Younger people have more support for political violence

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Although you have to sift through a lot of chaff to get to this part, there are some statistics included in the bottom of a recent SPLC poll showing support for threats and support for violence. The support comes mainly from younger people.

SPLC June Poll

Section 4 shows who has the greatest support for threatening politicians with harm.

Younger Republican Men	46%
Younger Democrat Men	40%
Younger Republican Women	31%
Younger Democrat Women	25%
Older Democrat Men	17%
Older Democrat Women	16%
Older Republican Men	12%
Older Republican Women	11%

It also who has the greatest support for actual violence

Younger Democrat Men	44%
Younger Republican Women	40%
Younger Republican Men	34%
Younger Democrat Women	32%
Older Republican Women	10%
Older Democrat Women	9%
Older Democrat Men	6%
Older Republican Men	6%

Distressingly, the three categories of "Younger Democrat Men", "Younger Democrat Women", and "Younger Republican Women" show a higher level of support for violence than threats. That indicates a belief in "no warnings, you piss us off we want you gone."

There's going to be some partisan bickering as a result of this, trying to prove that the Republocrats or the Demolicans are worse, but the most stark divide shown is an age divide.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Young people... rebellious... no shit!

 

[zorq]

Distressingly, political violence is a necessary part of advancing society when corrupt power becomes entrenched. Nearly all modern democracies, including the US, have been birthed from political violence.

Now that we have established that political violence isn't an absolute evil when it is acting against corruption, perhaps we can talk about which major American political party is more corrupt.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Distressingly, political violence is a necessary part of advancing society when corrupt power becomes entrenched. Nearly all modern democracies, including the US, have been birthed from political violence.

Now that we have established that political violence isn't an absolute evil when it is acting against corruption, perhaps we can talk about which major American political party is more corrupt.

The interesting thing is how a bunch of middle aged white people stormed the Capitol Bldg to stop the election of Joe Biden upon the instigation of the POTUS, and we are reading about how young people are a threat to America.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Distressingly, political violence is a necessary part of advancing society when corrupt power becomes entrenched. Nearly all modern democracies, including the US, have been birthed from political violence.

Now that we have established that political violence isn't an absolute evil when it is acting against corruption, perhaps we can talk about which major American political party is more corrupt.

The interesting thing is how a bunch of middle aged white people stormed the Capitol Bldg to stop the election of Joe Biden upon the instigation of the POTUS, and we are reading about how young people are a threat to America.

Also interesting is the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[ZiprHead]

Distressingly, political violence is a necessary part of advancing society when corrupt power becomes entrenched. Nearly all modern democracies, including the US, have been birthed from political violence.

Now that we have established that political violence isn't an absolute evil when it is acting against corruption, perhaps we can talk about which major American political party is more corrupt.

The interesting thing is how a bunch of middle aged white people stormed the Capitol Bldg to stop the election of Joe Biden upon the instigation of the POTUS, and we are reading about how young people are a threat to America.

Also interesting is the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court Justice.

One vs thousands???

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Distressingly, political violence is a necessary part of advancing society when corrupt power becomes entrenched. Nearly all modern democracies, including the US, have been birthed from political violence.

Now that we have established that political violence isn't an absolute evil when it is acting against corruption, perhaps we can talk about which major American political party is more corrupt.

The interesting thing is how a bunch of middle aged white people stormed the Capitol Bldg to stop the election of Joe Biden upon the instigation of the POTUS, and we are reading about how young people are a threat to America.

Also interesting is the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court Justice.

The story about the guy who went to Kavanaugh's home is greatly disturbing! On the other hand, he called the police himself, effectively turning himself in. He conspired to commit a crime, but didn't actually "attempt" it.

Meanwhile the US Capitol Bldg had to be evacuated due to the angry middle aged mob, that was incited by the President, penetrating into the building, calling for the death of VP Pence.

 

[steve_bank]

I remember the 60s and the 70s. Kent State, the Weathermen, VN protests, the Chicago convention demonstrations.

The Black Panthers got fed up and armed themselves.They essebtiaLLY BECAME A MILITIA FOR SWELF DEFENSE. In some places it was open season on blacks. I;d have to look up the specifics I don't remember. Black Panthers showed up armed at the Ca capitol asserting their right to bear arms.

