Speaking in terms of the USA, the constitution was built with the intended reasonable pursuit of escalating properly-to violence If need be. Peaceful protests, voting, freedom of speech, etc. are all avenues of reprimand towards an over reaching or overbearing government. Violence was seen as acceptable and even necessary in some cases but was never intended as a first resort.

This is why right to bear arms exists along with all the other approaches. Now it's a matter or decision by the people of what methods have been exhausted, which are futile, and what is next.

Revolting, fighting, and force in the name of freedom from a truly oppressive government is a necessary sacrifice for any people who wish to live with the freedoms that brings regardless of nationality, location, or beliefs.

Clarifications: This is not against any government for any disagreement, just truly oppressive ones that strip human rights from the people.

Violence should never be a first resort, but has it's place among negotiations.

Personal opinion: These means should not be used for ones own benefit, you are upset because of the ways of life for all the people, the rights of your people, there is a fair likelihood this method will result in a world you will never see or benefit significantly from, its for others; those that follow. How else would I be able to sit here and eat bugles if someone didn't strive for a world good enough for me to do so?

[–] MaxVoltage@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Based and LeftPilled

[–] colin@lemmy.uninsane.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Violence should never be a first resort, but has it’s place among negotiations.

i agree in the abstract, i'm less sure in reality. SCOTUS makes an unpopular ruling that takes away right to abortion for half the country: doctors in affected areas feel the credible threat of violence "i'll lose my home and i'll be locked behind bars if i perform abortions", but SCOTUS don't feel any threat like that. they're free to make millions worse off because they don't really fear repercussions for it.

violence isn't a first resort, but organized society as we know it depends on the credible threat of violence. if only one party feels that threat to be credible, then "negotiations" are one-sided. "demilitarize the police" is a great way to balance those threats of violence by reducing violence (yay), but failing that how else to make the side you're negotiating with treat your threat of violence as credibly as you treat theirs other than to actually use violence?