>Alright that's a good example. Except:
>
>They only seem to have stood down because the amount in dispute was only $1M. The cost to recruit and certify a police officer and the amount they have to pay out in survivor benefits to spouse and children if a single one dies can add up to $2M+... not very likely this would work with anything higher stakes or easier to respond to (such as more urban where they could be affordably overwhelmed sufficiently to just give up with minimal risk)The guy was very obviously breaking the law and already received due process to that effect, so your example is pretty counterproductive to what your original argument was about standing up to tyranny. It being, instead, a criminal standing up to completely fair and resaonable treatment and avoiding paying what his own countrymen and peers voted for laws saying that he should pay... he stood up to the People, not to tyranny. So... the one clear successful example backfired actually...

So, the fear of the outcome of an armed attack stopped the government's actions?

Ah.

Also, all charges were dismissed with prejudice. That means no convictions. That means--at the end of the day--not a crime.

Ergo... not a backfire.

"Not being 100% active the entire time 24/7 is not "being stood down", and your own source summarizes them as being overall highly active, in fact too active."

LAPD literally bunkered down.

They put up barriers around precincts, stopped patrolling, and turned the city over to everyone else.

Then, later, the National Guard and the regular military (Army and Marines) came in and "showed the flag" with very limited access to more than small arms to avoid situations where the military shot up local buildings in the Detroit riots and others.

"You're "pretty sure" that an allegedly foundational principle of the country didn't need to be mentioned AT ALL in hundreds of pages of commentary about the foundational principles of the country. Despite even the fact that they DID take the time to write down thoughts at some length about the 2nd amendment specifically, but still mysteriously didn't have the time (?) to include the "actual" reasons for it. Lol alright dude."

I notice in all of our conversation so far, you haven't mentioned breathing, shitting, or eating.

Sort of a universal thing, those three.

Unless you're sick, have a fetish, or are looking for restaurant suggestions, those don't come up in typical conversations because they are assumed.

Likewise, we have basically nothing in the US Constitution about farming or the founding documents about farming except with regards to slavery, interstate commerce, and the like.

This isn't because farming isn't important. It's because everyone assumes farming will happen.

Why would you spend time discussing a right you just used to create your own government--a right assumed to be present in English common law to that time since at least the 1680's--other than the particulars regarding potential changes like the militia vs. standing army discussion?

You wouldn't. Just like you aren't going to talk about what your breath smells like or whether your bowel movements are firm or loose.

Other things not mentioned in the founding documents:

Sex.

What the definition of a woman is.

How marriage laws are constructed.

What the proper age of wine should be.

What language to use on most documents.

Etc.

All of which end up being important later, but are assumed and relevant to discussions in certain ways.

"Not peaceful protests anymore, because they started shooting back. I, and my source, were quite clear when I said no PEACEFUL protests greater than 3.5% have ever failed."

Exactly so!

They started peaceful.

Then people started dying.

Then they fought back.

Now there's an ongoing civil war.

The peaceful part depended on the actions of the government.

When the government decided to start killing people, they had a choice. Let the government kill all of them (or however many the government wanted to kill) or to shut up and go home.

Or are you suggesting you should continue to peacefully protest amidst incoming machine gun fire?

"Your own sources also confirm the same mechanism I described: when they got gunned down initially, it garnered massive local + international sympathy, which is what would have won it for them if they stayed peaceful. Numbers of involved protesters swell much faster than bodies piling up do (you kill one guy, his whole family and best friends join the protests), sanctions start raining down internationally, etc."

So, in the beginning, you suggested governments make economic decisions as part of this process...

...which implies the question of whether it's cheaper to simply keep shooting peaceful protestors with machine guns until they stop protesting (or being alive to protest) is a key element to this discussion.

And the answer is that it's probably cheaper--once you start shooting--to keep shooting until you win in many cases because you don't have to worry about "peaceful protestors" costing you more than money for bullets.

And--by the way--know what else swells when you kill people?

Their body, in the streets as they decompose once you've killed their entire family.

What's to stop you?

International sympathy?

International efforts to block you economically?

Like how it's working with Putin and the Chinese government who are "hosting" large numbers of ethnic minorities who would "peacefully protest" if they didn't expect to get killed anyway....

So, you either put up with things the way they are now or you "peacefully protest" and hope for sympathy while the government machine guns you and your friends and your family.

Sounds like a real winner.