Armed Black Panthers in the Capitol, 50 years on - Capitol Weekly

The Panthers' Capitol 'invasion' all came about as a result of an American racial divide that existed 50 years ago and in some measure continues today.

capitolweekly.net

It’s largely forgotten now, but 50 years ago, it created a national sensation. It even caused the National Rifle Association and Ronald Reagan to back a gun-control bill authored by a Republican.


Tuesday is the 50th anniversary of the May 2, 1967 “invasion” of the state Capitol by two dozen gun-toting Black Panthers. Carrying rifles, pistols and shotguns, and wearing dark glasses, leather jackets and berets, they marched up the front steps and into the Capitol to demonstrate their opposition to an anti-gun bill by Oakland Republican Don Mulford (1915-2000).


Unlike today, there were no airport-style security checkpoints at Capitol entrances — visitors could come and go freely.

“CAPITOL IS INVADED” blared the huge front-page headline in the May 2 then- afternoon Sacramento Bee. Associated Press photographer Walt Zeboski’s dramatic pictures ran in newspapers across the nation. The Panthers had also alerted television stations to their upcoming demonstration.

I am not comaring the 60s black protests at times violent in any way to the Jan 6 extremists, but we have been here before.

George Washington suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion. Farmers and others objectd to a whskey still tax even for home use. Violent protest is in our culturl DNA.

Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Whiskey Rebellion (also known as the Whiskey Insurrection) was a violent tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791 and ending in 1794 during the presidency of George Washington. The so-called "whiskey tax" was the first tax imposed on a domestic product by the newly formed federal government. Beer was difficult to transport and spoiled more easily than rum and whiskey. Rum distillation in the United States had been disrupted during the Revolutionary War, and whiskey distribution and consumption increased after the Revolutionary War (aggregate production had not surpassed rum by 1791). The "whiskey tax" became law in 1791, and was intended to generate revenue for the war debt incurred during the Revolutionary War. The tax applied to all distilled spirits, but consumption of American whiskey was rapidly expanding in the late 18th century, so the excise became widely known as a "whiskey tax".[3] Farmers of the western frontier were accustomed to distilling their surplus rye, barley, wheat, corn, or fermented grain mixtures to make whiskey. These farmers resisted the tax. In these regions, whiskey often served as a medium of exchange. Many of the resisters were war veterans who believed that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation, while the federal government maintained that the taxes were the legal expression of Congressional taxation powers.

 

[Politesse]

Isn't that the presumptive reason for having the 2nd amendment in the first place? So people can rebel if they need to?

 

[ZiprHead]

Isn't that the presumptive reason for having the 2nd amendment in the first place? So people can rebel if they need to?

Presumptive is the key word because it isn't true.

 

[ZiprHead]

Distressingly, political violence is a necessary part of advancing society when corrupt power becomes entrenched. Nearly all modern democracies, including the US, have been birthed from political violence.

Now that we have established that political violence isn't an absolute evil when it is acting against corruption, perhaps we can talk about which major American political party is more corrupt.

The interesting thing is how a bunch of middle aged white people stormed the Capitol Bldg to stop the election of Joe Biden upon the instigation of the POTUS, and we are reading about how young people are a threat to America.

Also interesting is the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court Justice.

There was a guy that shot and killed the son of a judge but the judge wasn't available to kill. He had Justice Sotomayor on his kill list.

 

[Politesse]

Isn't that the presumptive reason for having the 2nd amendment in the first place? So people can rebel if they need to?

Presumptive is the key word because it isn't true.

Oh? What is it you think the guns are for, hunting bears?

No, the threat of non-democratic government has always loomed heavy over our young nation's politics, and still does.

 

[ZiprHead]

Isn't that the presumptive reason for having the 2nd amendment in the first place? So people can rebel if they need to?

Presumptive is the key word because it isn't true.

Oh? What is it you think the guns are for, hunting bears?

No, the threat of non-democratic government has always loomed heavy over our young nation's politics, and still does.

Do you believe there is any government in the world that would codify as a right that a small subset of the citizens can overthrow the government by force? That makes no sense on it face.

