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

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66

I wish I could give you actual Applause!

You just did.

Now spread the word of true peace.

TheRedneck

I do what I can, where I can.

Thanks again Redneck.

a reply to: Gryphon66

AND yet, not ONCE ,NOT ONCE have YOU thanked ME for holding the MURDEROUS ,WHITE ,MERUADERS from you door...nice.
NOT to mention WE already know how to do that, we are the best on the planet and THE POWER lies with Constitutional security by virtue of (And heres that word you love ) EXCEPTIONAL AMERICANS who surpass our peers ,time and time again ...because they keep electing these MORONS and we get the most practice ...THAT and the rest DIED so...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No one feels that it's "fine" for Blacks to kill other Blacks, the same way I would assume you wouldn't feel it's "okay" for Whites to kill other Whites.

Oh yes they do. Obama and the MSM does. Because by their silence about all the killings in the inner big cities like Chicago, and the media and Obama are completely silent on, they are in effect saying it is fine with them. That is a fact and you can deny it all you want, but we are living in it right now.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Gryphon66

AND yet, not ONCE ,NOT ONCE have YOU thanked ME for holding the MURDEROUS ,WHITE ,MERUADERS from you door...nice.
NOT to mention WE already know how to do that, we are the best on the planet and THE POWER lies with Constitutional security by virtue of (And heres that word you love ) EXCEPTIONAL AMERICANS who surpass our peers ,time and time again ...because they keep electing these MORONS and we get the most practice ...THAT and the rest DIED so...

All respect Cav ... I never know how to interact with you productively. Often, your words and logic are so diffuse that I really have no idea what you're talking about, as is the case now.

I have, actually, thanked you for your service before, and as I recall you spat it back in my face.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No one feels that it's "fine" for Blacks to kill other Blacks, the same way I would assume you wouldn't feel it's "okay" for Whites to kill other Whites.

Oh yes they do. Obama and the MSM does. Because by their silence about all the killings in the inner big cities like Chicago, and the media and Obama are completely silent on, they are in effect saying it is fine with them. That is a fact and you can deny it all you want, but we are living in it right now.

I will respectfully disagree and move on.

This is a good thread. I don't support the snipers (or sniper) who took the lives of police officers. I prefer to keep things within the legal system. Police should not be killing people at the rate they do, they should keep that in the legal system as well.

However, the police should also be held accountable when they do harm someone and shouldn't have.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Oh yes they do. Obama and the MSM does. Because by their silence about all the killings in the inner big cities like Chicago, and the media and Obama are completely silent on, they are in effect saying it is fine with them. That is a fact and you can deny it all you want, but we are living in it right now.

Obama and the MSM never stop talking about inner city violence: that's why they keep pushing for more gun control.

originally posted by: darkbake
This is a good thread. I don't support the snipers (or sniper) who took the lives of police officers. I prefer to keep things within the legal system. Police should not be killing people at the rate they do, they should keep that in the legal system as well.

However, the police should also be held accountable when they do harm someone and shouldn't have.

Thanks for your post. I don't support the Dallas sniper or any of the other shooters. I think they're murderers.

However, as you suggest, I want to see the system work for everyone, with all treated equitably before the laws.

a reply to: Gryphon66

THAT'S because you speak in absolutes outside YOUR knowledge in an attempt to refute those who have a professional knowledge and some with DECADES of time behind a trigger, outside of service ...NOT to mention your RELENTLESS projecting.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Gryphon66

THAT'S because you speak in absolutes outside YOUR knowledge in an attempt to refute those who have a professional knowledge and some with DECADES of time behind a trigger, outside of service ...NOT to mention your RELENTLESS projecting.

Thanks for the personal assessment, Cav.

Moving on.

Oops.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
So, we come to my query: if it is revealed that the snipers involved in the Dallas shooting, who pointedly only struck against law-enforcement personnel, are among those that truly believe that there is a universal if not coordinated effort among the various levels of law-enforcement in this country to use their powers to overtly murder individual citizens ... how is this not right in line with the idea of a legitimate "standing against tyranny" response as commonly advocated by opponents of gun control laws? It was obviously a pre-meditated, coordinated effort to intentionally strike at police.

