What level of violence is acceptable

I agree. When government/law enforcement encourages and tolerates the political violence of one side defensive violence is the only alternative to a surrender to brute political force. .

 

First, appealing to human nature is defence of capitalism makes no sense where humans have lived for hundreds of thousands of years and capitalism has existed for a few hundred.

Second, I never claimed that USSR, China etc weren't socialist so the no true scotsman fallacy doesn't apply. Socialism, just like capitalism, comes in different forms. You wouldn't claim a Liberal and a Conservative believe in the exact same thing, even though they believe in capitalism.

Third, Capitalism has global hegemony yet still can't feed, shelter, and care for everyone but somehow it is a success story.

 

In this scenario, the pointing of a gun at someone is the initiation of the violence. The pull of the trigger is an ESCALATION of that violence. The gunman is attempting to compel, by violent threat and not by mutual agreement, something from the victim. You are RESPONDING to that initiation to prevent the escalation. You are not initiating violence. A violent and proportional response to the initiation of violence on another is justified.

 

In a kids world a bully's ideology is "I'm superior to you". White supremacists are bullies. That's just a simple fact. I'm really surprised that you are defending that ideology or any ideology of someone being superior over another. You can gloss it over with "as long as they obey the law" all you want but if there are enough that believe that ideology the next step is to make laws that follow that ideology (Muslim ban and such).

 

No violence is legal nor acceptable.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to peacefully assemble for redress of grievances.

Not riot.

 

If someone came to my door and like Nagin in New Orleans after Katrina tried to confiscate my guns, there would be violence however. They would all die in the process.

 

I'm not defending it. What gave you that idea?

A LOT of kids think they are better than others and we don't call them bullies unless they start hurting people. Stuck-up snobs in schools is nothing new. Bullies are people who take it to the next level and start to abuse others. When I was in school, I didn't care if some girl was stuck up and looked down on people, or if some jock thought he was better than everyone else because he was a star on the football team. Whatever. If he left me alone and left others alone, they can think anything they want, and I don't care. I'm not saying I agree with their being stuck up snobs--so don't assume that! G. K. Chesterton said that having the right to do something is entirely different than being right in doing it. You have the right to be certain things (like be a snob) but that doesn't mean you are right in doing it. Schools don't have "anti-snob" rules; you are allowed to be a snob and think yourself superior to others if you want (many do!). They do have anti-bullying rules, however. Because bullies hurt people.

A white supremacist who says, "White people are better" but doesn't do anything illegal, is like a snob, and I don't care what he believes. I think it's actually kind of silly, and for many years, that's what most people thought--that they were irrelevant and, quite frankly, pathetic. However, if he says, "I'm going to go hurt people who aren't white!" Now he's a bully.

Unless you want to start punishing people for their beliefs. I guess we can regress to the renaissance era and go inquisition on the country. Racism will be the new heresy, and we'll all on the hunt for "heretics." I'd like to think we've learned our lessons from history, but perhaps that's too optimistic.

Now, some people might say, "Well, the bad belief (that white people are superior) will eventually lead to bad actions." That's true. And that sucks and I'm sympathetic. But I'm also sorry to say that that is part of the price of living in a nation with freedom and the right to free speech. Besides, people have committed acts of violence for many, many different reasons other than a belief in white superiority. Are we going to outlaw any and all ideas that might, if taken to an extreme, lead to violence?!

 

Okay, but not all situations work out that way. If you're walking on a rooftop and you see an assassin on another rooftop with a sniper rifle aimed down at a crowd of people, he has not yet initiated violence unless you do some definition revising (which you seem to be doing). This is a POTENTIALLY violent situation, but it might not turn violent. If I believe he intends to shoot someone, I can act first and stop him or I can wait until he decides to shoot, if he does. He might not, so I'm left with a difficult decision. If I'm quite sure he is going to pull the trigger, then I think I should probably act. Anyway, the concept of a pre-emptive strike has been around for a long time. Sometimes armies in the past would attack an enemy that has not yet attacked them because they understood the political climate and knew war was inevitable, that an attack would come eventually, and so they might attack first to try and weaken the enemy rather than wait for him to gain his full strength. We don't like the idea of a pre-emptive strike, but if some king has spies in the terriroty of an enemy kingdom and the King knows 100% that his enemy is going to eventually attack, it might be good to attack them first. I don't know, but I don't think I could blame a King who doesn't want to wait.

 

That is quite an eloquent post in support of the abolition of the death penalty.

 

Only the police are legally empowered to shoot anyone for the public good.

You and I (if we are not police or Fed LEO's) are only allowed to defend ourselves and our immediate family and friends.

If someone is pointing a gun or knife at someone else or at you then you may shoot them.

But in your sniper scenario you don't know that. He/she could be shooting groundhogs.

 

The far right Nazi's and the far left Bolsheviks are always going to hate each other.

Let them bleed.

 

Such as it was for the last eight years and led to the election of an unlikely, unpopular president.

 

You have to admit, the violence this past weekend is a political windfall for the left.