Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: When is violence necessary?

Posted 6 years ago on March 6, 2012, 3:23 a.m. EST by Spade2 (478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

To me this movement is going no where, so I must ask: at what point of failure is violence the solution to our problems? If all peaceful attempts fail, when do we start bringing out the guns? Or do we continue to try peaceful methods even as pollution threatens our very excistence? When does greed become so foul that it needs to be put down?



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by JenLynn (692) 6 years ago

Funny thing, I think violence will only work for you when it's used against you by the authorities. Whoever resorts to it is the ultimate looser.

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 6 years ago

Why are we given the right to bear arms in the constitution?

[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 6 years ago

The amendment itself suggests a reason, but it's debated just how that was meant. Is that well regulated militia under state regulation or not?

The post asked for an opinion, I gave mine. This is a minority movement right now. I think you'll win support if your the victim of violence and loose it if your seen as the one committing it. Take up arms against a government without way more support and you lose fast.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

"well regulated" does not mean regulation as in law and rule....it means well trained and disciplined.......

[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 6 years ago

That is the point on which debate often centers. I've heard gun control advocates argue it means one way, separatist militias argue the other. It's fun but pointless to debate it, only the opinion of the Supreme Court matters on that issue.

Your opinion seems to be that the author of the constitution was giving us the means and suggesting that armed rebellion might be necessary at some point. True or not, at this point I don't think it matters, there isn't unified support for violence even within Occupy and I would doubt there is any support at all from the general population.

Risking everything under the illusion that the masses will come running to support rebellion once the first violent steps are taken is foolish. Violent actions will be put down and the response by law enforcement will be seen by the public as necessary and proper, no matter how violent it is.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

not only armed "rebellion" but also armed defense, as a fledgling country that couldn't afford a large standing army (and many of the founders were also a little wary of empowering government with such an entity) the citizen soldiers were to be "regulated" in order to be ready to muster and defend the republic in the event of military action......but the right to possess arms (which included, at the time, mortars, explosive munitions, cannons, and other artillery) was seen as an individual right because of the historical use of disarming populations as a means to tyrannize them.....

The founders added many checks and balances including the Bill of Rights, and the rules of government to prevent the rise of a large centralized authoritarian government, as they knew such an entity would erode the freedom and liberty of the citizens......

We really are at a turning point, as the use of arms is being forwarded to both defend and defeat the Republic as it stands by the Constitution.....and both sides think they are justified in their actions....

the next 20 years will be interesting...

[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 6 years ago

I know the history of it, I also see anyone with a cause twist meanings to get the result they want. Keeping this in the context of the Occupy movement, violence would probably end any hope it might have for being a catalyst for positive change.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 6 years ago

I don't see much positive change coming from OWS anyway......the one thing they could do would be lobby for the re-separation of financial entities combined by the Financial Modernization Act, and perhaps the repeal of sections 322 and 323 of the clean water act that exempt hydraulic fracturing from the rules of that legislation.....but they aren't pushing for anything specific....just an amorphous bunch of nothing...sort of like the membership......

[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 6 years ago

OWS's direction is another topic entirely. I think violence is self defeating, but I've thought from the beginning that OWS and every other occupy were making a mistake by not going out and getting candidates to run for office in as many congressional districts as possible. Some primary wins and even close losses could have pushed congress to act on financial regulation.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 6 years ago

And milita means citizens not paid soldiers

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 6 years ago

Never. Direct nonviolence is far more powerful. King, Gandhi and Gene Sharp have provided the time tested playbook. We should pay attention to it.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

"The means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek."

"Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals."

"The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility."

“That old law about 'an eye for an eye' leaves everybody blind"

“The conservatives who say, "Let us not move so fast," and the extremists who say, "Let us go out and whip the world ," would tell you that they are as far apart as the poles. But there is a striking parallel: They accomplish nothing; for they do not reach the people who have a crying need to be free.”

“I'm concerned about a better world. I'm concerned about justice; I'm concerned about brotherhood; I'm concerned about truth. And when one is concerned about that, he can never advocate violence. For through violence you may murder a murderer, but you can't murder murder. Through violence you may murder a liar, but you can't establish truth. Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can't murder hate through violence. Darkness cannot put out darkness; only light can do that.”

“The nonviolent approach does not immediately change the heart of the oppressor. It first does something to the hearts and souls of those committed to it. It gives them new self-respect; it calls up resources of strength and courage they did not know they had.”

