When is violence acceptable?

[Avatar4321]

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

 

[Ravi]

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

There is a big difference between politicians and private citizens calling for violence.

 

[LiberalNut]

Given that we have a constitutional system that allows for non-violent altering and indeed abolishion of government, violence as a means for governmental change is NEVER acceptable. As long as the constitution functions, using violence as a means to induce societal change is TREASON.

I am sworn to support and defend said contitution. Commit this sort of treason and i will shoot you. Left, right, no matter. I will shoot you. or one of my brothers and sisters in arms will.

 

[Liberty]

i'd like to think if anyone tries to come to my house without a warrant and is there to take my guns that I go out in a blaze of glory because a disarmed nation is a nation of serfdom imo and i would rather die. But idk I might chicken out. lol

 

[loosecannon]

Given that we have a constitutional system that allows for non-violent altering and indeed abolishion of government, violence as a means for governmental change is NEVER acceptable. As long as the constitution functions, using violence as a means to induce societal change is TREASON.

I am sworn to support and defend said contitution. Commit this sort of treason and i will shoot you. Left, right, no matter. I will shoot you. or one of my brothers and sisters in arms will.

Gee, that sounds like a fairly violent response.

There are two correct answers to the question asked:

1) after the fact when the victors get to make the new rules

2) when the state adopts violence, as states always claim a monopoly on the use of force.

 

[rightwinger]

If anything, I think it shows how extreme the rhetoric is getting. It is no longer sufficient to try to explain why your political opponent may be wrong. It is now necessary to demonize him, ridicule him and question his or her patriotism.
Once you have labeled your opposition as evil incarnate it becomes impossible to engage in constructive dialogue. How can you ever make deals with someone you have publically labeled the devil?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Given that we have a constitutional system that allows for non-violent altering and indeed abolishion of government, violence as a means for governmental change is NEVER acceptable. As long as the constitution functions, using violence as a means to induce societal change is TREASON.

I am sworn to support and defend said contitution. Commit this sort of treason and i will shoot you. Left, right, no matter. I will shoot you. or one of my brothers and sisters in arms will.

Agreed.

The Constitutional Convention option has never once been utilized, and we still have free elections along with mechanisms for recall for may elected offices. In general, violence should always be the option of last resort, and thankfully the Constitution provides for enough options that violence should never need be resorted to.

I'd also add, that even if YOU feel violence is justified, once you resort to violence you need to accept that there will be consequences to that, even if you do win. Which you probably won't. Once Violence is used as a means to an end, it makes violence and acceptable option whenever someone has a disagreement with you. A cycle of violence, once started, is almost impossible to stop.

Specifically, if you feel that things have deteriorated to the point that you think violence is justified against police or law enforcement, don't expect me to stand up for you when they outright kill your ass, if you'll pardon my French. Once you open fire on the police, you're pretty much dead and the argument is moot.

 

[rightwinger]

i'd like to think if anyone tries to come to my house without a warrant and is there to take my guns that I go out in a blaze of glory because a disarmed nation is a nation of serfdom imo and i would rather die. But idk I might chicken out. lol

You would only react violently if they came to take your guns?

What if they came to take your wife?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

i'd like to think if anyone tries to come to my house without a warrant and is there to take my guns that I go out in a blaze of glory because a disarmed nation is a nation of serfdom imo and i would rather die. But idk I might chicken out. lol

If that happens, which it won't, I'd advocate refusing to comply/hiding your weapons and getting a lawyer. I'd definitely NOT advocate opening fire on the police. That's pretty much never an option, and once you go down that path you end up dead.

 

[Avatar4321]

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

There is a big difference between politicians and private citizens calling for violence.

Is there? Is anyone less injured or dead if a private citizen calls for violence than when a politician does or vice versa?

 

[Avatar4321]

Given that we have a constitutional system that allows for non-violent altering and indeed abolishion of government, violence as a means for governmental change is NEVER acceptable. As long as the constitution functions, using violence as a means to induce societal change is TREASON.