See also the Militia Act of 1792.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

 

[bilby]

I am not comaring the 60s black protests at times violent in any way to the Jan 6 extremists, but we have been here before.

I do love a self refuting argument.

I presume you didn’t notice that the second clause in your sentence contradicts the first, in the most hypocritical and vile way.

You admit to knowing that the comparison is inappropriate; You claim to be innocent of any allegation that you might make such an inappropriate comparison; And then you go right ahead and do the exact thing you just established to be unacceptable.

Reasonable people who are not total arseholes don’t do that.

 

[bilby]

Isn't that the presumptive reason for having the 2nd amendment in the first place? So people can rebel if they need to?

Sure, but only against the legitimate authority of the British crown.

 

[Derec]

Now that we have established that political violence isn't an absolute evil when it is acting against corruption, perhaps we can talk about which major American political party is more corrupt.

The problem is that extremists on both ends of the horseshoe are saying that about the other side as well as those in the middle part of the horseshoe.

If you say left wing political violence is ok and even laudable, how can you condemn right wing political violence?

 

[Derec]

The interesting thing is how a bunch of middle aged white people stormed the Capitol Bldg to stop the election of Joe Biden upon the instigation of the POTUS, and we are reading about how young people are a threat to America.

And in the year before that (really 6 years, but it reached its crescendo in 2020) a bunch of mostly young black and white people wreaked chaos in many US cities, burning down many buildings (including government building) and vehicles.
And unlike the January 6th people, who are being vigorously prosecuted, #BLM/Antifa terrorists like Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman are getting sweetheart deals from Biden/Garland DOJ.
NY lawyers plead guilty in Molotov cocktail case; shorter sentences likely

Under revised agreements, the defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit arson and possess an explosive device, with prosecutors recommending sentences of 18 to 24 months.

Which is a sick joke given that they made, distributed and used explosive devices as part of politically motivated violence. January 6th people did not burn down anything and are facing far longer sentences from the politically biased federal prosecutors.

And speaking of deadly attacks on the Capitol, do you even remember that January 6th was not the most recent such attack? And if you do, do you remember who was responsible for the most recent attack on the Capitol?

 

[Derec]

One vs thousands???

How about 1000s who rioted in 2020?

I guess those are just "peaceful protesters", right?
And hardly any have been prosecuted, and even those that have been prosecuted have received light sentences.

 

[Derec]

I remember the 60s and the 70s. Kent State, the Weathermen, VN protests, the Chicago convention demonstrations.

The Black Panthers got fed up and armed themselves.

They lasted well into the 80s. WU and an offshoot of BPP called Black Liberation Army robbed a Brinks truck (goal was to procure funds for their terrorist activities - their goal has been the overthrow of US government) in 1981 and murdered a security guard and two police officers. Btw, the son of two of the terrorists just got recalled as DA of San Francisco this Tuesday.
And in 1983 an offshoot of WU bombed the US Senate. Clinton commuted their sentences in the 90s. I guess attacks on the Capitol are only a big deal when done by right wing, not when done by the left.

They essebtiaLLY BECAME A MILITIA FOR SWELF DEFENSE.

Hardly "swelf[sic] defense". They have always been a bunch of murderous thugs. For example, in 1968 Eldridge Cleaver led some Panthers to ambush police, with deadly results. They were also political extremists who wanted to overthrow the US government and impose a Maoist dictatorship.

Black Panthers showed up armed at the Ca capitol asserting their right to bear arms.

I guess heavily armed militias showing up at a state capitol is just fine when done by black leftists, right?

I am not comaring the 60s black protests at times violent in any way to the Jan 6 extremists, but we have been here before.

The 60s left wing extremists have been far more deadly, and yet they are being glorified by the mainstream left. Many former Panthers, even those who committed or were involved in murders have become ensconced in academia.

 

[Derec]

Do you believe there is any government in the world that would codify as a right that a small subset of the citizens can overthrow the government by force? That makes no sense on it face.

Of course not, that would be absurd.
Interestingly though, the German constitution explicitly (Art. 20(4)) grants every German the right of resistance against anybody who tries to abolish the constitutional order, but only as a last resort.