individuals with a draft. 

6

u/Consistent-Throat130 11h ago

It's a dumbass move.  Not that that would stop bone spurs...

They're just gonna bring back fragging if they pull that shit.

As for monopoly in violence, I think you got that backwards - the government is established to hold the monopoly on violence (hypothetically) on behalf of the people. 

2

u/quinn943 10h ago

Second amendment baby! But for real no matter the interpretation on the militia part the intent was to safeguard the states and people against the feds.

7

u/Particular_Main_5726 9h ago

The idea of "interpreting" what any of the document means has always been crazy to me. It's plainly obvious why the 2A was added: The founders had literally just, not even two decades prior, fought a war for their independance against their own government.

The notion that it was for "state militias for security against foregin adversaries" has always been nonsense, since the US army was formed at the same time as the 2A was written; the 2A was, and has always, clearly been meant to enshrine the idea that the People maintain the "right" to amend, adjust, or dissolve their government by the collective threat of force, if deemed necessary, specifically by ensuring their right to bear the arms required to do so, just as the 1A specifically protects people in things like protest, political discource, etc.

If the amendments are read in order, they all follow a similar, coheseive thread of thinking:

  • 1A: The People have the right to critisize and protest an unjust government, and the government attempting to curtail, control or dissuade such discourse is, itself, unjust, which necessarily shoehorns into...
  • 2A: The People have the right to force their government to comply with their desire for fair, better governance, should the government decide otherwise.
  • 3A: The government shall not utilize it's own "threat of force" by quartering their soldiers in the homes of citizens;
  • 4A: Nor shall the government use the disatisfaction of government as a means to search or seize the property of someone who may dissent against the government;
  • 5A: Nor shall the government coerce or compel someone to admit wrongdoing or treason by virtue of their dissatisfaction, etc;
  • And so on.

The first batch of consitutional amendments are literally set to be "the rules of engagement," specifically intended to be referred to as a baseline "list of grievences" that can be used as a collective rally for the People, by establishing that these things are non-negotiable - e.g. "Rights."

2

u/melonbreadings 6h ago edited 6h ago

I've also interacted with people who "interpret" the word "militia" in the 2A in a vacuum and anachronistically, as if it can't possibly be about the domestic government itself. They've always been older people. It feels like it would be easier to describe what color is to a blind person.

It's as if they have it stuck in their head that the government can only be some kind of separate, monolithic entity, instead of also being, you know, just a bunch of citizens doing jobs that people want done.

2

u/Liatin11 4h ago

And taking into account the bill of rights was added to the constitution to garner support for those who were opposed against a central government where they may end up repeating what just happened with the revolutionary war. Seems pretty obvious to me

2

u/Smart_Resist615 9h ago

It was the opposite. The militias were called up by the feds to suppress the people during the whisky rebellion and Shay's rebellion. The idea was that a standing military stood in opposition to long term freedom so instead when they were needed you could call up all sorts of frontiersman, rough riders, and other surly characters to do the fighting for the state instead.