It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Paradox of Applying the Typical 2nd Amendment Argument to the Dallas Shootings

page: 12
49
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

When someone asks me this I am reminded of the Declaration of Independence. Particularly this passage:


Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


Basically people will put up with a lot of crap for a long time, even if some of that crap is actionable.

One day there will be an event so horrible and so shocking to the conscience that Americans will take up arms. But you should expect that such a day will not come easily.




posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Everything you cited has to do with the individual's right to stand up against GOVERNMENT not just "the Fed" as the NRA likes to say, but at any level: national, State or local.

Do you really think such simplistic attempts are going to work?



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: Gryphon66

It may be that the theory of the Second Amendment gets tested. Unsettling times.

The phrase out there,"tyranny of the govt", has included taking of property as well as life. A group may well be concerned with taking of property, another group the taking of life.


Very true. The 2A is there for the citizens to protect all their rights from Federal overreach. Once the public is disarmed of an equalizing tool then there is nothing they can do to overthrow tyranny. They are at the mercy of the State.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

That's a telling citation and absolutely true.

I think some of the citizens in my little scenario have reached that exact point.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The FEDERAL government at the time of the Second was TINY, had no standing forces, and had to call on the State militias for defense... This was by DESIGN at the time.

The claim that the Second Amendment only regards Federal government overreach is absurd.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Everything you cited has to do with the individual's right to stand up against GOVERNMENT not just "the Fed" as the NRA likes to say, but at any level: national, State or local.

Do you really think such simplistic attempts are going to work?


But the Bill of Rights is the restraints the states/people placed upon the Federal government. It talks bout laws Congress shll not pass on the states/people.


edit on 9-7-2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The FEDERAL government at the time of the Second was TINY, had no standing forces, and had to call on the State militias for defense... This was by DESIGN at the time.

The claim that the Second Amendment only regards Federal government overreach is absurd.



Just because you find it to be absurd doesn't make it false, I'm sorry you disagree with what the founders have said.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: projectvxn

That's a telling citation and absolutely true.

I think some of the citizens in my little scenario have reached that exact point.


Let me say this:

I abhor violence. I think a revolution would do us more harm than good right now, and after my time in Afghanistan I just don't wanna live in a country speckled with FOBs anymore.

What happened in Dallas really shook the hell out of me. Imagine if there had been more than one shooter. Imagine if this had been a coordinated attack by a trained organization. The level of carnage would have been immense. Now imagine that at a national scale.

I don't want it. I fear it as should any sane human being.

That said, I believe the right of revolution in tandem with the right to bear arms is absolutely fundamental to us and should remain intact. One day we will need it, and one day that kind of bloodshed will be worth the sacrifice. But today is not that day..



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

That does not imply that the only need for an armed people would have been opposition of the Federal government which was, at the time, toothless, if you actually read the context of any of those quotes you copied and pasted, you'd realize that they were concerned about ANY standing force at the disposal of ANY level of Government.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I share your fears ... In fact, those fears are another aspect of the underlying questions here.

The right to oppose an unfair government, however, is unlimited.

People as we see here feel that EVERY level of government is increasingly crossing the lines.

Using the "oppose tyranny" argument recklessly to hype support against gun control laws SIMULTANEOUSLY fans the flames of the possibility of violent opposition to that government which is increasingly defined very differently by different parts of society.

One of the paradoxes in the OP is exactly that ... That by overhyping the "rebellion" solution, some of these folks are BLINDED to the full implications of that argument, and further, that they may not agree with their fellow citizens about where the Tyrants actually reside.
edit on 9-7-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NOTurTypical

That does not imply that the only need for an armed people would have been opposition of the Federal government which was, at the time, toothless, if you actually read the context of any of those quotes you copied and pasted, you'd realize that they were concerned about ANY standing force at the disposal of ANY level of Government.


I agree with that, the founders were against the federal government having a standing army.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
The argument for arming against local govt has already been put out there, in re Flint, MI


"I can speak for every patriot that's standing here today that we're here in defense and support of this community to say enough is enough," Matt Krol, an executive officer in the militia group, said, per MLive.com. "We're not going to allow the government, be it the small, local government or the big government to step on the people of Flint any longer. Someone needs to be held accountable."

He added: “If it means having to take up arms in defense ... we will do that as well,” the Detroit Free Press reported.