“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.”

"True pacifism is not unrealistic submission to an evil power...it is rather a courageous confrontation with evil by the power of love, in the faith that it is better to be the recipient of violence than the inflicter of it, since the latter only multiplies the existence of violence and bitterness in the universe, while the former may develop a sense of shame in the opponent, and thereby bring about a transformation and change of heart."

All quotes by M.L King Jr.

[-] 0 points by debndan (1145) 6 years ago

Yes, but MLK was a Reverend, so with occupy's logic he was just a reactionary, opiate of the masses and all that.

Once occupy became hostile to christians, then they lost the right to quote Christian thinkers like MLK. In Occupy's world people like MLK shoulda stayed within the walls of his church instead of praying in public, which he was arrested for.

Once occupy becomes 'cleansed' of people of faith then spade2's argument becomes the dominant opinion, which is what has happened, and why the public finds it repulsive, when at first the public's opinion was favorable.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 6 years ago

You enjoy making things up don't you? Occupy is not now, nor has it ever been, hostile to Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on.

People within occupy - at least some on this website - may very well be hostile to your personal interpretation of Christianity or how that impacts on public policy, but that's it. And since you are not Jesus, that opposition is not generalized to the entire religion.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

Please, show us where or how Occupy has become hostile to Christians?

Are you talking about separation of church and state? Just because a person believes in the separation of church and state does not mean that person has anything against the church or the state. Jeesh.

Do you think Pres. Kennedy was hostile to Christianity because he believed in the separation of church and state?

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote." Pres. John F. Kennedy.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33489) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Very nice comment. Very deep thinking shared.

You will probably give every troll who reads it a migraine as they are not wired for that kind of comprehension or human understanding.

[-] 2 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

When all lawful solutions fail. As far as I can tell, Occupy has yet to do anything other than throw tantrums in the streets and expect the "parents" (legislature) to do something to fix the problem.

As others are pointing out though, violence is what the enemy wants. It would allow them to implement unveiled martial law and remove any semblance of liberty that the people of this country have left.

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 6 years ago

they have had some limited success, but its far from restitution, for what the bankers, car companies, and oil-power corps have squeezed out of the 99%....

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

the United states squeezed it out. Then they gave it to those companies. Don't get confused about who did the squeezing. That's one of the major errors of this movement.

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 6 years ago

your kinda right the government and big business are in bed together, like Sadam and the Devil... How can we get corporate in fluence out of our government?

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

This is one of my favorite questions to answer. Abolish the commerce clause. If the government cannot control commerce, corporations will have no interest in controlling government! They will be forced to survive based on the merit of their products and services, and will be unable to force others out of competition with legal red tape. Now, a great deal of the unsavory business practices that go on now would still go on, but they would not be legal!

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 6 years ago

Shield, I disagree with you completely on this issue. The government need to control commerce more just a sheep need a shepherd, and deer herds must be hunted or they will starve... I saw something called MIND over MONEY a NOVA show on PBS. some notes i took....

Adam Smith rational economics- money at a base level of brain function with sex, food, drugs, $- emotional envy of profit- bubble causation and occurrence - 1922 boom 1930 crash- Kanes English dude- Suggestive influence- Lerner Harvard chick- sub conscious, empathetic mood- Vernon Smith Cali Noble prize- derivatives, % quants trolls- bubble deer herd metaphore-

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

Yes, but were you able to form coherent sentences from those notes you took? This is merely an inflammatory jest. Ignore it.

What is your argument?

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 6 years ago

no I was being serious, your more concerned with syntax than theme? Do you care about the sheep? Have you ever seen drug addicts, or children with candy?

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

You asked me how I thought we could get corporate influence out of government. My answer was to eliminate the reason they seek to influence government. You responded that you disagreed and presented incoherent notes to explain your position that "The government need to control commerce more just a sheep need a shepherd".

What is your actual argument? Why do we need government to control commerce?

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 6 years ago

Monopolies... Emotional Bubble dynamics, insider trading.. You cant believe all people would be better off with out controls... you might believe some people would benefit...

