When do you think it's justified to rise up against government?

[NorrinRadd]

In light of Rom. 13, I don't see how it is ever permissible for a Christian.

Nevertheless, I advocate for mass disobedience of lockdown mandates and mask-when-outside mandates, and for resistance by any means up to and including deadly force against any and all persons trying to enforce such fascism.

[seanD]

Can't really say.

We booted the english rats out, that involved some violence. We fought the south, that was really violent.

I guess I would leave it up to any man to decide for himself. Or any self to decide for thier self, for those offended.

If it ever came to it, I guess I would know the time to act.

That's pretty much how I feel. Theologically speaking, I'm completely torn about it. But knowing my flawed nature (which I'm not proud of), if like you said the time came and push came to shove and I was facing a direct threatening situation, not defending myself would be extremely difficult.

[CivilDiscourse]

What fraud? You mean voter purges, closing polling places where the opposition lives, gerrymandering?

You realize none of that is "fraud" right?

[Mountain Man]

Our Founding Fathers well understood the necessity of taking up arms against the government to protect our basic freedoms when peaceful solutions are no longer an option.

I suppose one way to look at our current circumstances is to compare our basic liberties from the founding of our country to today, and to imagine if instead of a gradual change over time, we went from then to now in one sudden event. Would that justify open revolt against our government?

[Thoughtful Monk]

The closest to my position was "Only when nonviolent action is absolutely futile" so that's how I voted.

However, I want to make it clear that I mean "Only when nonviolent action by the majority is absolutely futile." A minority might become very frustrated by being consistently outvoted by the majority, but that does not mean violence is justified.

I voted the same as you. I might go that a minority is allowed to go violent if there is violent oppression against them by the majority.

[LiconaFan97]

Our Founding Fathers well understood the necessity of taking up arms against the government to protect our basic freedoms when peaceful solutions are no longer an option.

I suppose one way to look at our current circumstances is to compare our basic liberties from the founding of our country to today, and to imagine if instead of a gradual change over time, we went from then to now in one sudden event. Would that justify open revolt against our government?

The South would probably think so. That's why your argument sucks.

[Stoic]

I voted the same as you. I might go that a minority is allowed to go violent if there is violent oppression against them by the majority.

Yes, if people's rights are being violated, and the peaceful means to redress that are blocked somehow, then of course violence would be justified.

[Mountain Man]

The South would probably think so.

So did our Founding Fathers.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-do...ion-transcript

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-Thomas Jefferson

[Starlight]

I'm okay with the idea of violence if there's no alternative and it's for a well justified cause.

Entirely imaginary election fraud isn't, however, a well-justified cause. Entirely the opposite.

At least with the BLM protests, it was clear that some issues actually did exist with some policing in some parts of America.

So the difference between the two is violence for a completely insane completely imaginary cause, versus violence for a real cause. One is not really comparable to the other.

[Starlight]

What fraud? You mean voter purges, closing polling places where the opposition lives, gerrymandering?

Indeed, insofar as anything illegal and undemocratic happened in this election, it was done by republicans to democrats in the ways you mention.

The Republican party utterly disgusts me - they cheat and then make up lies about how the other side cheated in order to distract from their wrongdoing. The party of utter immorality and evil.

[LiconaFan97]

Indeed, insofar as anything illegal and undemocratic happened in this election, it was done by republicans to democrats in the ways you mention.

The Republican party utterly disgusts me - they cheat and then make up lies about how the other side cheated in order to distract from their wrongdoing. The party of utter immorality and evil.

The incoming Congress is going to address that and address it strongly. That's why they're so unhappy -- it's all slipping away.

[Stoic]

The incoming Congress is going to address that and address it strongly. That's why they're so unhappy -- it's all slipping away.

I don't know what the incoming Congress can do about voter purges, closing polling places where the opposition lives, and gerrymandering.

[LiconaFan97]

I don't know what the incoming Congress can do about voter purges, closing polling places where the opposition lives, and gerrymandering.

I'm going to have to just paste something without really being able to debate it since constitutional law is not an area where I think I can do more than that, but this document (produced in the wake of the 2019 SC ruling) states the below. The paste is messy so please take a look at that doc on page 4 if you'd like.

As a result of Rucho, federal courts lack subject matterjurisdiction to resolve claims of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. However,Ruchosuggests thatCongress and the states have the power to address extreme partisan gerrymanderingshould they so choose.For example, as observed by the Court, several billsthat take various approaches to address partisan gerrymandering have been introduced.

For example, H.R. 1, the “For the People Act of 2019,” which passed the House of Representatives on March 8, 2019, would eliminate legislatures from the redistricting process and require each state to establish a nonpartisan, independent congressional redistricting commission, in accordance with certain criteria. H.R. 44, the “Coretta Scott King Mid-Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act of 2019,” would prohibit states from carrying out more than one congressional redistricting following a decennial census and apportionment, unless a state is orderedby a court to do so in order to comply with the Constitution or to enforcethe Voting Rights Act of 1965(VRA).(At least one scholar has arguedthat limiting redistricting to once per decade renders it “less likely that redistricting will occur under conditions favoring partisan gerrymandering.”) H.R. 141, the “Redistricting Transparency Act of 2019,” would, based on the view that public oversight of redistricting may lessen partisan influence in the process,require state congressional redistricting entities to establish and maintain a public Internet site and conduct redistricting under procedures that provide opportunities for public participation. Notably, theCourt in Ruchospecifically stated that it expressed“no view” on any pending proposals, but observed “that the avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open.”

I think the other two can be at least partially addressed by restoring the VRA. The main requirement is to come up with a new standard by which to judge which locales (or just cover everyone) has to seek approval before making voting changes.

[firstfloor]

Pulling ballots out of suitcases hidden under floor-length tablecloths. Irregularities like stopping counting from rural districts for 12 hours for reasons never stated. Blocking windows from viewers. Waiting for observers to go home before restarting ballot counting. Those sorts of things.

You’ve been listening to the ridiculous dog food eating Sidney Powell. Please stop eating dog food.

[Ronson]

You’ve been listening to the ridiculous dog food eating Sidney Powell. Please stop eating dog food.

I witnessed those things. I believe my eyes.