[mediaman]

The Federalist papers, Thomas Jefferson, and the Supreme Court as recently as 2008 have all identified the right to bear arms as a mechanism for protection against a tyrannical state. It's surprising as a 2A supporter that you seem unaware of why the amendment exists.

Is that true, or is there something more here?

[xyzelement]

The leap you are making is that citizens perceive immigration enforcement as tyrannical.

[mediaman]

Yes, every gigantic new secret police force answerable only to the executive is created to "catch criminals" or "deport immigrants" or do whatever else people will accept, until said police force's mandate is morphed as needed. That is why so many 2A defenders are (rightly) skeptical of large domestic police forces answerable to the executive branch, which is what ICE is; it's also why so many defenders have been skeptical of the FBI, ATF, and so on. The only people who think the mandate won't adjust as needed are, to be blunt, trusting patsies, which is not what 2A defenders have historically been.

The creators and defenders of the second amendment were and are smart people. They were skeptical of highly concentrated power, which is why we have a federalist system; they were also highly skeptical of large concentrations of militarized police power, which is why our police in general are run by states and municipalities. It is really quite difficult to reconcile support of a massive ICE apparatus with any sort of comprehension of the political philosophy of the US constitution.

[deeg]

They should. The president posted today on his official account [1] that ICE (among other law enforcement) should arrest anyone burning the flag, an act recently affirmed by SCOTUS to be legal. That has nothing to do with immigration enforcement. Sounds like jack booted thugs to me.

1 - https://bsky.app/profile/dbernstein.bsky.social/post/3m2d7z7...