Locke, Social Contract Theory, and the Citizens Right to Revolt

[Coyote]

Your argument has one fallacy. What if half the people do not agree with the other half that there should be a revolt. What percentage of the people makes it legit. The use of violence and vandalism to overthrow the government by violence means is not what they are talking about in a democracy.

Policy is determined by the people voting for those who will represent them in the government . Is it perfect, no but the alternative is not even close to perfect. You can have disagreements but at the end of the day , if you do not have the votes, then you lost. Accepting defeat and planning for the next battle is the best way to get along with others. It is not burned it down and start over. It is not denying the process because you believe what others tell you.

Verifiable facts do matter and convenient what if scenarios just cloud the argument. If people all have rights then that means acceptance that your view did not win. Violence is an easy way to get your point across but it does not stop others from using violence. Peaceful protest is a right but once it turns violent then it is a riot and sedition. It does not change because you are waiving a flag.

Wasn't one of the principles of the democracy experiment supposed to be that political differences were settled at the ballot box not through violence?

If you have democracy. Otherwise there is no choice.

We do. You can't arbitrarily decide we don't just because you lost the election. That would mean every 4 to 8 years we'd have a bloody overthrow.

 

[Kilroy2]

OK. And what do you think that reason is?

Because they didn't want anyone doing to them what they did to the British.

As demonstrated by the army Washington lead to put down Shay.

Probable and understandable. But that doesn't mean that they didn't consider treason necessary under certain circumstances. They stated so quite bluntly in the Declaration of Independence.

There were no provisions for treason against the United States in their constitution or their laws. Treason is the only crime the constitution goes to the trouble of defining and defining exclusively.

So they clearly didn't consider treason against the United States to be necessary....under any circumstance. Treason against Britain? Yes.

Is that inconsistent and deeply hypocritical of them? Also yes.

Disagree. From the Declaration of Independence:

"-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,..."

I don't see how that limits what they clearly describe as a Right of the People to any particular government or even any form of government much less to just the British of their time. Note the "whenever". Seems clear to me that for the People to alter or abolish their government is invariably considered treason by the ruling government. What makes you think the US government was meant to be exempt from that sentiment? What is it you consider deeply hypocritical and inconsistent? It would only be so if your interpretation is correct which I don't believe.

And when they'd won their revolution and established their own government the Founders shut the 'revolution' door behind them and wrote this:

View attachment 440474

It is the only crime that they ever defined in the entirety of the constitution. They left no provisions for making war against the United States. And put down every rebellion violently and thoroughly.

The founders did NOT believe in treason against the United States. And created no laws, no amendments, no provisions in the constitution for citizens of the United States to wage war against their own nation.

The founders were hypocrites of course. But successful ones.

That article limits how the government defines treason and in no way speaks to the issue of whether they considered it necessary in certain circumstances. Of course treason is illegal always has been everywhere and that is especially true in times and places where it is necessary. That doesn't make it any less necessary as the FF were well aware.

Waging war against the United States is the definition they chose. With Treason being the ONLY crime they felt necessary to include in the Constitution.

And the founders didn't provide any provision, any law, any means of 'legally' waging war against the United States for its citizens.

Every rebellion that rose up they brutally put down. With Washington leading those armies personally.

The Founders shut the door of revolution behind them. And did not EVER support treason against the United States.

Only treason against Britain.

The founders clearly supported revolting against all tyranny and illegitimate representation.

You don't but you are not even an American so shut up and just own up to your communist beliefs and go back to eating soy.

It was a civil war for independence from the mother country because the colonist did not have a say in the government. France was happy to help out. Still the founding fathers were quick to give this new government powers to forcefully enforce this new power.

18 US code 2383 - rebellion or insurrection



Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

So when Trump does this he is breaking the law and anyone who gives aid or comfort are also breaking the law and should be imprisoned.

To go even further citizen of the US do not have the right to overthrow the government. They can only amend the constitution of make changes that they are not happy about. It does require a lot of cooperation and someone will lose.

So it not as clear cut as you say and they quickly shut that door. Using such logic will put people in jail. Now you can go thru a bloody war to gain independence but if you lose the fight then your independence will be spent in the grave or in jail.

