cross-posted from: https://50501.chat/post/206911
First, Trump issued an executive order to militarize domestic law enforcement. Now a new order has come out. Buried in Project Homecoming, the executive order just released by the White House, is the single most dangerous shift in American civil liberties in a generation.
The same man who empowered ICE with military-grade surveillance, armored vehicles, and counterterror tools is now pushing the legal justification to detain people indefinitely.
The administration is laying the legal groundwork to suspend habeas corpus, the constitutional right that protects people from being detained without trial. It’s the right to not be disappeared. It’s the foundation of due process. And they’re getting ready to tear it away.
How? They’re invoking the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, which only allows habeas to be revoked “in cases of rebellion or invasion.” Stephen Miller and the Trump legal machine are now planning to label undocumented immigration as an “invasion,” which would let them bypass courts and jail people without charges, trials, or legal representation. The administration is trying to reclassify undocumented immigration as an invasion to unlock those powers. That’s the strategy.
Let that sink in. They’re preparing to create a class of people who can be detained indefinitely without ever seeing a judge.
Ask yourselves, If anyone can just be disappeared off the streets without charges, without court appearances, without access to a lawyer then do we still have a democracy?
This is just the beginning, it won’t stop at immigrants. So let’s be clear about what this will look like.
Indefinite detention. No due process. No hearings. No legal protections. We’ve seen this playbook before in history—and it always starts with creating a legal exception for a specific group. In this case, it’s undocumented immigrants. But legal exceptions do not stay contained. Once the precedent is set, it expands. Always.
Ask yourself: who defines what an “invasion” is? Who decides who qualifies as a threat? Protesters? Activists? Whistleblowers? Once the right to challenge detention is suspended for one group, the door opens to expand it. That is how authoritarianism consolidates power.
While they call this “restoring order,” here’s what they’re really doing:
They’re tearing $96.7 billion out of the economy. That’s how much undocumented immigrants contributed in taxes in 2022, Specifically:
• $59.4 billion in federal taxes
• $37.3 billion in state and local taxes
• $33.9 billion toward social insurance programs they are banned from accessing
Again, these are people paying into Social Security, Medicare, and public infrastructure they’re not even allowed to use.
The source? The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Read it yourself. https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024/
California alone would lose $8.47 billion in annual tax revenue if these mass deportations succeed. Texas would lose $4.87 billion. New York? $3.1 billion. Every state would feel the economic gut punch. And don’t forget: these are programs undocumented workers pay into but cannot use. They’re helping hold up a system that offers them nothing in return.
Now ask yourself: who is going to make up that lost revenue?
You. The poor. The working class. Not the rich, who continue to dodge taxes with impunity.
The federal government has already slashed funding to the states. Wealthy elites are sitting on tax loopholes and lower effective rates than working people. The answer is obvious: the working class will be left to cover the difference. Your rent, your healthcare, your school funding—all of it will take the hit.
What we are watching is economic sabotage wrapped in xenophobic theater. It is designed to scapegoat immigrants, distract from billionaire tax breaks, and destroy civil liberties in the process.
We have reached a dangerous tipping point. A government openly discussing the suspension of habeas corpus is a government no longer pretending to be democratic.
Habeas corpus is the line between freedom and fascism.
If we let this fall, there is no turning back.
This is the moment where people either pay attention or pay the price. Be ready.
Read the order. Learn what’s happening. Sound the alarm. Talk to your communities. And above all, do not get used to THIS.
Originally Posted By
u/transcendent167At2025-05-10 10:37:42 AM| Source
Your typical gun nut is a fascist/racist boot licker and the rest of us tend not to be that loud.
All that my guns are going to do for me is see to it that I die in a hail of gunfire from whatever form of gestapo shows up someday.
Armed protesting works only when there’s twenty or more people. I don’t know hardly anyone who is armed because my local fellow Democrats treat owning guns like shitting your pants on purpose.
The objective is to take out two. Just two. Even one would be ok, but two: that's a win.
