• iheartneopets@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        The only person in the whole country using the second amendment correctly (successfully, anyway)

        • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 days ago

          Eh, going off solo and only taking out a single target is not exactly a wave of citizens applying their rights.

          Now, if this solo guy keeps going and only targets similar people, then we’ve got a solid case that the goal is actually to fight tyranny and exert the will of the people.

          One CEO down is murder. A hundred is a movement. All of them is revolution.

          • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            Yeah, people actually doing what the second amendment was explicitly written to allow them to do looks like, uhhh… January 6, 2021.

            • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              Well, yeah.

              Just because they were idiots, with the goal of putting an even bigger idiot on a throne doesn’t mean they didn’t have a right to revolution.

              Thing is, a failed revolution, insurrection, or coup has a different name: treason.

              It’s not a game. You either take action and succeed, or you’re a criminal. Doesn’t matter who’s in charge, what the political landscape is, what the principles being fought for are. You fail, you’re fucked.

              We don’t have to like the January 6th morons, or the core individuals that used the bigger crowd as cover for the actual attempted coup and killings. But the 2nd is, in part, about the populace having the means you overthrow, resist, or otherwise exert their ownership of their own nation. I’m glad they failed, but I don’t object to them exerting a core human right.

              But they also have to understand that they failed, and that (barring trump pulling some pardons out of his ass) they’ll have to do the time if/when convicted.

              Had they succeeded, they’d be heroes to their supporters, and the rest of us would have had to decide whether or not to take similar steps, whether or not to take up arms and retake the nation.

              • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                Not an American here so, asking for clarification, but isn’t the 2nd Amendment purely and solely about the right to organize into militias and not about what such militias are for? So, it guarantees you can have your gun but not that you can just up and use it to upend Human Rights because “lol someone wrote it in 1776”?

                • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  The more-or-less stated goal of the second amendment is that the people have the tools needed to overthrow the government if they need to.

                • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  Nah, that’s a pretty common misconception.

                  A militia is an army of the people. In order to be that army, the people must be armed.

                  When you go back and look at everything else documented at the time of the framing of the constitution, and later the bill of rights, a huge portion of the 2nd was specifically about making sure that an unjust government could be taken down by the populace. It wasn’t the only reason, but it was a big one.

                  Remember, these were a bunch of British subjects overthrowing their legal ruler and claiming self governance.

                  There is a fundamental concept that all power is vested in the people, and anything that stands against that is subject to revolt.

                  That’s a core human right. It is not one to be used lightly, but it is fundamental to the whole country as it is directly enumerated in the bill of rights, second only to the three core freedoms that are/were considered big enough to list first.

                  There is debate about what is called the individual mandate, but if you go back to the concepts the framers discussed, and the way they overturned British rule, it kinda stops making sense to say it wasn’t an individual mandate. Most of the arguments made against it are completely misrepresenting what militia and (more importantly) “well regulated” mean.

                  See, a revolution isn’t an upending of human rights, it’s the ultimate expression of one of them. Access to arms (it isn’t just guns, at all) is necessary for people to express a right to self governance in the face of an established government. In theory, any arms would be allowed, but once you get beyond man portable weaponry, you run into enough resistance that trying to argue for that is pointless.

                  Besides, one of the first steps in any sustained revolution is seizing the arms of the rulers, so (again in theory) having arms sufficient to take police and/or national guard level armories, that’s good enough. So it isn’t worth trying to fight for things to be expanded when there’s already a fight to just keep things as they are regarding firearm access in specific.

                  The language has shifted over two plus centuries, in other words. Militia isn’t a big, organized thing at all, or it wasn’t then. It was a group of the people called up, or self organizing, to take action as needed. At the time, a standing army was (among some of the founders) something to be prevented. The term wel regulated would have meant more well supplied, maybe well trained or ready, depending on who you ask. Which in turn means that the 2nd is primarily about every person being armed and ready if needed, so that all that was necessary is the need being known.

                  There’s a meme about the idea that goes “something, something, tree of liberty needs watering”. It refers to something said by Thomas Jefferson, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Which is an out of context statement that comes from a Letter he wrote, which is excerpted in that link, and which links to the full letter in turn.

                  The states were built on the blood of tyrants and patriots. It’s too dear to the core ethos of us, the descendants of those that shed that blood to ever be totally erased.

