bullets are the beauty of the blistering sky.

how to nail the technicals and twist the feel while exposing your internal landscape 101

I agree, to some significant extent. But I don’t agree with the suppression of violence, here. Rather, it should be channeled into the ranks of said organized alternatives.

…but if there are no organized alternatives, and someone loses their shit, they should do a little research and aim at the most egregious lawnreakers first.

The casus belli argument might be meaningful if they weren’t already bellicose, and actively pursuing violence. So go hide in a corner.

that said, I don’t advocate violence yet (until, perhaps, an actual dictatorship is established and election terms are violated). It’s still a situation that has potential to be resolved internally, with law, come the elections this year - if there’s meaningful action by the representation.

However, if someone loses their shit, I argue that they should do their homework and go for the most dire of lawbreakers first.

don’t pretend your mind doesn’t work well enough to comprehend what I’m saying.

The specific violence is highly contextual. And it’s wise to be light on specifics, but for historical examples you can look up the history of German and Austrian resistance fighters in Germany during and prior to world war 2 if you like. Efforts both peaceful and violent had an impact and contributed to the allied victory.

A good example would be finding specific individuals who have broken the law and killed people, but who have avoided any legal repercussion, and ensuring that there is a repercussion.

It’s definitely not an action that should be taken wildly, or while on tilt. but we’re approaching the point of needing that kind of action.

they did. It was called World War 2.

Chad Bose.

this is the argument that caused people to permit the Nazis.

me too, but mainly due to “on” rather than “in”.

…I’d also replace “at least” with “possibly”.