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 6 years ago

I believe that legalized economic violations of right would be impossible if the use of force in economic matters were prohibited. There will always be people seeking to take advantage of others. The question is: would you rather have those people seated in the safety of a government position or prevent them from legalizing their activities? The only way I see to prevent such people from manipulating government is to take away the government's ability to benefit such people. There is no reason why the people of a free country need to have their government control the economy by force. Every violation of people's rights can be handled as such, without making it an "economic" issue.


[-] 1 points by elf3 (3892) 6 years ago

look at all Occupy has accomplished - in less time and less money than it takes Wall Street to put on an ad campaign - Occupy has spread it's message loud and clear- nobody asks what this movement is about anymore the question has turned to what will be done to stop the corruption. Job well done - spread the awareness (once people wake up to the corporate totalitarian state and realize they aren't free - they won't go back to sleep.) Never rest never give up - we are the voice for the 99 percent we are the voice for the people who have none - we are the people who care about you - wallstreet would throw us into anarchy but we want to prevent it before it's too late - we are the ones who know that one percent of the population has stolen the planet's natural abundance and are hording it for themselves and we won't rest until we get it out from their clutches.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 6 years ago

But do we kill for it? Do we hang them from a tree and bury ther family in a ditch?

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 6 years ago

What is wrong with your brain?

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 6 years ago

Nothing, why do you ask?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 6 years ago

I think, in the transition from one ruling class to another, at the point when the vast majority sides with the opposition, then usually some surgical violence is typically necessary in the process of that transition.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 6 years ago

When your kid wrecks the new car.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 6 years ago

So tear gas, a tear gas canister to the head, rubber bullets, concussion grenades, and pepper spraying people completely boxed in on all sides by police isn't violent then? Will it be considered violence once they're real bullets? Pretty sure the crackdowns have been violent, and with no provocation either...

What's with this bullshit impling that the cops have been all smiles and handshakes on these forums? Come off it!!! You'd think everyone is living under a rock reading some of the stuff on here.

Occupiers are being whiny and throwing a hissy fit by sticking with it peacefully in the face of all this?!! Sounds like real courage to me.

Better questions would be, why is our law enforcement serving political functions in the first place? Why are people still defending the law as sacrosanct, even as our constitutional rights are being trampled on? Give me a break.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 6 years ago

I think you misunderstood the question, I mean when does OWS start being violent, not the police as they are violent enough.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 6 years ago

Oh sorry spade, I wasn't posting it in response to you. I understood the message perfectly. It's a lot of the comments on the original post that bug me.

My answer is if they start killing Americans at any protest, or when the provisions for indefinite detention are acted upon on said peaceful protestors. Once that happens, is there really any other choice?

For now I'm willing to give it more time as bad as things are. Truth and reason will eventually win.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 6 years ago

I hope.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 6 years ago

Same here, same here :I

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 6 years ago

they are asleep, lulled by commercials, fear, and media, the police arent always the smartest folks but sometimes they have a good heart. And to speak upon violence, if your being raped you can kill your raper, people are allowed to fight back, and self defend, but be careful thinking like that, the law is with the powerful, and easily twisted. Those who are dishonest and liars can easily bear false witness....

[-] 1 points by badlimey (48) 6 years ago

What a loaded question (pardon the pun) I can only speak for myself and tell you that violence is so important to the enemy that they can't wait for it to happen. In fact if it doesn't hurry up and happen, they will.

Violence is the solution to oppressing any movement, look around the world. We will bomb a country for not allowing peaceful protest, and then turn around and beat the crap out of our own citizens.

I do not advocate violence but I am not a pacifist. Get in my face and touch me and it's on like Donkey Kong.

Would you please read the following article and respond with your comments either privately or via this forum.

The time to facilitate change is now and we are running out of time. If we have not created massive exposure for this cause before the war with Iran takes place we have lost. Thanks,

Barrie Featherstone, Houston, TX. http://mrphister.blogspot.com/2012/03/occupy-wall-street-save-it-now.html

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 6 years ago

Interesting, but I have a question: when if that doesn't work? We're on a time table between global warming and possible nuclear war, so when does violence become necessary to avert these things?

[-] 1 points by badlimey (48) 6 years ago

I cannot see any scenario where violence would succeed. However I see lots of scenarios where it will take place. I think we have about 13 months to wake up America. Live FREE or die, may well become the defining phrase of the 21st Century.

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 6 years ago

right on man...

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 6 years ago

Is that a yes or a no?

