Are you talking, like, sending an army to war, or one politician flipping out and karate-chopping another? 'Cause, dude, I would totally watch CNN for that one.

While karate-chopping politicians would be hilarious, the debate revolves around the phrase

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

To me, it seems more like cyclical war than actual resolution. However, I am open to the idea of being wrong with what this statement means in context. I certainly hope that Jefferson didn't mean for constant political upheaval if something is amiss with politicians.

If I shoot you, your point is moot.

>>39
You have no idea how politics work don't you...

>>41
Are you trying to troll or are seeking a real conversation?

>>39
Look, I'm no historian, but the idea presented here was created during or some time after America's war for independence. Context is very important here. Americans at that time had to fight against British rule, and then had to continuously fight to maintain their country. America was not taken seriously in its early years after Independence. Also, at this time theories about how to run a country were given the hard test of reality.

Is violence necessary to maintain liberty? Yes, but context is important. Today, violence would be the absolute last resort, and only if it became glaringly obvious that the world had basically broken down. In order to change or preserve something, you have a lot of options. You can do it socially, legally, financially and politically. It's not easy, but it can be done. Violence is only the answer when all else has failed. Even then, the option of simply leaving should be considered. Our power to invoke violence is much greater now than in Jefferson's day, and should be considered that much more before going out and doing it. And, if invoking violence, do not use it as a way to vent rage. It's uncontrolled if you do that. Use violence as a tool to make a point, or strike a vulnerability. In other words, don't go nuts with it; be tactical.

In general, however, there's no point to it.

I don't rule out violence. It's hard to.
Even most pacifists will agree that violence is okay in self defense, so your question really seems to be whether violence can be eliminated completely. This is doubtful. Look at the following link for the full quote from Jefferson and you'll see that he describes the people who are misinformed by Fox News pretty well.

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/08/jeffersons-tree-of-liberty-quote-in.html

So that's one case where violence may occur.

Another is the question of when the government has become oppressive. A natural question here is when it starts to limit our first amendment rights, and at this point, the only defense is the second amendment, violence.

>>44
OP here

What I'm getting is *when* does violence become the only option. Is it when the government has become oppressive and the people have to defend themselves as such or earlier?

I'm not looking for an end-all answer, but in this political climate, it has become a concern to me. There's a lot of civil unrest as of late and people are becoming more desperate to get their voice heard. Some really do believe that the only way to be heard is to shoot someone important and give the reason why. When Congresswoman Giffords (D)-AZ was shot, I heard many people say the shooter "got the wrong one". It's phrases like that that make me bring up a topic like this.

>>45
First of all, we're a long way off from the kind of activities you're worried about. Giffords was shot by a guy who was mentally unstable. In fact, that statement can be applied to most recent shootings of this type. Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, even Columbine to a degree. These were the acts of people in a very unusual pattern of mind.

The kind of violence you're thinking of only comes in a very specific situation. It comes when life, for whatever reason, is so bad that people in large amounts serious consider death to be either equivalent or better in value. The kind of violence you're referring to is a civil uprising. The initiation of a civil war, a revolution, or some kind revolt. We are a long, long way off from that.

Now, there will always be individuals who try to do something on their own. The Timothy McVeigh types, for example, or the Unibomber. Notice how few of them have appeared over time. They don't get a lot of followers or copycats because the price of failure or capture is pretty much death. When you hear people say that the shooter "got the wrong one", you're witnessing a little thought of aspect of free speech in action.

Free speech allows us to openly criticize the government, but it also acts as a release valve. People relieve stress via these armchair revolutionary pronouncements. The people who say things like "the shooter got the wrong person" aren't ever going to actually act on their feelings. Those feelings aren't strong enough, and the person in question isn't dedicated enough. It's just talk. I don't think McVeigh would have advertised himself so openly prior to the Oklahoma bombing. He would have wanted to keep a low profile. Most people aren't and no one followed his lead. Life is just not that bad yet.

If you really want to get to the heart of people's anger, I'd look at the games the politicians are playing with each other. There's a lot of dogmatic ideology going on, and the politicians (of all stripes in Washington today) are largely forgetting that a representative democracy means they represent and must look out for everybody in their jurisdiction, not use their position to further their own interests. That's a problem that's solved by voting and constant social pressure. Not by violence. Anyone engaging in violence gives the politicians the excuse they need to encroach in more civil liberties, which will just make matters worse.

That's my two cents, anyway.