        • Mango@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 days ago

          I appreciate the sentiment, but there’s a while cult of people dedicated to using it correctly that you never hear of because they never shoot anyone.

    • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Finally, some American (I assume here he is) shows they know how to use a gun!

      Now, where was he for the Olympics…

      (hopefully, training for this masterful moment)

  • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    6 days ago

    Been saying it since 🔔Limbaugh🔔. The idea that we need to pretend it isn’t a good thing when evil people die is some Disney channel bullshit

        • Soulg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 days ago

          I’m still upset we didn’t get anything about snokes back story. Why did he even exist if he was going to do nothing and then die

          • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            6 days ago

            He existed purely to develop Kylo. He got fridged.

            Also, what he did do was create the First Order and challenge the whole galaxy, as well as coming up with the idea for Starkiller Base. He did the most out of anyone in the sequels but it was all offscreen. They told, not showed.

          • EvilZ@thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 days ago

            It shows how little they actually put effort in character building…

            How can you declare that Snot or Snort or whatever his name is the master of an important character and then boom he’s dead…

            It was so pointless…

            Obi wan kenobi death was purposeful as you see he became stronger in death…

            Stork… Or wait was it snork? Anyway that character didn’t even need to be in the movie…

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      6 days ago

      I was thinking earlier… maybe all the lessons in the saturday morning cartoons were really intended to keep the masses from fighting back. I mean, no, the good guys don’t always win in the end. And cheating sure as hell does payoff. They want the masses to take the high road. While they tunnel through anything in thier way.

    • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 days ago

      Yep, I sometimes really feel that that kind of people (you know what I mean) never progressed their morality past Disney cartoons that have it all dumbed down so that toddlers can grasp the concept of right and wrong.

    • cliffracerflyyy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      The evil ones die in tons of Disney movies. That’s where mostly the US of A got their brains washed and consequently celebrate a public execution without due process.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        I think they’re talking about Cruella, a movie where the “heroine” would eventually go on to want to kill and skin puppies. There’s also Maleficent, but I don’t know enough about that one to comment.

        I also think there’s a lot of Hollywood heroes that are really villains and the movie is just reflecting the author’s fucked up world view. The Kingsman is a good example. Can we stop writing environmentalists as villains?

        In a lot of stories, due process isn’t something that comes up because of time constants and scope of the villain’s ambitions, but there’s something wrong in the writer’s room for The Flash TV series. Agents of Shield would eventually deal with super nazis and alien invaders, but Flash was dealing with bank robbers and locking them up in their secret prison.

  • thawed_caveman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    6 days ago

    I don’t think it’s funny, more like it feels good to see an atom of justice done for once. One murder changes nothing, it has no value as far as changing the system, but the symbolic value is through the roof.

    Here’s the thing: even if we change the healthcare system tomorrow, they get to keep their billions. We can change the system, but there will be no justice because one of the principles of our legal system is that justice isn’t retroactive. So seeing one of the guilty parties killed is an example of retribution that is very rare and exhilarating.

    Just not funny per se

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 days ago

      one of the principles of our legal system is that justice isn’t retroactive

      There have been plenty of cases in history where this didn’t hold.

      King Charles I of England. King Louis XVI of France (not to mention the rest of his far-less-culpable family). Many prominent Nazis post-WWII. When society collectively decides that someone’s actions were heinous enough and caused enough harm, at a certain point a law can be created and applied retroactively, often on the grounds that there was a clear violation of some greater principle that should be self-evident.

      • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        I like how you missed the “our legal system” when giving examples entirely outside the legal system in which this killing took place.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 days ago

          Umm, no, not really? King Louis maybe, but the Common Law system used across most former UK colonies traces a line back to before King Charles’ execution, and the Nuremberg Trials were set up by the Allies (which prominently includes the US and UK) and form an important basis of 21st century international law.

  • VoilaChihuahua@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    5 days ago

    It gives me hope that maybe the distant future doesn’t include a privileged class using the rest of us as free labor, fuel, and food…

  • TooManyGames@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    6 days ago

    Just as a comment, not a suggestion: a society that squeezes its people has to either repress them hard, or at some point expect it to start boiling over. The mob lynching the leaders is what happens once the mob gets desperate enough and are not heard.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    7 days ago

    Dude murdered countless with the stroke of a pen. What was that one song they sing in Chicago?

