Maybe I can simplify it for you.
Is violence a legitimate way for individuals to attempt to affect change in the United States?
You do have to feel a bit sorry for Mick Mulvaney
- Thread starter bacha29
- Start date
Is violence a legitimate way for individuals to attempt to affect change in the United States?
Sure bbsam, they sat around in backrooms smoking cigars and laughing about how they're really sticking it to the Africans. If you are born into the system, and are told from a child up this is the way of things, that it's your right and your responsibility, what would you believe? Not talking about the rightness or wrongness, just that people believed that's just the way it is. And you know what? If we hadn't develop machines that made it much more economical and efficient to not own slaves there would still be slavery worldwide. You can look through your modern day prism and see the evil inherent in such a system. There were men in those times who could see the evil too. Long before Lincoln or John Brown. But they had no sway over the powers that be because the rich and powerful were going to do what was necessary to get wealthy. And fought like crazy to keep that system when the time came because they believed it was the right way, the only way(and they were wrong). I realize being part black makes you much more sensitive to the subject, but I'm trying to discuss this in an objective way rather than a "let's burn it all down because so and so did evil things in the past."
No, it is not.
El Correcto
god is dead
Sure, maybe you should go learn about what change they are trying to make...
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
Ancient history ... get a grip.
If you can’t learn from history...
Now maybe you’ll answer.
Is violence ever a legitimate way to affect change in the US?
It’s a simple question. Not sure why y’all don’t want to answer it.
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
Not legally and the USA is based on laws and the citizenry obeying those laws.
Certainly, the government uses violence to enforce those laws.
The governments would seem to be only acceptable form of violence to bring about change.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Sure, burning down your neighborhood because some thug got shot is also a great way to 'affect change'.
You probably won't like the change you get, but ya, destruction is change.
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
I attempted but you appear to be asking a leading question and I like most on here question your honesty and intent.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
No, the question is whether antifa violence is acceptable, and you compared them to a slave rebellion.
@rickyb get in here and help your boy out, he's coming up short defending your communist talking points.
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
No, not legally.
Implicit in the 2nd amendment is the need to protect the citizens from an oppressive government.
It would not be legal but I could understand a citizenry militia using violence to combat change being attempted by an oppressive government.
I don’t really have much issue in assassinating Government politicians.
2 kinds of facists, anti fa is one of them.
germans got sick of the violence between communists and nazis and i think that led to the dictatorship if i recall. they wanted stability even if it meant giving up their democracy.
oldngray
nowhere special
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
Nah!
No discrimination ... they’re all buttholes trying to control us.
newfie
Well-Known Member
i thought you were still defending antifa
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
Just feeding the Troll.
brownmonster
Man of Great Wisdom
I've been gone a while. What happened with this situation?
No. The context that @vantexan put forth was to compare ANTIFA with white supremacists.
If you’re going to join the conversation, understanding it first might help you out.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
No.
You compared antifa violence to a slave rebellion.
If you're going to make ridiculous comparisons you're gonna have to own it fren.
It’s all here on BC. Go back and look if you want.