The problem is that the American public never benefited from the insurgency training the US gave to Afghanistan rebels during the Russian occupation. Nobody likely to rebel knows how to make IEDs, or how to booby-trap their houses. And a lot of people don't realize just how useless handguns are for these situations. The Army doesn't even issue handguns to infantry, because they're practically useless.
Long guns are cheaper, more likely to penetrate body armor, and more accurate. Folks, when you're arming yourself, skip the Glock and get a hunting rifle.
The rest of your post is good but this is false. I was an Army infantryman who carried an M-16/M-203 and also a Beretta. In my unit there was one person in each squad with a Beretta. It depends on your unit's mission.
11B, or ... well, I guess they're grouping 11M in with 11B, now. Or mechanized?
When I was in, the only infantry that got issued Barettas were 11C and officers. I think mechanized might have gotten them too, but they needed all the help they could get.
I was 11H/11M, served in a hmmwv AT unit. I know they didn’t issue handguns to the 11B guys (except officers as you said) because it’s one more thing to carry.
But I had to qual on the M9 every year and I hated it because they were trash.
Ah. Yeah. I should have been more specific. The point I was trying to get across is that handguns are a backup.
A hunting rifle for home defense?
Were we talking about home defense?
Hmmm, I thought so, because of the ICE stuff etc.
But in a protest a rifle could also be too large. On the other hand, people are going to disperse really fast once anyone shoots, so yes. Maybe both?
I wouldn't use a handgun for home defense either, though. Not preferably, anyway; a short barrel shotgun is best for that.
Handguns in a protest are most likely to injure other protestors. Handguns are fun, don't get me wrong, and really of you're the kind of person who feels the need to carry, they're the only practical option. So, in not saying they're utterly useless, I'm just saying in almost any situation, they're the least good option if you have alternatives. If you're participating in an insurgency, you want a rifle. Home defense, a shotgun is almost always going to be better.
Most people are not John Wick, having shoot-outs in crowded bars; and to its credit, in the Wick films, when he had a choice of weapons, he always went for the AR or shotgun first, and resorted to handgun only when that's all he had left. Not that John Wick films are, like, some source of truth, but it's admirably well researched in those areas where cinematic demands allow.
Seriously, my advice for first-time gun owners is: resist the temptation of the more gangsta handgun and get either a shotgun or rifle first. Save the handguns for later purchases. ARs are always a good option: plentiful, relatively cheap ammo, and ARs can be had for relatively little money if you aren't blinging them out. Or if home defense is your main concern, a side-by-side break 20" shotgun: you want power, shoot slugs. You want to not punch holes through your walls and accidentally kill someone in another room or another building, shoot bird or buck shot. Neither will go through body armor, but neither will any pistol, including a massive hand cannon like a .44. For body armor, you need a rifle, preferably one shooting the highest velocity rounds you can get.
Even in a house, if the dirty criminal is wearing body armor, I will absolutely want my .308. At point blank range, no common body armor will stop that. If you're really concerned about maneuverability, get a Bullpup. My 18" .308 Bullpup is 27" overall length - hardly longer than the barrel, and supremely maneuverable.
I mean a 1425 fps slug is definitely gonna have an effect on most levels of armor at close range.
Someone's going home with broken bones, for sure, but the saying goes that with body armor, the only failure is penetration. That's the difference between surviving and dying.
You may not walk away taking a .44 to the chest with body armor, but you'll probably be back to oppressing minorities by next year.
That reminds me, I need to restock my flechette rounds and those AP slugs. It'd be nice if they weren't 12 dollars a slug, but man they work even on level IVs.
I know. I've got myself set up for reloading, and mostly easy, straight-walled stuff. Unfortunately, that's all slow - powerful, but slow, so I have the .308 which has plenty of velocity and punch, if not quite the range of lighter, faster rounds. I'm not picking them off at 1000 yards anymore, anyway. That's a game for the young.
I'd like to get some of those, too. It's shocking how many of these traitorous International Criminal Escapes have body armor.
If you decide to get them do it early... seeing a lot of 45 day waits on ammo online now.