I'm not saying people don't have the right to be frustrated, but a Civil War would destroy everything we already have. The people who were involved with the Civil Rights movement got their points across peacefully and did so much more than violence could have ever done. I want this republic to be secured by one another and Civil War would show that we didn't deserve the rights bestowed upon us.

To trade our republic for senseless vengeance would be a great disgrace to all those who had fought and died for a free nation. Nobody wins in war, the only things that come out of it are death and anger, and to use warfare as a means of getting points across will leave a hideous and irremovable scar on everyone to the point that the United States would become a dream forgotten long ago.

Not to poke fun at how you're saying things, but the way you're formatting your claims aren't clear---You're arguing with hard-driven emotions and not constructive claims, and you're only proving the cycle is true and how people resort to violence when they cannot get their points across.

I don't mean this to be seen as a form of mockery, but your claims are clearly driven by animosity and a futile vengeance because you aren't aware of what the toll of a Civil War in America would be. If you truly wanted to protect opinions, you wouldn't resort to a costly war that would have been fought in vain.

You have always had the right to say what you want and there are people that have taken things seriously and resorted to violence, but that's been the case of history. You think we would have started a Civil War because Martin Luther King Jr. and Medgar Evers were shot and killed because they were voices for their opinions? No, it would have only ended in more serious consequences if we had done so. Instead, the Civil Rights movement continued to peacefully protest as it was their right to do so and segregation had ended, civilly acquiring equality with the Constitution by their side.

That's where you're wrong, we've been existing for more than 200 years and wiping a side on how people think is no better than a totalitarian state seizing power through force---that goes for both sides. You're proving the cycle of hatred. Why would I hate this country? I'm a patriot and I'm aware when it is dealing with hardship and want a good outcome. You may differ with what I say about myself but I'm the only one who truly knows me, not you nor your beliefs.

If we wanted to come together and find common ground, resentment towards one another must die, not each other (I do deeply appreciate you believe in Voltaire's definition of free speech, that's a really good quality of being American, props to you).

We went to war with each other because states threatened to secede from the US so they could continue practicing slavery. You're basically saying you wish to cleanse an entire political ideology people have because it doesn't align with yours and we can't do anything civil about it. What is violence going to do that can restore a country that ran on a two party system? We can't come together because we are afraid, and the two halves of the country have polarized themselves because we are so entrenched in animosity that will never get anything done or prevent another tragedy from happening

It is true, however, that we are losing every inch of hope due to the animosity we inflict upon ourselves. You want to continue battling to defeat a godless ideology of crime and murder celebrators, yet when have I said that Kirk's death was justified? When have I praised his murder? When have I wished that the shooter had targeted the people in the crowd? I never did because I see the tragedy as it should be seen. Those who have said that are the ones affected by what he said the most, yet many who lean left condemn this tragedy and what people say as much I do.

I don't hate the people in your party, but people driven by hatred despise me because of what some others did in my party. I don't call your party violent despite the few people who are neo-Nazis/white supremacists. I don't see you nor the majority of as that, I see you all as Americans concerned for where the country is headed, but here we are disagreeing whether we should get our points across through more violence or a movement that aims to stop the hate-mongering.

And by "these leftist people," are you referring to those few who have taken extreme measures by murdering someone who openly supported debates from different perspectives? I totally understand your fear, the first amendment is one of the most important amendments our country has bestowed upon us, and it is a good question to ask if there are going to be more people that will commit more political violence. Political violence comes from people who are entrenched in hatred, preventing them from getting their points across in a civil manner. People like Charlie Kirk promoted open debates, but many topics that he had supported had caused historically ostracized groups to become enraged. These contentions had built up until his death, and when people celebrated (which isn't justifiable in any sense) it only drives more hatred from his supporters, and this assumption is created that all right-leaning people are racist and all left-leaning people support political violence. The polarization of political parties was driven by this hate, and it will make it harder for us to unite.

We have differences, but we have inalienable rights and we need to use them responsibly and speak to more reasonable people with an audience that differs from my/your views. Subtracting hate will bring us to more common ground, not by calling an entire political party and all those who affiliate with it non-American or politically incorrect. There are no right answers in politics, there are only better solutions that are made from different perspectives.

You are skewing my point when going back to our country's history. I am very well aware that we went to war for our independence, but because we were being taxed without representation and being controlled by a foreign government. My point was when we were forming with anti-federalists and federalists, one side believing that the country should focus more on liberty while the other focused more on order. Because we implemented those ideas, we've gotten a Bill of Rights to protect our liberties and a stronger government (compared to the Articles of Confederation) that was made to put things like Shays' Rebellion to an end (If you don't know what that was, it was basically revolutionary farmers being upset that their land was being taken away because they couldn't pay their debts but they would've been paid for their efforts in the revolutionary war if the government under the Articles of Confederation had power to levy taxes. As important as it was an issue, it highlights the weaknesses of a divided country).

The problem is how political violence contributes to hatred in America because it divides us when we ought to be a united nation. You prove nothing substantial if your claims justify more murders of political differences. To bring up something I've said before in a different chat that is quite applicable:

"When a side claims the other side is tearing the flesh of liberty from the body of this nation, they will grab it towards them until both sides are in a similar struggle, not realizing they both are slowly killing the very thing they are fighting for, only intended for their own benefit."

If sides are going to keep pulling and justifying their actions, they will reach a moment of tension until the nation tears apart into anarchy. If we had called for a Civil War, that brings us much closer to a slaughtered country.