The founding fathers were not fools. They just understood that people are difficult to govern. So their are legal ways to get your brownie points but if you lose, case closed.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Your argument has one fallacy. What if half the people do not agree with the other half that there should be a revolt. What percentage of the people makes it legit. The use of violence and vandalism to overthrow the government by violence means is not what they are talking about in a democracy.

Policy is determined by the people voting for those who will represent them in the government . Is it perfect, no but the alternative is not even close to perfect. You can have disagreements but at the end of the day , if you do not have the votes, then you lost. Accepting defeat and planning for the next battle is the best way to get along with others. It is not burned it down and start over. It is not denying the process because you believe what others tell you.

Verifiable facts do matter and convenient what if scenarios just cloud the argument. If people all have rights then that means acceptance that your view did not win. Violence is an easy way to get your point across but it does not stop others from using violence. Peaceful protest is a right but once it turns violent then it is a riot and sedition. It does not change because you are waiving a flag.

Wasn't one of the principles of the democracy experiment supposed to be that political differences were settled at the ballot box not through violence?

True, but also:

Declaration of Independence:
"-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ..."

Appears that some of the People no longer consent.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The founding fathers believed that the People are to be served by the government; not the other way around. And if the government stopped serving the will of the People the People had the right to change or replace it. They wrote this down in black and white and dared to sign it and send it to their government knowing full well that both the document and their act were highly illegal and considered by the government to be cause to hang them by the neck until they were very very dead. By doing so they made it very clear that the People's Right to abolish or alter the government was not limited to legal acts. After all, what is "legal"? What is the law? It is whatever the government says it is. And a sad fact of life is that governments forget about serving the People and make laws that only serve themselves. We were to be a nation of checks and balances. The People were the check to balance the government. That is why the Oath of office makes a person sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. Not the government or the law. It is also why we have the 2nd Amendment to assure the People have the power to alter or abolish the government if necessary.

 

[task0778]

First, let's talk about the "right to revolt". In any civilized country with a democratic form of gov't, IMHO one does not resort to a revolution and violence until all other avenues of redress for grievances against the gov't have been exhausted. And said grievances ought to be substantiated with evidence that stands up in a court of law; IOW, wrongdoing on the part of the gov't ought to be more than just questioned or doubted. It can't be a bunch of people, even a very large number of people, who think that election/voter fraud was perpetrated. In this case, you gotta be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt with proof that fraud resulted in the wrong person being elected, and frankly we don't have that. Not yet, anyway. Yeah, there's a lot of evidence; but when Bill Barr tells us that there isn't enough evidence to indicate that the election results were rigged so that the wrong person got elected, well I'm sorry but that's it. A revolution is not called for IMHO. What IS called for is the citizens in the affected states to vote out the bastards who allowed the election to be tainted, assuming that is what you believe.

Which does not mean that the fraud did not occur, even on a massive scale. It doesn't mean that Trump should or shouldn't have won. It doesn't mean that so many of us shouldn't have serious doubts about what happened, there are an awful lot of allegations out there and reasons to believe that all was not kosher. It doesn't mean that all those people who showed up in DC to demonstrate and protest the election results were wrong to do so. That is their right as Americans, to ***** like hell about what they perceive as an injustice. BUT - it also doesn't mean that anybody has the right to invade the Capitol building and start a riot. I do not see the justification for that any more than I see the justification for the nightly riots that went on in so many of our major cities last year for months on end.

It is maybe a sad fact that elections do have consequences. In a republic like ours, sometimes the people we elected do a piss-poor job, at least in the minds of some. But you don't start a riot; you organize, strategize, and essentially do what you gotta do to change whatever it is that you don't like, remembering that there are others with a different agenda from yours. As a righty, I gotta be honest with my compadres: we're getting our asses kicked cuz we ain't in the game like they are. So, whose fault is that? Do it right, do it proper, do it legal. But don't try to justify a riot when the other side wins.

