Around 1,500 soldiers on standby for deployment to Minneapolis
Militias, National Guard, and Federal Power
- Debate over what “militia” means: some equate it with the modern National Guard; others emphasize citizen groups distinct from state and federal forces.
- Commenters note that National Guard units are now tightly integrated with federal armed forces and can be federalized, limiting their use against federal overreach.
- State defense forces are mentioned as legally distinct but seen as militarily weak against federal troops.
- Several posts argue that self-styled right-wing militias are absent when government power expands; some accuse them of siding with agencies like ICE rather than opposing “tyranny.”
Second Amendment and Resistance to Government
- A non‑US commenter asks how the 2nd Amendment fits this situation; replies say the threshold for armed resistance is not yet reached and premature violence would strengthen repression.
- Others argue Minnesota public opinion favors stricter gun laws, and many see armed resistance as futile or counterproductive.
- One detailed comment traces how the 2A has shifted from a militia concept to an individual-rights doctrine (e.g., Heller), without any effective right to resist government violence.
- Several commenters claim the modern gun‑rights movement and the NRA are aligned with authoritarian power, providing widespread guns but no organized resistance to abuses.
Partisan Hypocrisy and Extremism
- Strong criticism that Republicans who once championed state sovereignty now support federal intervention in a blue state, seen as clear hypocrisy.
- Some argue “both sides” are bad and driven by fear and emotion; others sharply reject equivalence, saying the US has a center‑right party and a far‑right party, with the radical left holding almost no institutional power.
- Discussion of voters’ choices frames recent elections as “rejecting the incumbent” more than positively endorsing the alternative, with propaganda and information bubbles blamed for polarization.
Military Oaths, Training, and Obedience
- One veteran expresses optimism that troops will view ICE as a “domestic enemy” and side with the Constitution.
- Others are skeptical, citing reports (linked in the thread) that law‑of‑war training and enforcement structures (JAG, IG) have been curtailed to remove “roadblocks” to presidential orders.
- Commenters contrast enlisted and officer oaths (enlisted explicitly mention obeying the President; officer oaths do not) and question how many service members would actually resist illegal or immoral orders.
- Concern is raised that bringing in troops from distant states makes them functionally like occupying forces.
Why Minneapolis Specifically?
- Theories include: targeting the Minnesota governor for political revenge; Minneapolis being more “manageable” than larger cities; and using high‑profile daycare/food‑aid fraud scandals (with a notable Somali component) as a pretext for a visible ICE surge.
- Some insist fraud is being used as political cover: ICE has no direct fraud‑enforcement mandate and is there for immigration, not criminal financial enforcement.
- Sub‑discussion examines the demographics of prosecuted fraud defendants and whether emphasis on Somali involvement is racially motivated.
Escalation Risks and “System-Breaking”
- Multiple commenters fear a deliberate strategy to provoke open conflict: protesters, state Guard, and hand‑picked federal troops in close contact could justify martial law or Insurrection Act deployment.
- Past foreign examples are invoked where civilian nonviolent resistance sometimes stopped troops, contrasted with more ideologically isolated forces that repress hard.
- A movie monologue about “breaking norms, then the system itself” is cited as an apt metaphor for the current presidency’s incremental erosion of democratic constraints.
- Dark irony surfaces around slogans like “Don’t Tread on Me,” the “tree of liberty,” and the supposed protective role of the 2nd Amendment, which many see as having failed in practice.