VfvVVV
Convention of States Action does not control and is not responsible for the content posted on this forum. The views expressed are those of the individuals making the post and do not necessarily represent the views of COSA or its staff.
Convention of States Action does not control and is not responsible for the content posted on this forum. The views expressed are those of the individuals making the post and do not necessarily represent the views of COSA or its staff.
I think there is a bug in the site, as it wouldn't let me write a body.
Our forefathers killed redcoats over a 3% tea tax. What weve got here is millions of times more serious than that in my opinion, this is like some communist scene in a bad hollywood movie.
Viokence of course is undesirable and sad, but at what point will it become morally and socially acceptable as a response to forcing millions of innocent Americans into starvation, losing their jobs, businesses, homes, etc...
All this destruction done in the name of "flattening the curve", except hospitals are empty and this curve is already flat.
So what would justify or properly invoke a Second American Revolution?
Again, just asking, not advocating
I agree, all this talking and lies from thsse politians are getting us nowhere. They are abusing there power as usual and all we do is submit and comply to there unconstitutional orders, who do think they are God. Its time to stand up against these arrogant people in power and tell them where not complying with anything that infringe on our Right...not privilege like they seem to think it is...they are RIGHTS.
And any law enforcement who enforces there orders needs to remember the OAT they took
In the American revolution violence was not justified by the tax on tea, it was justified by the fact that the colonists had no other method to address their grievances. Today we have the right to protest, the right to vote and the right to run for office ourselves (to say nothing of our ability to call a Convention of States to reign in Federal overreach). These are all rights the colonists lacked, and thus they ended up boxed in, with no solution except violent insurrection. That is not the case presently, and thus violence is not justified. Remember, the vast minority of violent rebellions result in increased liberty, most result in a dictator leading the winning faction and imposing his will on whatever territory he captures, or a French Revolution style series of purges. We need a revolution at the ballot box and at a Convention of States, not one with arms and violence.
The only problem with that is the fact that elections are rigged and fraudulent votes are the norm, especially by illegals and the socialist/communist liberal establishment. Once the tyrants get into office, they make it near impossible to throw them out; case in point is that tyrant in Virginia, Governor Northam. As soon as that miscreant got into office he had the socialist/communist controlled state legislature vote to increase the percentage of voters required to recall him from office. This in effect assured that this dictator stands little to no chance for the voters to even have a chance to rein in his illegal and unconstitutional mandates by throwing him out of office or putting him behind bars as he should be.
To the point of the question: When is Violence Acceptable?
Everyone is afraid of this question because they think the FBI will SWAT them just for talking about it. Whatever. There are many justifiable uses of violence and I'll do my best to outline them. This is NOT legal advice.
When you are defending your life or the life another against permanent immediate harm, such as death or serious injury. Things such as murder, beatings, rape, etc of self or another qualify under this condition.
When you are defending your home against invasion which threatens the same as above.
When you are being robbed/assaulted the threat of life and/or serious harm is something assumed so long as you feel threatened. For example, if you are robbed at the point of a gun or knife, justified. A pool noodle, not so much.
When you are legally present somewhere and someone uses force to make you move. You can in some states (stand your ground) resist with deadly force.
When you are being carjacked, use of deadly force is generally recognized as valid.
The problem comes when you use any of the above against a police or other "law" enforcement officer. As you know, courts side with cops. You may not even live to see a courtroom. We have seen plenty of abuse by cops on video but these don't generally rise to the level of "revolution" type events.
Political violence is never acceptable by the ruling power. It cannot be. Even though in our Declaration of Independence it says "It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government" the status quo does NOT like to be challenged, even peacefully. However, as we have seen with Antifa, so long as the violence achieves a goal of the party in power it is not only tolerated, but promoted.
Our founders did not look for war, or violence. The Boston Tea Party was entirely peaceful and no one was harmed. However, they would not submit, and at Lexington the British fired on the Colonists to disperse them. The British were on a mission to SEIZE GUNS and AMMUNITION stored at Concord. Sound familiar? Rulers like unarmed subjects. In any case, once the blood was shed there was no turning back, as the British army blockaded the entire town of Boston and Revolution sprang up with a fever.
What will be the Lexington moment? I don't know...no one does. You can't push people around like this forever and not expect one though.
Well put. I'm in agreement with you.