 

[9thIDdoc]

We might ought to keep what happened in DC in proper perspective. It was not a revolt. Had that many people shown up armed and intending to fight DC and Congress would would simply no longer be there. Somebody or somebodies overreacted and there was some damage injury and death. But I see no reason to believe more than a very small percentage on either side were involved and it remains unclear how much of the violence was aggressive and how much was defensive. Given the numbers involved it was pretty minimal as was the damage. I think the protestors accomplished exactly what they intended. They served notice that they were angry and that there are a lot of them. A show of strength. They blew off a little steam and left. But I think it would be a very serious mistake to think that is the end of things. If they have to go back it might actually be a revolt. I think it would be a very good idea if the government instigated a through and believable investigation into the election and created a reformed election system. I'm not sure the American People will settle for less than an honest fair and transparent system for electing for our national leaders. It is way past due and well deserved.

 

[Skylar]

Your argument has one fallacy. What if half the people do not agree with the other half that there should be a revolt. What percentage of the people makes it legit. The use of violence and vandalism to overthrow the government by violence means is not what they are talking about in a democracy.

Policy is determined by the people voting for those who will represent them in the government . Is it perfect, no but the alternative is not even close to perfect. You can have disagreements but at the end of the day , if you do not have the votes, then you lost. Accepting defeat and planning for the next battle is the best way to get along with others. It is not burned it down and start over. It is not denying the process because you believe what others tell you.

Verifiable facts do matter and convenient what if scenarios just cloud the argument. If people all have rights then that means acceptance that your view did not win. Violence is an easy way to get your point across but it does not stop others from using violence. Peaceful protest is a right but once it turns violent then it is a riot and sedition. It does not change because you are waiving a flag.

Wasn't one of the principles of the democracy experiment supposed to be that political differences were settled at the ballot box not through violence?

True, but also:

Declaration of Independence:
"-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ..."

Appears that some of the People no longer consent.

And when they won their revolution and wrote their own constitution, they shut the 'revolutionary' door. With the ONLY law they felt necessary to actually define in the constitution being treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

And when rebellions did pop up, they put them down brutally and decisively. With Washington himself leading their armies to do exactly that. Ask Shay how understanding the founders were to the idea of rebellion.

Remember....the founders were flaming hypocrites. They didn't want anyone doing to them what they did to the British. And they had zero tolerance for Treason against the United States.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"And when they won their revolution and wrote their own constitution, they shut the 'revolutionary' door. With the ONLY law they felt necessary to actually define in the constitution being treason:"

They only "shut the revolutionary door" by becoming a government themselves which made them require the consent of the People who had a Right to change or replace their government. "Right" and "legal" are not interchangeable concepts. Governments make Rights illegal all the time. Doesn't mean people will accept the loss of a Right. Right trumps law for Americans now as it did for the FF and rightly so. If enough people refuse to abide by a law it cannot be enforced. It may be interesting to see if Biden can act as President if enough people refuse to recognize him as such.

 

[Kilroy2]

"And when they won their revolution and wrote their own constitution, they shut the 'revolutionary' door. With the ONLY law they felt necessary to actually define in the constitution being treason:"

They only "shut the revolutionary door" by becoming a government themselves which made them require the consent of the People who had a Right to change or replace their government. "Right" and "legal" are not interchangeable concepts. Governments make Rights illegal all the time. Doesn't mean people will accept the loss of a Right. Right trumps law for Americans now as it did for the FF and rightly so. If enough people refuse to abide by a law it cannot be enforced. It may be interesting to see if Biden can act as President if enough people refuse to recognize him as such.

The south tried that and history show what happen to them. They lost.

 

[Kilroy2]

Your argument has one fallacy. What if half the people do not agree with the other half that there should be a revolt. What percentage of the people makes it legit. The use of violence and vandalism to overthrow the government by violence means is not what they are talking about in a democracy.

Policy is determined by the people voting for those who will represent them in the government . Is it perfect, no but the alternative is not even close to perfect. You can have disagreements but at the end of the day , if you do not have the votes, then you lost. Accepting defeat and planning for the next battle is the best way to get along with others. It is not burned it down and start over. It is not denying the process because you believe what others tell you.