I found the following interesting for a couple reasons. It shows that militias can grow membership across state lines to support their cause. Also, the term "self-styled" hasn't been used much lately, but it used to be used quite a bit a few decades ago as an adjective for far left militant (another word not used much)/militia groups, such as the Symbionese Liberation Army .... I remember watching their shoot-out with the LAPD on live tv (1974).


A self-styled "militia" — one that shares similar ideas with the armed occupation of a wildlife refuge in Oregon — is now joining in Flint, Michigan's recovery effort after a public health disaster involving the city's water supply. The group, which calls itself the Genesee County Volunteer Militia and consists of members from states around the Midwest, is passing out bottled water and filters and is railing on government big and small for its role in the crisis.

source



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I'd just like to say that, for the most part, I truly appreciate the input of everyone here, whether I have personally acknowledged your posts or not. Even those folks that I desperately agree with, I appreciate your on topic "opposition" ... Precisely because I presented this as a QUESTION not a claim.

I am troubled, deeply, by the seeming rising urge to violence in the United States. At the same time, I am, as a "Constitutional Leftist" utterly supportive of the Second Amendment's core intent, which I personally see as defense ... Personal, community and (unlikely at this point) national.

I am opposed as well to all unnecessary laws, and I am critically aware that opinions differ on what constitutes "unnecessary."

I think we need to think things through, a bit better. I think we need to remember how to compromise in order to make the world as good as we can for as many as we can.

PSA over ... Thanks. Back to the arguing!



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

What happened in Dallas really shook the hell out of me. Imagine if there had been more than one shooter. Imagine if this had been a coordinated attack by a trained organization. The level of carnage would have been immense. Now imagine that at a national scale.

I don't want it. I fear it as should any sane human being.

That said, I believe the right of revolution in tandem with the right to bear arms is absolutely fundamental to us and should remain intact. One day we will need it, and one day that kind of bloodshed will be worth the sacrifice. But today is not that day..


Why would it happen on a national scale? It seems everyone thinks this is a national social unrest issue and it is not. The media plays it that way but all that we are seeing is localized, but broadcast on a national scale.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Protests everywhere from Atlanta to San Francisco indicate otherwise ... At least in terms of the "social unrest" claim ... Believe me I personally watched several thousand people gather yesterday in Atlanta, impromptu, all talking about the same message.

The facts disagree with the "it's all media hype" narrative.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Come off it.

You quoted several of the Founder's statements.

Show us which one states that the Second Amendment is limited only to opposing the Federal Government.

Then we'll talk about the factual basis of opinions.
edit on 9-7-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xtrozero

Protests everywhere from Atlanta to San Francisco indicate otherwise ... At least in terms of the "social unrest" claim ... Believe me I personally watched several thousand people gather yesterday in Atlanta, impromptu, all talking about the same message.

The facts disagree with the "it's all media hype" narrative.


There are protests in many cities, but these protests are on many different levels from each other. Once again the vast majority of them are in support of localized issues happening nowhere near them that are reported on a national scale.

So we have some cities with pockets of serious social issues that the police there mirrors their environment as they deal daily with crime, drugs, gangs, dis-functionality at many levels etc.

We have demonstrations in one of these pockets in Dallas where the demonstrators where peacefully executing their rights due to what appears was a wrongful shooting of a good citizen and we have one person of over 300 million that decided to kill people for whatever irrational reasons he had.



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

So the fact that all these "isolated pockets" are all saying the same things is just coincidental?

That assertion boggles the mind. Any backup for that claim? For example, any actual quotes from protestors which demonstrate only a local concern and not a national concern?



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

When one man, or even two or three men, commit violence towards others, it is a crime. A crime is punishable by the law.

When many commit violence against a group, be that group a race, a class, or a profession, it is a movement. Movements are difficult to punish effectively.

When many state their grievances and the reasons for their actions, then commit violence against a specified group, it is a revolution. A revolution destroys those that would punish.

The second amendment does not support any of the above. It simply ensures the ability to revolt is not removed.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 9 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I don't disagree with you. I might quibble with some of your definitions, but that's not the point.

I agree with you that the Second Amendment does not exist to establish the right to shoot cops, or FBI agents or anyone else, it doesn't exist to enable "resistance to tyranny" as regards any old way an individual wishes to define "tyranny."

That is, however, the argument of many who support an absolutist view of the Second Amendment ... We see this in every ATS argument about gun issues ... "The fundamental meaning of the 2nd is to allow the people to oppose tyranny."

That assertion turns on the paradoxical definition of the word "tyranny."



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join