There’s no such thing as a constitutional right to violently protest.

You may have heard by now that there are various leftist, liberal groups who are threatening violence and crime at the Inauguration on Friday. I, of course, believe that these groups are wrong. This is for two simple reasons.

First, I have mentioned this in prior posts, but those who voted for anyone other than Trump need to accept the outcome of the election and be gracious losers like me and my fellow conservatives were when Obama was elected for two terms. We didn’t whine or complain. We just waited and made plans and hopes for the next elections instead of scheming to undermine everything Obama did. Trump won fair and square according to the dictates of our election system. He won enough popular vote to get more than the magic number of 270 electors and then the electors later confirmed this result. I don’t care that the Left tries to boo hoo and pout that the Russians hacked the election or whatever other claim they try to make about the illegitimacy of Trump’s presidency. Perhaps they should stop ignoring Hillary Clinton’s obvious crimes and realize that had she been elected, her crimes would have made her own presidency illegitimate as her crimes would have made her a felon had they not protected her from rightful prosecution.

The second reason is twofold: it has to do with the First Amendment and crimes. You may remember from U.S. history class or government class that in the Bill of rights, the First Amendment gives us the freedom to peaceably assembly. When you peaceably assembly, you are seeking a nonviolent resolution to whatever issue you have with the government. Most of the time, no crimes are being committed, and very often, this works much better at getting the government’s attention and resolving the issue (just ask Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.)…probably partly because in the past, this was something different and way out of the norm…and someone who acts peaceably and reasonably can be more easily taken seriously.

But why should violent protest be frowned upon (and honestly, in my opinion, punished in certain situations)? Well, very often, violence (unless in self-defense) is connected to crime…whether it be assault, battery, murder, theft, vandalism, etc. In many violent protests, protesters do these things which are considered crimes which therefore makes them criminals liable to being arrested and punished according to what they did. Therefore, through this reasoning, crime most if not all the time accompanies violent protest which makes the protestors criminals themselves and makes what they are doing against the law. So, by conclusion, even though violent protest is a form of protesting, its subcomponent acts are criminal and make violent protest also criminal. Thus, I can also conclude that the First Amendment rightfully does not protect violent protest.

So, I have news to my liberal friends who are thinking about violent protest or even just commending it: if you are unhappy with something, there are much better ways to protest your unhappiness without endangering anyone or damaging someone else’s property. This has been proved throughout history from Thoreau’s concept of civil disobedience to Gandhi’s fight for independence to Martin Luther Kind Jr.’s fight for civil rights and many more. Learn from those successes in history. Violence is usually not the answer, especially not the final one. If you learned this, we might take you just a tad bit more seriously.


2 thoughts on “There’s no such thing as a constitutional right to violently protest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s