They all joined ICE.

The militias are cosplaying cowards, the actual people of Minnesota are ramping up and succeeding in resisting ICE. There is a nonzero chance there will be a standoff between the national guard and the army in Minneapolis.

Trump is trying to incite an insurrection so he politically gets a free hand to do whatever he wants. If Congress and the courts are too slow or too cowardly to get anything done, he might get what he wants.

They only show up when another kid shot their parents in the face.

I guess "Don't Tread on Me" and states rights are just for red states. It's shameful watching all the hypocrisy.

We're not yet at the level yet.

Just the possibility of an armed population resisting still gives them pause. But we're not at the level of the theoretical threat becoming realized.

If the people too eagerly exercise it they'll be used as justification for further oppression. Resistance is political. Unfortunately most of our politicians are spineless cowards on both sides.

But it is not at all a mystery about how things got to be the way they were in the 1930s. I've heard people I know advocate for atrocities.

Many Americans don't value the 2nd amendment very much. Public opinion in Minnesota in particular, is largely in favour of strict gun laws. Many anti-gun advocates claim that developing a militia against the government is futile and even counterproductive.

regulation of a militia. the apocrypha is that "the people" have uninfringed rights to arms, as a counter to a militia that is conveying tyranny.

i have read, in various places, that the last straw initiating foment of open revolution was when the kings militia began "taking liberties" with the wives and daughters of the colonists. piecemeal resistance, consolidated to a social movement, and the "shot heard around the world" was loosed.

After the Civil War, nearly all states gave up on maintaining their own independent militia and they became the National Guard (a few states maintain poorly provisioned state guards). Ostensibly the Guard is run by the states but can be federalized at any time. Previous presidents only used that to deploy the Guard overseas, with a few exceptions (notably Eisenhower, to enforce the early civil rights legislation and court decisions). Unfortunately those powers were never reformed, so Trump has already deployed them domestically (though there have been court decisions against that), but it effectively means states can't use the Guard to protect against federal aggression (it would simply be immediately federalized). Any attempt to actually deploy state troops against federal law enforcement, even when they're aren't justly enforcing laws, would be met with the Insurrection Act, allowing the deployment of active duty troops against the states, not just the Guard. Trump has been eagerly awaiting that moment, as it would allow him to completely cut the state off from the rest of the country, including Congress (you're in rebellion, you have no representation), and lock their elections in legal limbo.

Nowadays, the 2A is used simply to guarantee gun access to individuals, a movement underway since the early civil rights movement in the late '50s and largely confirmed with the Heller decision in '08. Unfortunately, that movement didn't bring any right to actually resist government overreach, which is why we haven't seen citizen militias form to violently resist ICE's own violence. They'd simply be killed and imprisoned and used to justify an increase in violence.

Personally, these events have really exposed the moral bankruptcy of the modern 2A movement. They want guns, and the attendant increase in shootings that accompany that, but have brought no real ability to resist government violence along with it. So we have the negative without the purported positive.

Obviously the next Congress and President will need to reform how the Guard works and how it can be deployed, otherwise we'll see this again.

I'm suspecting they'd stay neutral, but even that would be better than ICE alone: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46666605

Law of war training for new troops was eliminated back in April.[1] The core concept that members of the US military have a duty to resist illegal orders is no longer taught to troops.

Recall Trump's comments after several US members of Congress made a video along the lines of "you must refuse illegal orders." Trump called this "seditious behavior, punishable by DEATH!"[2]

[1] https://www.veterannews.org/veteran-news/army-eliminates-sev...

[2] https://www.npr.org/2025/11/20/nx-s1-5615190/trump-democrats...

I'm not especially in the know about such things. Is there a Chicago politician that crossed Trump such that revenge against Chicago would be in the cards? I assume this is about Walz running against him. It would be California (due to Harris) but they're probably in a better position to fight back than Michigan is.

Might have to do with the size of the city - I've heard through the grapevine that even Minneapolis is too big and they're thinking of shifting to some city in Maine or New Hampshire.

"Too big" supposedly meaning orchestrating something that allows them to have the optics without the potential for fallout. This is really speculation though.

They found a weakness to justify an increase in violence to their base: the day care corruption. Despite the fact that most of that was found and prosecuted years ago, right-wing influencers were successfully able to bring it back to the forefront, and the administration jumped on it to justify an increased ICE presence, naturally leading to the violence we see. They didn't get the same thing in Chicago, where ICE avoided most of the areas likely to see violence in the first place. And they didn't leave Chicago, they just aren't publicizing it like they were.

It's Knives Out: Glass Onion, but I'll take Onion Ring because it's Monday morning and I need a laugh before signing on.

I'd be surprised if Walz has the spine to deploy the Guard in response.

Anchorage is closer to Nuuk than to Minneapolis by air... Just saying.