Would you be willing to commit violence against fellow Americans of differing viewpoints

I keep hearing talk of the "coming civil war" in America and so forth from people on this site and others. Generally this talk comes from conservatives.

I am just not so sure it would be doable. I dont think enough Americans on either side would be willing to attack their fellow countrymen. Not in any large enough numbers to have an actual "civil war"

So this is my question to you.


Would you be willing to commit physical violence and or murder of your fellow Americans of opposing political views with the intent of "saving" your country?

 

I am a defender. If someone wants to try and attack me, regardless of reason, then I will do what is necessary to keep me and mine safe.

 

This isnt about self defense. Of course if a person attacks you, you'd do what is needed to remain safe.

I am asking you, if youd be willing to attack a fellow American for no other reason than they have radically different viewpoints than you, and you were told to attack them.

 

there is already a civil war and it appears to be covert as militias are easily defeated by lawful government force.

i am a pacifist who depends on freedom fighters to keep me safe.

 

Except for a few regulars at Waffle House I generally don't know what people's political views are. The old maxim is never bring up politics or religion in polite conversation.

 

By "attack", I assume that you mean kill or beat another American for having a radically different viewpoint then me.

My answer is, of course not regardless of who tells me to. A person expressing a viewpoint no matter how ludicrous is to be ignored or civilly countered with a more valid viewpoint.
Having to resort to violence or slander simply means that your own viewpoint is flawed.

In this curious hypothetical scenario, who would be the person (or people) that would tell me to attack a fellow American?

 

I would use violence only in defense of myself and my family. In response to "if youd be willing to attack a fellow American for no other reason than they have radically different viewpoints than you, and you were told to attack them", such is a person who needs to be in preventive custody, imo.

My post clearly points out that it is no call to or an incitement of violence.

 

I can think of a few things worth committing violence over. Politics and opinions aren't on the list.

 

And this is the answer I would expect most people to give honestly.

As for the "who". I dont know. But in the event of an actual civil war in America, there woud be distinct groups. People would command those groups. People in those groups would take commands. THats all I was trying to get at here.

 

Voted no - conservative.

They can talk all they like, don't really care. But if force is used by the Dems to push their agenda, then force is what they get back.

 

Violence is as american as apple pie, only the bogus rationales and faux justifications change to suit the savage would be righteous slaughterer.

 

The most logical way this would happen is some group attacking another, and the attacked group touching off a growing conflict across the country.

A large crowd of antifa, for example, attacking some rally...deaths on both sides...then it spreads.

It sounds far-fetched, but wars have started over less.

 

Nope, the far right cons will not find the dems using violence for their agenda, they won't have to.

 

Thanks, I think an equally compelling question is how far would LEOs & the US Military go to disarm Americans but that's a question for another thread.
I don't see Americans as being polarized enough for a civil war at this point although the push for additional gun control (i.e. Gun Bans etc) has certainly been divisive and counterproductive in reducing America's homicide rate.

 

No one beleives they kill over 'viewpoints'. They kill because they beleive they are fighting for freedom, rights, and a future for their family.

If liberals continue to allow their authoritarians progressive brothers to rule the democrat party you will see greater and greater opposition between the parties. Violence is likely to be elevated.

 

Told by who? If it's a military lawful order to a subordinate, then "willing" has nothing to do with it. I'm ex-military so I don't take orders. No I would not attack someone because of their political beliefs - that's what liberals do.

 

And yet you just did attack someone. Verbally of course, but still an attack.

 

There has been an attempt by progressives to silence via rules, laws, violence, boycotts, bans, yelling, and emotional manipulation via shaming. Whatever happened to the exchabge of words? Such an exchange may be heated and critical but it is the only way our free society will succeed and things will heal.

 

And "There has been an attempt by [conservatives] to silence via rules, laws, violence, boycotts, bans, yelling, and emotional manipulation via shaming." Both sides have to stop this if we want to have a democratic Republic instead of evolving into an Authoritarian state.

 

I dont disagree at all. Accept there are attempts by BOTH sides. So please dont just lay it all at one parties feat. We are turning into a nation of pu$$ies on both sides.

 

Triggered by micro-aggressions are you? Antifa.

 

Antifa.

 

The Progressive agenda in the mind of Woodrow Wilson was formulated with the intent of returning society to a hierarchy run almost exclusively by ruling class elites.

Wilson, of course, was significantly influenced by the old families of the South who still wielded at least some of their former influence.

 

I don't think either GrayMan or SEsperance's statements grasp just what is Progressivism.

 

Must one be either a liberal or a conservative?

Btw, it seems clear to me that the people most eager to commit political violence are on the fringe... neither classic liberals or conservatives. Do nazi represent conservatives? Do rioters outside trump rallies represent liberalS?