Do you think that violence can sometimes be a justifible form of protest against the government?

Question

Why or why not?

Answer 1

There will never be a place for violence anywhere in our democracy, violence only achieves hatred by victims of that violence. The old adage make love not war is a wise saying that all of us should note.

ATB Red

Answer 2

Interesting question. It would seem that you are trying to ask if violence can be a justifiable means to promote change within a government. Protest, as has already been stated in other answers, cannot be considered in a violent context.

Protest implies a means of communication, and communication requires both a response. If you chose violence as a medium then you must accept a similar response, and just like that you are no longer protesting you are rebelling and subversive (not to mention a probable terrorist–as has already been mentioned).

That being said, I think if you consider violence as a justifiable means of change then you can probably make that argument. However this does not equal a "blank check" to permit violence with impunity. Simple choice of cause does not automatically allow course of action. Too often a good cause can become a hypocritical extension of supposed justice.

Answer 3

Of course.
I think some people on here are not grasping your question, and they think you are asking if violence against citizens is acceptable protest against a government. That is never acceptable. It is not only acceptable but a mandatory duty of all free citizens to resist any government by any means including force as soon as that government claims it has powers not granted to it by the people it governs.

I wonder the version of the revolutionary war the people who responded "no" to your question understand. Of course this nation only exists because citizens of Britain resisted a tyrannical government with force of arms. It is pretty obvious if you can make it to the second amendment of the bill of rights that there can be no mistake of its purpose. There can only be one reason to have citizens armed to protect the freedom of a state.

One guy on here thinks a government owns property. He does not understand a government has nothing. The national government is nothing but a place for all the states to send a rep. to vote on matters and is so bloated and out of control it seems to be taking on an entity of its own, however in a republic everything belongs to the citizens who are the supreme power. The only money the government has it what it takes from us, the only power it has is by our consent, the instant the IRS was foisted upon Americans through the misapplied 16th amendment and shadowy, unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act in 1913 it was time to end the current government, now its almost 100 years overdue.

Answer 4

As a protest, no, absolutely not.

In a free society, no one may initiate violence against anyone, and that includes property that belongs to someone else, including the government.

There does come a point where the government's initiation of violence could legitimately be resisted with force, but as a "protest", no.

Answer 5

Violence toward who?

Violence directed at innocent people as a protest against the government is called terrorism.

Answer 6

difficult question. i do not think that we as a people could fire our government / ask them to leave and they would just do so peacefully. we can't control them . most average americans do not approve of the war right now, yet it continues. it's too difficult to impeach the leaders / therefore we wait and package them out. violence is used to control / restore order at times. sometimes other people come to the aid of a country when they are having a civil war internally. lots of countries have and are dealing with corrupt governments. when other countries get involved ..seems they have financial motives for getting a "new government " LOL . in any violence , there are people that will be hurt/ killed. it is not a good method to pursue. i value human life a great deal.

Answer 7

It seemed to be a good idea in 1776. The US government has no problem using violence as a justifiable form of protest. History shows us that it's often the first choice. Kent State comes to mind. I would not want to take up arms against my own government, but history shows me that they are willing to use them against me.

Answer 8

Not only is it justifiable, our country (US) was founded with the understanding that the people had AN OBLIGATION to revolt whenever the government became tyrannical. The number of writings supporting this statement is in the hundreds if not thousands of the founders of this nation.

Jefferson for one said that rebellions were necessary. He stated that every generation, patriots and tyrants would die so that freedom would be secure.

The option for rebellion is THE ONE reason why the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, called the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights, was essential to the ratification of the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence was a statement of the reasons why violence was necessary against the current (British) rule. I suggest you go and read it for an illumination of reasons when our forefathers believed it was necessary.

What has happened to our learned people, our scholars, our historians? Whatever happened to the treasured memories of the many who lost their lives to end tyrannical rule within these shores (US) so that we could enjoy the freedoms from tyrants that we in fact enjoyed until the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1914?

In the 20th century alone, 56 million people exterminated because their guns were taken away by their government.

Australia took away the guns of their citizens and after twelve months of the experiment: homicides, up 3.2%; assaults, up 8.6%, armed robberies, up 44%.

Noah Webster stated it succintly: "The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States... and the jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to be unjust and oppressive."

Now who can argue with that? I assure you that to resist tyranny and violence with an equal degree of response is neither immoral nor unjust, and that to do so is a civic obligation imposed on us as caretakers of the experiment of freedom, inherited from the heroes of this Republic. They had doubts as to whether we their descendants would be worthy of this gift and at times wondered if we would make the sacrifices thus required, but to be called "Americans' we would not bend our knee and accept slavery and tyranny without a fight!

Let every man be armed!

Answer 9

No. It's beyond people's right to express their ideas. If you know Jose P. Rizal (Philippine National Hero), he made his protest through writings.

Violence hurts people. It could be an effective way to scare the government but I don't openly approve of it. And besides, how would you prove that you have good foundations of protest through violence?

Answer 10

then its not protest, its violence. You then move from the arena of possibly having a valid complaint to being a common criminal.Violence solves nothing and merely causes the other side to stop listening in order to deal with you violence.