    🎶 He had it comin’ 🎶

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    6 days ago

    Call every crime tipline and report the person responsible for this death and many others - That person’s name was Brian Thompson.

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      6 days ago

      Still reminds me of the time they sent out a sketch of the uni bomber and musician/professional jokester Weird Al did this

  • TheLoneMinon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 days ago

    My theory is that it’s just that episode of Its Always Sunny from the new season. Dennis is placed on a customer service loop and eventually gets so frustrated with robot receptionists, scripted tier 1 support, and a system designed to waste our time and pit us against each other, that he tracks down the CEO of the car company at his beach house and rips his heart out of his chest and eats it.

    So maybe someone should try that next time?

    • lettruthout@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      80
      ·
      7 days ago

      On a personal level, yeah it’s got to be a shock. On the other hand they profited off of the suffering of others. My empathy is limited.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Right. The situation could directly correlate. The guy responsible for limiting access to physical and mental healthcare for millions was shot and killed in a premeditated murder. He’s fucking with millions of physically and mentally ill people. Granted, this is the most extreme repercussion for his actions, but it’s not like he’s some random CEO.

        • lobut@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          61
          ·
          7 days ago

          He didn’t suffer as much as the pain he’s inflicted upon others. He also didn’t bankrupt his family in the process.

          I can’t say this is the way I want society to run … but quite frankly I think we’re all sick of pretending that killing someone with a pen is any different than killing someone with a gun.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 days ago

        Limited empathy is totally fine. Cheering for assassinations is a different thing ( not saying you did).

        I wish the systems this dude profited from were changed. This guy will just be replaced, and the next one will have a security detail ($$$)

        • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          7 days ago

          I dunno, I think this might really rattle a few people. It’s one thing to talk about social consequences like not being invited to garden parties or whatever, another entirely to be potentially killed.

    • BakerBagel@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      7 days ago

      I doubt they lost any sleep knowing their dad killed thousands by denying them coverage. Why would i lose sleep for them? Hell, they are probably looking at a juicy life insurance payout, which is more than any of us will get when United kills our loved ones.

    • Drusas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      I feel bad for his kids, seeing the country laugh and cheer at their father’s death.

      He still earned it, though. Hopefully this inspires them not to follow in his footsteps.

      • frostysauce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        I feel bad for his kids, seeing the country laugh and cheer at their father’s death.

        Yeah, well, maybe they’ll learn something from it and not go on to be horrible people themselves.

          • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            There is ever reason to assume the kids would not be Targeted? Killing one person may not satisfy everyone.

            • Drusas@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              If the gunman was angry about healthcare, there is absolutely no reason that he would go for the children after killing the father.

              There’s no logic to it.

  • systemglitch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    7 days ago

    Is anyone, not virtue signalling, truly upset by this? It looks like a good, but small beginning of a purge long overdue.

    • Enkrod@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Upset? No. More like a little uncomfortable. Partly because I’m an idealist who always hopes for the best and most moral and peaceful solutions. Partly because it makes me uncomfortable how little I am angered by this. Sure I absolutely do not want proles to go and kill the bourgeoisie… but I guess it’s not… I don’t feel the need to condemn this. Sometimes things are just… shrug

      But it’s really just a little uncomfortable, like a sock not quite fitting my foot.

      I am far FAR more uncomfortable with someone calling this the good but small beginning of an overdue purge.

    • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      Upset? Maybe his wife or kids. If someone that disgustingly anti-social is even capable of faking a marriage and being a “father”.

        • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          I can just assume it was about money. Who else would marry such a disgusting human being? …if she was not as equally disgusting though. I really don’t know and not sure I do want to.

          • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            I mean how ya gonna marry someone when you know every time you have to go to the hospital theres a 32% chance your husband allows you to just die so he can save 1000$

            • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              You probably could if you’d see this as a great buisiness-idea. Save thousand moneyz for only givimg up one life you don’t even know. To many this obviously seems great.

      • positiveWHAT@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Pointless? Nah, the bourgeois probably needed a reminder of what can happen if they keep shafting people. Recon it won’t be long until the greens starts to remind them too that the climate clock still ticks.