Verifiable facts do matter and convenient what if scenarios just cloud the argument. If people all have rights then that means acceptance that your view did not win. Violence is an easy way to get your point across but it does not stop others from using violence. Peaceful protest is a right but once it turns violent then it is a riot and sedition. It does not change because you are waiving a flag.

Wasn't one of the principles of the democracy experiment supposed to be that political differences were settled at the ballot box not through violence?

Declaration of Independence:
"-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ..."

Appears that some of the People no longer consent.

It also says

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

Still these statements are just made by men trying to justify the break from England. No government sets itself up with a way that it can be overthrown.

Still if you pick and chose excerpts then yeah you can find a sentence that seems to support your views but you have to take the entirety of the whole document and not just excerpts.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

clearly if you read the who paragraph it clarifies that they are talking about the justification to break away from England (Despotism) and reflects the will of the colonists. Then they list their grievances

Declaration of Independence pretty much says what it is. It is not the nuts and bolts of how the government is run. It pretty much a cheer to rally the troops.

. That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

It is nothing more than a proclamation to be free from England.

The constitution is the defining document of the government. Just as quickly they consented to be governed by an official body. Now if those who wish to dissolve the union can bring it up on the floor of Congress and if it passes then hip hip hooray, but if it fails you lose.

then comes in
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

That is why the stunt of Texas AG to overturn the election failed so miserable

All members of Congress take an oath to uphold the constitution and even if Trump is not part of Congress he must uphold the constitution.

Contest of power are done thru the framework of elections. If the election was fraud then provide proof or evidence of this fraud that cost Trump the election . Proof is not something you read or what someone says. To say you found a couple incidents of fraud that would not change the outcome, then use this incidents to make a larger claim that the whole election was fraud is why it failed. Just because that one bottle of beer is bad, does not mean that all beer is bad.

Well if you believe the election was stolen then that is your belief. If you have no evidence then people will chuckle and go about their business.

Still if repubs feel the need to list the things that bug them fine write a declaration. Then try and overthrow the government. The government has a thing called can jail and if you beleve demos are soft on crime then okay. Still you can get your congressmen to vote for your beliefs . Hey who knows.

 

[alang1216]

They did leave me in charge...I'm a common citizen. Not a lobbyist or a corrupt politician. Certainly not a fake journalist.

Got it. You have as much authority as any of the BLM protesters and you're no different from Antifa.

I'm a patriot they are not. They support liberal establishment in government, education and media. I do not. I want to save my nation, not destroy it like the Marxist left. Congress is part of the problem. We now have AOC + 3 serving in the halls of Congress as well as Black Panther Bobby Rush. Maxine Waters and Shelia Jackson Lee are complete criminals.

I wonder if they would say they are citizens and patriots that want to save the nation from people just like you?

Nope. They are just Marxist pieces of shit. Black Lives Matter set the standard for peaceful protest. Trump protest was peaceful.

At least tell me you consider the shooter of one of the protesters to be a hero on par with Kyle Rittenhouse since both were protecting property.

No, he is murderer. Rittenhouse was protecting himself, not property.

So you're saying that the cop should not have been in fear of his life when being approached by a mob of criminal trespassers. If he asked them to leave and they refused would that change anything? If they refused to cooperate isn't that akin to the Floyd shooting, making that cop a murderer too?

The flaw in your argument is that he didn't shoot a mob; he shot an unarmed woman that appeared to be no threat to him. His job was to protect her just as much as it was to protect any other person or place.

So the cop is a criminal? So what does that make the cops who have shot unarmed Black men?

Nobody is a criminal until they are tried and found guilty in a court of law. And I am way tired of race baiters determined to make every issue about race.

You should take that up with Norman, it was he who decided the Capitol cop was a 'murderer'. Sounds like he has already tried and convicted the cop.

 

[alang1216]

They did leave me in charge...I'm a common citizen. Not a lobbyist or a corrupt politician. Certainly not a fake journalist.

Got it. You have as much authority as any of the BLM protesters and you're no different from Antifa.