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 6 years ago

both, it is more about the question than the answer... If the sheep dont know the question we cant tell them the answer, I run into that problem with some rich, republican types I know. There not all bad but, they dont know the question, they missed class the day their parents taught ethics...



[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 6 years ago

The end justifies the means. Right?

[-] 0 points by timirninja (263) 6 years ago

it must only works in one way: people united against bad boys, but not united government against people.




[-] 0 points by FaceHumper (-1) 6 years ago

I will kill for OWS.

+1 if you would too.

[-] 5 points by GildasSapiens (266) 6 years ago

Only +1 FaceHumper's Comment if you're 100% certain FaceHumper (who only joined yesterday) isn't a DHS/FBI agent provocateur.

[-] -3 points by GreatBallsOfFire (11) 6 years ago

If FaceHumper was with the FBI, he would be using the mod's account to post these things instead. So violence is okay.

[+] -9 points by DKAtoday (33489) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

People! vote this asshole closed. Hit dislike and sensor the POS.


[-] -1 points by TeaPartyWillPrevail (-16) 6 years ago

I for one HOPE you pussies will push the issue and bring your bullshit out to OUR neck of the woods. Oh, and DKAtoday, princess, us vast far right-wing conspirators "get it", it's just that we see so little compassion, tolerance or pacifism from you leftist hypocrites, lol. You brats really don't want to push a civil war, trust me on this. You are VASTLY outnumbered by the jingoistic, racist, homophobic, blah, blah, blah America loving Conservatives you loathe so much and many of us actually know and have trained to fight in REAL wars, not your little latté revolution. You fools have awoken the Sleeping Giant of Heartland Conservatives, fools! Wave bye-bye to your mulatto messiah in November, lolol! And yeah, I know, when Obowmao loses in historic proportions, you "99%" (lol, as if) will cry "WAYCISM!". The upside of this fiasco of an experiment with letting a socialist muzzie nigger be 'da prez' is, NO MORE SHITSKINS FOR PRESIDENT, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! LOL!

[-] 3 points by JuanFenito (847) 6 years ago

Bring it, you bigoted racist punk.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 6 years ago

This site is watched . Make sure u only say what u mean. I'm smart but no good for a war. I'll die. I'll fight for you.

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 6 years ago

Now there is a real troll!

[-] 1 points by TimSykes (-22) 6 years ago

Or maybe he just loves his country

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33489) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Hater bullshit blind marching rhetoric go suck on your Rush Lipballs aching sack. You are the only shit head talking about a civil war.

Almost nice rant of yours tough. Most trolls have problems just following the print in their tactics manual.

Keep practicing. You may yet become a legend in your own mind.

Now off you go. Your supremacist losers miss your stimulating presence.

Poster child for greed and corruption? You waste your time here as well as your employers money.


LOL @ u fags thinking ur gonna take over America, HAHAHAHAHA! You pussies will NEVER disarm the MILLIONS of Former Marines in this country!!! BWAHAHAHA!!! LOSERS!!! Private Messages


Joined March 8, 2012

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 6 years ago

if OWS becomes violent you will have the FBI and the force of American law chasing occupiers down and arresting them. If you shoot any law enforcement you will surely be killed. Your future will be like Weatherman Bill Ayers and his wife, except dead. So good luck with that!


[-] -1 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 6 years ago

Aren't policemen union members, and sympathetic to veterans, and in the middle class which is in the 99%, Ive never seen the FBI but have met hundreds of police.... only a few ever arrested me....

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 6 years ago

your 99% is make believe. May .5% support OWS and if you all get violent you will become the .25% or less. Occupy has accused the police of all sorts or rubbish, why would they support you. or why would veterans or the middle class support a bunch of spoiled college professors and students?

[-] 0 points by DevilDog420 (133) from Saratoga Springs, NY 6 years ago

Ever been taken advantage of, lied to, watched people with money make a travesty of justice, had the system let you down, gotten bad intel... theres no guarantee, anyone has to do anything... but I'm looking for volunteer types that dont wipe there asses with money, you wouldnt understand you dego candyass yuppie...

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 6 years ago

You have not yet tried peaceful solutions.. so far OWS attempt at this has been nothing but name calling and hateful. And you have gotten the results you deserve. Try a new approach .. try kindness.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (33489) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Let's just say this for now - We are not living in Syria -Yet.

Trolls have fun with that because I know you want to.

Occupy OWS 99% are non-violent. With good reason.