- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 61,740
- Reaction score
- 32,385
- Location
- El Paso Strong
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Once again, asking for your own opinion here, not what the law is. Poll on the way.
Oh and, though this won't be covered by the poll, I'm also interested in knowing whether you are more likely or less likely to support protestors that damage property?
"Ever"? I would have to say it's highly unlikely that it would be justified. I'm not 100% sure when it could be justifiable, but perhaps there's something I cannot think of where it would be.
That being said, what we're seeing now certainly is not. That's just rioting for the sake of rioting.
Wait for it ... it's Wednesday, you know what comes next.
Once again, asking for your own opinion here, not what the law is. Poll on the way.
Oh and, though this won't be covered by the poll, I'm also interested in knowing whether you are more likely or less likely to support protestors that damage property?
Once again, asking for your own opinion here, not what the law is. Poll on the way.
Oh and, though this won't be covered by the poll, I'm also interested in knowing whether you are more likely or less likely to support protestors that damage property?
Regardless of whether it can be justified, on completely utilitarian grounds I'd be curious if damage of property ever helped the message of the people doing it.
Well there's this little historical footnote in American history...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
Ask the founders of the USA.
Boston Tea Party - American Revolution - HISTORY.com
Edit: Shucks Cardinal, you just beat me to it.
Once again, asking for your own opinion here, not what the law is. Poll on the way.
Oh and, though this won't be covered by the poll, I'm also interested in knowing whether you are more likely or less likely to support protestors that damage property?
If it isn't at least sometimes, all you Americans might want to rethink your second amendment...
Me shooting you for going onto my property isn't protest. That's self-defense.
True...but the whole "revolt against a tyrannical government" thing seems to have a commonality with what the protesters would think they are doing...
If your government is actively terrorizing you, you have every right to self-defense. I haven't seen a case of that happening in this country, except for maybe during Japanese internment, conscription, and slavery.
The question was: Is damaging/destroying property ever an acceptable or justifiable form of protest? I answered Yes, sometimes. The 2nd amendment would appear to agree, is all I'm saying. As to what constitute a government actively terrorizing you, well, I'm sure that would be relatively subjective and open to interpretation. But, nevertheless, it would appear that, according to your constitution, damaging / destroying property (given that one's life would be seen as one's most valuable property) is supported...sometimes.
So, by extension, if you answered No to the question, you are opposed to the 2nd amendment. Not that big a leap, is it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?