I'm a patriot they are not. They support liberal establishment in government, education and media. I do not. I want to save my nation, not destroy it like the Marxist left. Congress is part of the problem. We now have AOC + 3 serving in the halls of Congress as well as Black Panther Bobby Rush. Maxine Waters and Shelia Jackson Lee are complete criminals.

I wonder if they would say they are citizens and patriots that want to save the nation from people just like you?

Nope. They are just Marxist pieces of shit. Black Lives Matter set the standard for peaceful protest. Trump protest was peaceful.

At least tell me you consider the shooter of one of the protesters to be a hero on par with Kyle Rittenhouse since both were protecting property.

No, he is murderer. Rittenhouse was protecting himself, not property.

So you're saying that the cop should not have been in fear of his life when being approached by a mob of criminal trespassers. If he asked them to leave and they refused would that change anything? If they refused to cooperate isn't that akin to the Floyd shooting, making that cop a murderer too?

The flaw in your argument is that he didn't shoot a mob; he shot an unarmed woman that appeared to be no threat to him. His job was to protect her just as much as it was to protect any other person or place.

So the cop is a criminal? So what does that make the cops who have shot unarmed Black men?

Nobody is a criminal until they are tried and found guilty in a court of law. And I am way tired of race baiters determined to make every issue about race.

What the lunatics on the left do. About to come crashing down around them.

It seems, if you are any example, the Right believes only they get to decide who is a patriot, only they get to decide what the Constitution says, etc. That has already come crashing down in historic blunders, starting with the election of Trump and ending with the Capitol insurrection.

 

[georgephillip]

We saw how our nation was founded.

What did you see?

http://www.thecyberhood.net/documents/papers/cs2020.pdf

"Born in the colonial past and bred into the foundational documents of the United States, white supremacy remains a persistent presence, albeit one that is dramatically different today than at its inception.1"

 

[9thIDdoc]

"And when they won their revolution and wrote their own constitution, they shut the 'revolutionary' door. With the ONLY law they felt necessary to actually define in the constitution being treason:"

They only "shut the revolutionary door" by becoming a government themselves which made them require the consent of the People who had a Right to change or replace their government. "Right" and "legal" are not interchangeable concepts. Governments make Rights illegal all the time. Doesn't mean people will accept the loss of a Right. Right trumps law for Americans now as it did for the FF and rightly so. If enough people refuse to abide by a law it cannot be enforced. It may be interesting to see if Biden can act as President if enough people refuse to recognize him as such.

The south tried that and history show what happen to them. They lost.

True. But history also shows what happened to the North. There was nothing very civil about the "Civil" War. If you doubt that you only need look at at the casualty and damage reports keeping in mind that all the death, injuries, destruction, and collateral damage happened to Americans on both sides. And if you think it wasn't a very near thing that could easily have gone either way I submit that you are fooling yourself. Was it worth it for either (any) side? The scary thing is that the run up to that war was very similar to what is happening now and as with any large scale social change there is probably a tipping point after which the results are inevitable. I fear we are very near that tipping point and may already have passed it.

 

[9thIDdoc]

We saw how our nation was founded.

What did you see?

http://www.thecyberhood.net/documents/papers/cs2020.pdf

"Born in the colonial past and bred into the foundational documents of the United States, white supremacy remains a persistent presence, albeit one that is dramatically different today than at its inception.1"

"Persistent presence"? I think "useful fantasy or delusion" is more accurate.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Your argument has one fallacy. What if half the people do not agree with the other half that there should be a revolt. What percentage of the people makes it legit. The use of violence and vandalism to overthrow the government by violence means is not what they are talking about in a democracy.

Policy is determined by the people voting for those who will represent them in the government . Is it perfect, no but the alternative is not even close to perfect. You can have disagreements but at the end of the day , if you do not have the votes, then you lost. Accepting defeat and planning for the next battle is the best way to get along with others. It is not burned it down and start over. It is not denying the process because you believe what others tell you.

Verifiable facts do matter and convenient what if scenarios just cloud the argument. If people all have rights then that means acceptance that your view did not win. Violence is an easy way to get your point across but it does not stop others from using violence. Peaceful protest is a right but once it turns violent then it is a riot and sedition. It does not change because you are waiving a flag.

