5 ms·

From Yonhap (Korea state news): "Activities related to National Assembly, political parties banned: martial law commander." [1] "Entry, exit from National Asse

From Yonhap (Korea state news): "Activities related to National Assembly, political parties banned: martial law commander." [1] "Entry, exit from National Assembly blocked after declaration of martial law." [2] [1] https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241203013900315 https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241203013900315 [2] https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241203013200315 https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241203013200315

nurumaik 2y ago
Is he going to ban voting next?
- jandrese 2y ago
  I think the next step is just to jail anybody who might vote against him.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    IDK why you are grey right now because his statements reported by CNN are basically a purging of the opposition party. The entire reason he declared martial law was to eliminate the opposition.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - sidewndr46 2y ago
    Given the economics of that, it seems like it'd be pretty ineffective. It'd be easier to simply postpone elections indefinitely
- sandworm101 2y ago
  That is what martial law is all about: pausing democratic norms to deal with an emergency. Voting, public gatherings, a free internet ... it is open season.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    What a time to be alive to see several major democracies in decline or turmoil all within the same time window.
    - card_zero 2y ago
      "I'm sick of this" -- Sepultura (1993)
      - debo_ 2y ago
        "What goes around... Comes around" — Sepultura (1996)
soraminazuki 2y ago
Is that even legal? Because if it is, that means the president can prevent martial law from ever being lifted. The whole constitution would be pointless.
- cogman10 2y ago
  What does legal matter if the guys holding the guns don't care about the law?
  - all2 2y ago
    Suddenly the rationale of the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution becomes clear.
    - cogman10 2y ago
      The 2nd amendment was added because the founding fathers didn't want a federal military. Instead, they wanted every state to have its own militia [1]. The interpretation that it means every private citizen can own a gun is modern not historic. It wasn't until the 2008 DC V Heller case that the right to firearms was actually established. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Absolutely incorrect. The state militias consisted of private citizens with their own arms who would organize when needed, not standing state armies with government issued arms. Also, private gun ownership was the norm at the time. Heller draws it's decision from historical reality and originalist philosophy
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Heller draws it's decision from historical reality and originalist philosophy Private gun ownership != the right to a private gun.

nurumaik 2y ago

Is he going to ban voting next?

jandrese 2y ago
I think the next step is just to jail anybody who might vote against him.
- cogman10 2y ago
  IDK why you are grey right now because his statements reported by CNN are basically a purging of the opposition party. The entire reason he declared martial law was to eliminate the opposition.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  Given the economics of that, it seems like it'd be pretty ineffective. It'd be easier to simply postpone elections indefinitely
sandworm101 2y ago
That is what martial law is all about: pausing democratic norms to deal with an emergency. Voting, public gatherings, a free internet ... it is open season.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  What a time to be alive to see several major democracies in decline or turmoil all within the same time window.
  - card_zero 2y ago
    "I'm sick of this" -- Sepultura (1993)
    - debo_ 2y ago
      "What goes around... Comes around" — Sepultura (1996)

soraminazuki 2y ago

Is that even legal? Because if it is, that means the president can prevent martial law from ever being lifted. The whole constitution would be pointless.

cogman10 2y ago
What does legal matter if the guys holding the guns don't care about the law?
- all2 2y ago
  Suddenly the rationale of the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution becomes clear.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    The 2nd amendment was added because the founding fathers didn't want a federal military. Instead, they wanted every state to have its own militia [1]. The interpretation that it means every private citizen can own a gun is modern not historic. It wasn't until the 2008 DC V Heller case that the right to firearms was actually established. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Absolutely incorrect. The state militias consisted of private citizens with their own arms who would organize when needed, not standing state armies with government issued arms. Also, private gun ownership was the norm at the time. Heller draws it's decision from historical reality and originalist philosophy
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Heller draws it's decision from historical reality and originalist philosophy Private gun ownership != the right to a private gun.