I am sworn to support and defend said contitution. Commit this sort of treason and i will shoot you. Left, right, no matter. I will shoot you. or one of my brothers and sisters in arms will.

Does that mean Thomas Jefferson was a traitor for suggesting that there were times it was acceptable?

I suppose it was since all the Founders were committing Treason against the crown.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

After a long chain of events were the government no longer listens and seeks to enslave you and your posterity under a yoke of government rules and taxes that removes your freedom.

 

[Ravi]

When in politics is violence acceptable? It's become clear that there are some on the right and the left calling for violent revolution. It's also become clear that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have no problem justifying/excusing it when their guys call violence.

But when is actually acceptable?

There is a big difference between politicians and private citizens calling for violence.

Is there? Is anyone less injured or dead if a private citizen calls for violence than when a politician does or vice versa?

Yep. Private citizens spouting off are not in a position of authority. Politicians are. I'm shocked when anyone running for or in office calls for violence. And even more shocked when people vote for them.

 

[Avatar4321]

If anything, I think it shows how extreme the rhetoric is getting. It is no longer sufficient to try to explain why your political opponent may be wrong. It is now necessary to demonize him, ridicule him and question his or her patriotism.
Once you have labeled your opposition as evil incarnate it becomes impossible to engage in constructive dialogue. How can you ever make deals with someone you have publically labeled the devil?

It's a good question.

Does this mean you'll stop doing this to the right as well?

 

[JBeukema]

You're asking for a simple answer to a difficult question.

 

[Avatar4321]

i'd like to think if anyone tries to come to my house without a warrant and is there to take my guns that I go out in a blaze of glory because a disarmed nation is a nation of serfdom imo and i would rather die. But idk I might chicken out. lol

You would only react violently if they came to take your guns?

What if they came to take your wife?

I guess that depends on the wife jk

 

[Avatar4321]

You're asking for a simple answer to a difficult question.

Never asked for a simple answer. I know it's a difficult question. I'd just like to see why some people are so quick to condemn violence on the other side of the aisle and not their side. What makes it acceptable in one case and condemnable in another. I want people to think about this. Seriously think about this.

I know I have been. Ever since my recent studies on Gandhi I've been thinking about this alot.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Given that we have a constitutional system that allows for non-violent altering and indeed abolishion of government, violence as a means for governmental change is NEVER acceptable. As long as the constitution functions, using violence as a means to induce societal change is TREASON.

I am sworn to support and defend said contitution. Commit this sort of treason and i will shoot you. Left, right, no matter. I will shoot you. or one of my brothers and sisters in arms will.

Does that mean Thomas Jefferson was a traitor for suggesting that there were times it was acceptable?

I suppose it was since all the Founders were committing Treason against the crown.

The Founders were left with no other resort after trying other ways to address the problem. That's kinda the point. We're no where near that. The Constitution has several mechanisms that have yet to be even tried.

For example: If you think that Legislation from the bench is a problem, then push your Congressmen to utilize the option to Impeach justices. If they're really usurping the Constitution, I'd say that's grounds for impeachment.

The Constitution is full of escape hatches, emergency buttons, and pressure release valves we as a people have yet to even try. There's not a need for violence, and not likely to ever be while the Constitution is still the law of the land in any shape or form.

 

[JBeukema]

Violence is never the preferred course. It is excusable when there is no other option, such as defending yourself against an attacker or when a military Junta controls the faux elections and kills anyone advocating democracy.

I am amazed and inspired by people like Ghandi who succeed with peace when it seems only overwhelming might could have overcome the what lay before them.

 

[rightwinger]

i'd like to think if anyone tries to come to my house without a warrant and is there to take my guns that I go out in a blaze of glory because a disarmed nation is a nation of serfdom imo and i would rather die. But idk I might chicken out. lol

You would only react violently if they came to take your guns?

What if they came to take your wife?

I guess that depends on the wife jk

I myself would react violently if the government came to take my remote control