Wasn't one of the principles of the democracy experiment supposed to be that political differences were settled at the ballot box not through violence?

Declaration of Independence:
"-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ..."

Appears that some of the People no longer consent.

It also says

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

Still these statements are just made by men trying to justify the break from England. No government sets itself up with a way that it can be overthrown.

Still if you pick and chose excerpts then yeah you can find a sentence that seems to support your views but you have to take the entirety of the whole document and not just excerpts.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

clearly if you read the who paragraph it clarifies that they are talking about the justification to break away from England (Despotism) and reflects the will of the colonists. Then they list their grievances

Declaration of Independence pretty much says what it is. It is not the nuts and bolts of how the government is run. It pretty much a cheer to rally the troops.

. That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

It is nothing more than a proclamation to be free from England.

The constitution is the defining document of the government. Just as quickly they consented to be governed by an official body. Now if those who wish to dissolve the union can bring it up on the floor of Congress and if it passes then hip hip hooray, but if it fails you lose.

then comes in
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

That is why the stunt of Texas AG to overturn the election failed so miserable

All members of Congress take an oath to uphold the constitution and even if Trump is not part of Congress he must uphold the constitution.

Contest of power are done thru the framework of elections. If the election was fraud then provide proof or evidence of this fraud that cost Trump the election . Proof is not something you read or what someone says. To say you found a couple incidents of fraud that would not change the outcome, then use this incidents to make a larger claim that the whole election was fraud is why it failed. Just because that one bottle of beer is bad, does not mean that all beer is bad.

Well if you believe the election was stolen then that is your belief. If you have no evidence then people will chuckle and go about their business.

Still if repubs feel the need to list the things that bug them fine write a declaration. Then try and overthrow the government. The government has a thing called can jail and if you beleve demos are soft on crime then okay. Still you can get your congressmen to vote for your beliefs . Hey who knows.

I do and have agreed with much of what you say and have indeed said the same or similar myself.
We disagree whether the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence applied (in their opinion) in general or just in reference to the Britain as it existed at that time.
We also seem to disagree on whether or not it matters.
You seem to think the events in DC constituted insurrection. Whereas I tend to think what occurred was predictable result of the treasonous attempt to fix an American national election.

 

[BlindBoo]

Your argument has one fallacy. What if half the people do not agree with the other half that there should be a revolt. What percentage of the people makes it legit. The use of violence and vandalism to overthrow the government by violence means is not what they are talking about in a democracy.

Policy is determined by the people voting for those who will represent them in the government . Is it perfect, no but the alternative is not even close to perfect. You can have disagreements but at the end of the day , if you do not have the votes, then you lost. Accepting defeat and planning for the next battle is the best way to get along with others. It is not burned it down and start over. It is not denying the process because you believe what others tell you.

Verifiable facts do matter and convenient what if scenarios just cloud the argument. If people all have rights then that means acceptance that your view did not win. Violence is an easy way to get your point across but it does not stop others from using violence. Peaceful protest is a right but once it turns violent then it is a riot and sedition. It does not change because you are waiving a flag.

Wasn't one of the principles of the democracy experiment supposed to be that political differences were settled at the ballot box not through violence?

True, but also:

Declaration of Independence:
"-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ..."

Appears that some of the People no longer consent.

"......Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. - "

Losing an election or two doesn't count as a long train of abuses. The mob was incited by Trumpys team's lies echoed by a compliant media, which when you look at it, is a large part of Trumpy's team too.

 

[9thIDdoc]

They did leave me in charge...I'm a common citizen. Not a lobbyist or a corrupt politician. Certainly not a fake journalist.

Got it. You have as much authority as any of the BLM protesters and you're no different from Antifa.

I'm a patriot they are not. They support liberal establishment in government, education and media. I do not. I want to save my nation, not destroy it like the Marxist left. Congress is part of the problem. We now have AOC + 3 serving in the halls of Congress as well as Black Panther Bobby Rush. Maxine Waters and Shelia Jackson Lee are complete criminals.

