Sometimes violence is justified Fred . . . it's why we have homicides which aren't murders, because sometimes violence is justified.
I'm surprised that the number of conservatives who believe violence is never justified is so high given our very Union exists as the result of political violence.
Or maybe the poll was meant to be representative of this particular point in time only? If that's the case, they should have phrased the question better because I'll always answer that question with a yes, sometimes political violence is justified. I mean, you would agree with me that if the Cubans wanted to rise up against their communist rulers that political violence would be justified, yes? You would agree that the acts of political violence committed by our founding generation were justified, wouldn't you?
The very reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment is to preserve and protect our ability to resort to political violence, is it not? How then could it be that political violence is never justified?
The question of political violence should be more specific.
Is it acceptable to be violent against another person based on their political beliefs alone? I would hope 99.99% of conservatives would say no. It’s obvious that a significant number of leftist think it’s ok. When your ideology is busted and unpopular, lashing out like a child seems to be the last resort.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
The real question is whether or not "Words Are Violence", isn't it?
We have a concept that certain words are so provocative that violence is sure to follow when they are used, so called "fighting words". We have laws which punish people for emotional harm done with nothing more than using words to denigrate, humiliate, or subjugate an individual. The founders of our Union were inspired by words, "Common Sense" as an example, or the works of John Locke, to take up arms for their independence from a tyrannical ruler.
Clearly, words can be violence, despite what the governor of Utah proclaims, but what words, and who decides what those words are? This coward was the product of a generation which have been taught that words are violence, for example "microaggressions".
If the coward truly believed that he, and his partner, were suffering daily violence from such microaggressions, as they had been taught to believe, would that help us understand why he reacted with physical violence or why today's youth are so willing to reenact an assassination at a vigil, walk through the items in a memorial to the slain individual, light on fire a memorial message posted by a mourner on their property, or shoot down innocents in a school? Why they physically attack those with opposing political beliefs and ideas with such a clear conscience for their actions?
My generation, and I'm a Boomer/GenX tweener, was brought up with the notion that "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" mantra as a means of precluding physical retaliation for mere words, but successive generations have adopted a different conclusion, "words may also hurt me".
Is this then the root cause of what we are seeing today when we see physical violence in response to words, our modification of that mantra?
Yeah, when I heard what Bondi said I knew she was going to get ripped for that one, and rightfully so. To me, "hate speech" is just as dumb as a "hate crime". Both can be defined in different ways depending on which side of politics is saying it. If "hate speech" was a crime, most TDS Democrats and Republicans would have to be brought up on charges for what they've said about Trump. If speech is violence, then hand gestures can also be classified as violence.... flipping someone the bird, using a finger like it's a gun, or making a throat cutting gesture.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Something I think it is important to bear in mind. These are the United States of America. I am allowed to hate if I wish to hate. I can hate anyone, or anything, including my own government if I choose to do so.
What I am not allowed to do is harm the rights of individuals or organizations I may choose to hate. My choice to hate does not include a license to say that which is demonstrably false about those I have chosen to hate. My choice to hate does not include a license to murder those I have chosen to hate, nor burn their property, nor threaten or interfere with their ability to participate in society, nor endanger their safety in any manner.
Others may decide to use their right of free association to disassociate themselves from me should they not agree with my choice to hate individuals or organizations, but no one may tell me that I may not hate an individual or an organization.
Hate, like love, is a choice one makes and if I decide to hate while I pursue life, liberty, and happiness I am allowed to make that choice.
I choose not to hate anyone or anything, hate requires too much energy and it darkens my own soul, but that is my choice and I am free to make a different one at anytime provided my choice doesn't harm the rights of others in this society. I am, and should always remain, free to swing my arms provided doing so doesn't result in contact with another's nose.
Perhaps Jefferson said it more eloquently in his "Notes on the State of Virginia":
The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subjects to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Remember way back when the Westboro Baptist Church was disrupting the funerals and services for fallen military service members? Remember what was said when they appeared at the services in the wake of Sandy Hook?
I seem to recall a huge hullaballoo from their protests at funerals from all quarters of our society. Laws were passed, one in Arizona if memory still serves me, that precluded protests within 300 or 500 feet of a funeral service in an effort to diminish the damage their protests caused to loved ones and friends of the deceased. It wasn't just our disagreement with their message, it was also a condemnation of the tactics they used.
Why don't we see that same condemnation now with regards to the vigils and memorial services for Kirk from all quarters of our society? Why would those who opposed the views of Kirk act like the WBC in the wake of his assassination? Aren't their actions as repugnant to our society as the ones perpetrated by the members of WBC?
That’s a great point… I forgot about those nutjobs. I’ve come to the conclusion that the left doesn’t care at all about hypocrisy or laws… just distracts to the revolution.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
