And, for the record, I do not think violence is justified. Period.

Wouldn't it be more affective for us, rather than dispersed armed conflict, to have a single mass protest (nonviolent, but extended) in Washington, D.C., of 1-2 million people that refuse to leave demanding that Congress hold the President accountable on numerous fronts?

...this sounds like one of the worst case scenarios we could have. And, God forbid, it be started by someone who thought violence against an ICE officer was the answer.

...boats under the guise that these individuals are "narco terrorists." I have no doubt Donald Trump would go "all in" in the worst way against his political opponents in this case, and I'm not certain that a large number of people in America wouldn't continue to support him. In other words...

...work now. After all, we're not defending a branch of the NAACP against the KKK, we'd be assaulting, physically, the most well-funded federal law enforcement agency in U.S. history with a narcissitic president at the top of the chain of command, who is currently bombing who knows who in fishing...

...able to get the public to agree, and I don't think anyone wants to contemplate what could then happen. In other words, to whatever degree violence may have worked in the past, in the limited circumstances you and others have described in books and papers, it is highly doubtful that it would...

Trump is already looking for an excuse to brand "the left", "antifa", and Democrats in general as terrorists. I think if someone were to act on your (seeming) suggestion that violence in this case is justified--and to be honest, I'm not sure you're actually claming that--then they may actually be...

Yes, they would be scared of us. And then Trump would send in the military with such numbers and force that anyone who shot an ICE agent would be pursued and captured, if not killed. In other words, the crisis would escalate instead of deescalate, and then what?

If all we can do is to think to "shoot back," and end up doing that on a sufficient scale, we have a word for this: war. In this case, civil war. And war, even if necessary, is a great evil with a high cost even for the victors. It ought, therefore, be avoided if at all possible.

I can't even begin to say how bad of an idea it is to "shoot back" in the situation described. This would immediately give Trump legal cover for declaring an insurrection and result in even more violation of rights. Record, protest, demand change, but do not physically interfere.

Yes, I was thinking about this the other day: every Mexican-American U.S. citizen (or lawful resident) can now look forward to being harassed over and over again by different ICE agents just because of how they look. There must be a a better way than this!

Never say the man can't stoop to new levels of ignorance or misinformation. lol.

You don't kill them, you resist them. You make a rational case to persuade others. You attempt to learn and understand others, point out the flaws in their arguments, attempt to reach common ground, even if only to disagree agreeably. Even if you don't get anywhere, violence is not the solution.

No, that's not the right approach. The right approach is to seek a society in which no one is physically attacked for their opinions or viewpoints.

It's the rise of non-experts who think they are experts. They don't understand the myriad assumptions they make in arguing against vaccine effectiveness, etc., all the while dismissing those who know enough about the field to be able to tell them where the errors in their thinking lie.

This is on the money.

It's not just science literacy, though that's important . It's critical thinking and epistemology. Science, of course, is a wonderful source of knowledge, but not all knowledge is science or scientific, and we need to remember that, too.

100% Mr. Miller. We need a few million Americans to realize the crisis is here, it's reached a tipping point. And we need those few million to go to and occupy Washington, peacefully. To protest and to demand an end to the appeasement of this administration, particularly by Congress.