Politicians love to say "violence has no place in politics."

They're lying and they know it.

In fact violence is the underlayment of all political systems and all laws.

Indeed, even something as simple as a speeding ticket is underlaid by violence. Refuse to pull over and take your ticket when the lights come on behind you and whatever level of violence is necessary to force you to comply will be used, up to and including deadly force.

There are in fact no exceptions to this in the political and legal realm -- and never have been.  This is not an American experience, it is as old as time itself.  Since humans created the concept of "laws" (as opposed to actual physical laws; the very name as used today is a lie in that it is often ignored whenever political purposes suit) every single one of them has been backed by the threat of physical violence and, if you attempt to resist and are politically disfavored actual violence up to and including the taking of your life.

Therefore violence not only has a place in politics it is the foundation of politics.

There are only two ways to change someone's mind: Reason and violence.

The Founders understood this quite-well.  It is the reason the First Amendment is in fact first.  The Second Amendment recognizes that when reason fails to find agreement there is only one remaining alternative and the only question then is whether the parties will have the capacity to reasonably meet each other's force with sufficient violence to convince them that reason is a better choice.

Reason, for example, tells us that when a business moves almost-entirely to a subscription model the outcome does not exist due to fair competitive pressures and reason.  Around 1900 the United States Congress, compelled by the people of the nation, found that violence has a nuance frequently found in commerce that is in fact very akin to the operation of a criminal gang: "That's a very nice store you have Mr. Jones; it would be a pity if anything happened to it."

15 USC Chapter 1 was passed -- and then twice added on to -- for this reason.  It placed into the realm of federal felony offenses carrying hard prison time the act of attempting to monopolize, restrain trade or fix prices whether within the United States or even internationally, if the goods or services were bought or sold in interstate commerce.

Thus it is a facial violation for a drug company to sell a drug for $50 in Europe and $500 here in the United States.  It matters not their excuse; that is a physical commodity and for sales of like kind and quantity this sort of price-fixing is a felony.

All business arrangements that facially make no sense are in fact illegal because the only reason to engage in them is to commit an act that violates said statute -- specifically, to prevent competition that would otherwise force down said pricing.

Contemplate "subscription" services for things like software.  You get less (you don't own anything -- you're obtaining a limited-time right to use, which in fact impugns your own personal work product produced with same!) and therefore, facially, you must pay less.  If you don't then a competitor will come and take away that business in a competitive market.  If no such competitor exists then you have exerted market power which is a felony.  The precise means by which you did so does not have to be determined -- the basic laws of supply and demand make clear that your influence has to be improper otherwise there would be competitors and your outsized profitability would be impossible.  This is buttressed when your stock price goes up 500% at the same time, of course, as that demonstrates said outsized profitability.

But today nobody gets prosecuted for this.  Show me the felony criminal imprisonments for violations of 15 USC Chapter 1.  I'm not interested in "consent decrees" or fines because a monopolist can force the customer to pay for both, and repeatedly has and does.  Show me the imprisonments over the last 50 years.

I'll wait; I have plenty of fingers to count them on.

At the same time if I give the finger to a police officer over a $100 speeding ticket rather than pulling over and accepting it I will have my property (car) destroyed and imprisoned for hard felony time or even be shot and killed if I continue to refuse as he or she insists.

Now let's think about a few current events -- well, "sort of" current in some cases.

Hale.  The trannifesto from the Nashville-area shooter is out.  What is clear from that "diary" is that any mental health professional who had contact with this person -- all of whom are mandatory reporters -- should be in prison.  Yes, said responsibility extends to all physicians, hospital personnel and mental health professionals.  It is simply not credible to believe with that volume of insanity expressed in said journal that multiple professionals, including those who were "treating" Hale, are not culpable.  Yet I see no presentation to a Grand Jury, no searches, seizures or charges despite the law being clear.

Similarly the recent shooting in Georgia follows the same pattern.  In this case the FBI claims they had no probable cause a year prior despite alleged threats.  Well, perhaps that's true and the precise specifics are important thus I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.  What I won't give anyone the benefit of the doubt on is that a specific and precise threat to shoot up that school was communicated to the school that very morning and given the prior interaction and investigation, along with the knowledge that said kid attended that school to fail to act decisively by both law enforcement and the school administration at that moment goes even further than "mandatory reporter" liability and is sufficient to be charged as an accessory before the fact to murder for every individual in both law enforcement and operation of said school who had knowledge of the threat.  (Incidentally updated reporting does not change this; whether the actions were reasonable and sufficient by the administration is a job for a jury and thus the charges must still be brought.)

Again -- where are the arrests?  There are people who were killed in both instances.

8 USC 1324 makes clear that a person who provides material aid and comfort to an illegal alien, of which both Laken Riley's charged murder and the convicted murderer of Mollie Tibbetts, in one case a landlord and in the other the farmer who not only employed said convicted murderer he also rented him housing on-property had in fact provided said housing while either knowing or negligently not caring that said persons were illegal aliens.  The standard for culpability is knowledge or reckless disregard and is facially met in both cases.  The penalty for providing said material aid and assistance, including but not limited to housing or employment, when the illegal alien kills someone is life in prison.  Whether that standard was actually met is a question again for a jury and thus the charges, arrests and trials are necessary.  Well?

Obviously all of these cases, had the law been enforced, involve the government invoking violence on someone as (we claim) justified retribution for violations of the code of conduct (as expressed in "laws") we expect from persons in the United States.  If any element of government refuses to do so because of political advantage -- whether indirect to push a policy or benefit some person who votes a given way, or directly because they want a thing to happen and the violence that is unpunished allows it to advance that agenda then what non-violent means remain to the citizens to deter such aggression?

We already used reason to exhaustion -- that is the process that passes laws!  Laws occur through debate, amendment, passage and signature (or override of a veto) to reach the Statute Books.  That's the process of reason and it reaches exhaustion when said laws are either passed or repealed.  The executive branch in each instrumentality, whether local, state or federal, executes an oath to faithfully discharge said laws and it is in exchange for this process that the citizens delegate to government the capacity to use violence in said enforcement.  If the government, whether at a local, state or federal level, having had the process of reason applied and run to conclusion, decides to deliberately refuse to enforce said law then the next event will always in fact be violence; we are now down to whether they or you are the the target and suffer the consequences thereof, not whether violence is going to occur.

Think not?  How do you think the dead kids and adults in Georgia feel about it?  How about Laken Riley or Mollie Tibbetts?  How about the people victimized by the Venezuelan gangs that the cops and government of Colorado have tried to claim don't exist despite it now being a documented fact they were aware of it and deliberately did nothing?

If the government refuses to enforce that which was agreed upon through the process of reason then only violence remains to compel compliance as reason has been run to exhaustion and has failed.  The Second Amendment exists to make clear to government of all stripes that while reason is certainly preferred and our first and best tool if the government refuses to accede to the process of reason then the people always reserve the right to use the only remaining tool -- the one which we gave government license to use under the process of reason and they have, by their actions, willingly and intentionally abused same.

Like it or not we're now down to deciding who takes the brunt of it: We, the people or they, who we elected to discharge these responsibilities and then they deliberately chose not to for the purpose of political profit, financial profit OR BOTH.