I wonder if they would say they are citizens and patriots that want to save the nation from people just like you?

Nope. They are just Marxist pieces of shit. Black Lives Matter set the standard for peaceful protest. Trump protest was peaceful.

At least tell me you consider the shooter of one of the protesters to be a hero on par with Kyle Rittenhouse since both were protecting property.

No, he is murderer. Rittenhouse was protecting himself, not property.

So you're saying that the cop should not have been in fear of his life when being approached by a mob of criminal trespassers. If he asked them to leave and they refused would that change anything? If they refused to cooperate isn't that akin to the Floyd shooting, making that cop a murderer too?

The flaw in your argument is that he didn't shoot a mob; he shot an unarmed woman that appeared to be no threat to him. His job was to protect her just as much as it was to protect any other person or place.

So the cop is a criminal? So what does that make the cops who have shot unarmed Black men?

Nobody is a criminal until they are tried and found guilty in a court of law. And I am way tired of race baiters determined to make every issue about race.

You should take that up with Norman, it was he who decided the Capitol cop was a 'murderer'. Sounds like he has already tried and convicted the cop.

I should care what Norman thinks about someone else? In truth I think the Capitol cop probably deserves to be tried and convicted of homicide. But that's just my opinion take it or not for whatever it's worth.

 

[Kilroy2]

"And when they won their revolution and wrote their own constitution, they shut the 'revolutionary' door. With the ONLY law they felt necessary to actually define in the constitution being treason:"

They only "shut the revolutionary door" by becoming a government themselves which made them require the consent of the People who had a Right to change or replace their government. "Right" and "legal" are not interchangeable concepts. Governments make Rights illegal all the time. Doesn't mean people will accept the loss of a Right. Right trumps law for Americans now as it did for the FF and rightly so. If enough people refuse to abide by a law it cannot be enforced. It may be interesting to see if Biden can act as President if enough people refuse to recognize him as such.

The south tried that and history show what happen to them. They lost.

True. But history also shows what happened to the North. There was nothing very civil about the "Civil" War. If you doubt that you only need look at at the casualty and damage reports keeping in mind that all the death, injuries, destruction, and collateral damage happened to Americans on both sides. And if you think it wasn't a very near thing that could easily have gone either way I submit that you are fooling yourself. Was it worth it for either (any) side? The scary thing is that the run up to that war was very similar to what is happening now and as with any large scale social change there is probably a tipping point after which the results are inevitable. I fear we are very near that tipping point and may already have passed it.

I would agree that there is nothing civil about the civil war. If history means anything people should view that violence is not the answer even if a minority seeks it in words alone and is not what the majority seeks. Still if people get caught up in lies and rallying the troops then passion overcomes logic. Then people become uncivilized when faced with survival. The initial reason why is irrelevant once the blood is spilled. Then it becomes survival and then people become more open to compromise.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Your argument has one fallacy. What if half the people do not agree with the other half that there should be a revolt. What percentage of the people makes it legit. The use of violence and vandalism to overthrow the government by violence means is not what they are talking about in a democracy.

Policy is determined by the people voting for those who will represent them in the government . Is it perfect, no but the alternative is not even close to perfect. You can have disagreements but at the end of the day , if you do not have the votes, then you lost. Accepting defeat and planning for the next battle is the best way to get along with others. It is not burned it down and start over. It is not denying the process because you believe what others tell you.

Verifiable facts do matter and convenient what if scenarios just cloud the argument. If people all have rights then that means acceptance that your view did not win. Violence is an easy way to get your point across but it does not stop others from using violence. Peaceful protest is a right but once it turns violent then it is a riot and sedition. It does not change because you are waiving a flag.

Wasn't one of the principles of the democracy experiment supposed to be that political differences were settled at the ballot box not through violence?

True, but also:

Declaration of Independence:
"-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ..."

Appears that some of the People no longer consent.

"......Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. - "

Losing an election or two doesn't count as a long train of abuses. The mob was incited by Trumpys team's lies echoed by a compliant media, which when you look at it, is a large part of Trumpy's team too.

You assume you know what the conflict was about and presume to judge based on what you imagine. Bad idea.