A nationwide poll last month found that 10 percent of those surveyed said the “use of force is justified to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.”
Those questions are essentially meaningless. If Trump loses the election, declares himself president anyway and tries to use force to do so, and the US government uses force to stop him, is that not “the use of force to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president?” On the other hand, it could be interpreted to mean, Trump wins the election and you personally go out and shoot him, and the way the question is framed, followed up by whether or not they owned guns and quotes about lone wolf attacks, creates the impression to the reader that that’s what’s meant, but it’s unclear how anybody was interpreting that. Of course, unless you’re a strict pacifist, virtually everyone agrees that violence is sometimes justified, but that tells us nothing about under what circumstances and by whom.
Those questions are essentially meaningless. If Trump loses the election, declares himself president anyway and tries to use force to do so, and the US government uses force to stop him, is that not “the use of force to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president?” On the other hand, it could be interpreted to mean, Trump wins the election and you personally go out and shoot him, and the way the question is framed, followed up by whether or not they owned guns and quotes about lone wolf attacks, creates the impression to the reader that that’s what’s meant, but it’s unclear how anybody was interpreting that. Of course, unless you’re a strict pacifist, virtually everyone agrees that violence is sometimes justified, but that tells us nothing about under what circumstances and by whom.