How do we answer this if these individuals were, at least in their own mind, acting proactively to protect the citizens of the United States from well-armed foot soldiers of a overbearing and tyrannical government?

(I would like to request that all members responding do so with logical, reasonable, on-topic posts, backed up where necessary by established facts.)

What say you ATS?

What?... wow... So you are now trying to link this murderer who was following black separatist/violent groups with any group that believes in the protection of the second amendment, or protection against tyranny?...

Wow... It's even worse to see how many people actually flagged and starred your thread without realizing what you actually did with this thread...

Nice try to redirect/deflect what this murderer did to groups and beliefs you seem to hate...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I see you didn't bother to read the thread. We're discussing the Dallas shooting as a template for a possible "defense against Tyranny scenario" in light of that common argument by 2nd Amendment absolutists.

If you have something to say on topic, relevant to the thread, feel free. If not, please find somewhere else to post off-topic, personally insulting, irrational garbage. Thx.

a reply to: Gryphon66

OK, if law enforcement of any level are taking lives without due process, and suffer no repercussions for it, I can see it being classified as a form of tyranny. But I do not see the selected target, being white people only, as fighting against that tyranny. The target is far too selective to be a legitimate fight against government run amok. These are revenge killings and nothing more.

I disagree regarding my use of the term race war. I can see it being the dog whistle you referred to, but I can also see it as an accurate description of a war within the states between races taking place. I could not call it anything other than what it is. I do not use the term to be dramatic, only to accurately describe what I see on the horizon.

When the Rodney King incident occurred my commute took me through Gary, Indiana for a few months while on a contract assignment. There was a point when it was no longer safe for a white person to drive down Broadway in Gary, Indiana in broad daylight. It wasn't particularly safe for anyone, but especially white people. At one point there was a burning barricade out in the street and I was fortunate enough to have left myself enough room to turn the car around before the people emerging from the doorways could get too close. I could see some where armed, and I was also with a conceal carry license. I am happy to say I was able to leave the area without incident. Had I gone another 100 feet or so, probably not. It was not a battle against tyranny. It was a bunch of black guys ready to attack a white guy on his way home from work. Big difference there...

a reply to: Gryphon66

I did read what you wrote and it is obvious you are trying to redirect/deflect what this murderer did, and for the reasons he did it and you are trying to link his actions with defenders of the second Amendment who would oppose a tyrannical government...

This man was following black radical websites that are calling for the murders of whites and police officers... It isn't about your desires to make this massacre into a "2nd amendment absolutists" debate as you call it...

Not to mention that nowhere did I insult you, but again you use another tactic to derail what you are doing in this thread...

a reply to: Vroomfondel

OK, if law enforcement of any level are taking lives without due process, and suffer no repercussions for it, I can see it being classified as a form of tyranny.

Due process doesn't really apply to law enforcement. Due process involves the judicial process itself. A court decides if a prisoner is guilty of a crime. A court also decides if law enforcement has acted unlawfully while arresting (or attempting to arrest) someone. Both are examples of due process.

While law enforcement can deprive someone of other rights, it cannot deny someone due process. Because law enforcement does not have that role.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It has been said that one man's hero is another man's criminal. In the end it usually depends on your perspective.

Take ISIS, for example. I would assume you consider ISIS combatants as terrorists, just as I, along with a huge percentage of Western civilization, do. Yet, to someone raised among ISIS, I would expect them to be considered martyrs or even Freedom Fighters. Which view is correct? It depends on the perspective.

It is entirely possible, and based on the media reports since the shooting, even probable that the shooter saw himself as a revolutionary, fighting for something worth fighting for. I don't see it that way; I see it as a horrific, unprovoked, even cowardly attack on people based solely on their occupation. But now turn that around a little: if one of us were to be placed in a position where we honestly thought that violence was our only reasonable option, how would we be perceived by others? As a Freedom Fighter? Probably not; we would probably be the ones vilified here and in the media. Would that mean we were not fighting against tyranny? No.

When one man stands against tyranny, it is a crime. But it is also based on an exercise of rights.

I think the premise of this thread is extremely interesting.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

While I agree that due process is the realm of the judiciary, police officers are officers of the court as well. Their position and duties require that they sometimes will be forced to take extreme measures, including deadly force. They are also, however, charged with bringing violators to the court for due process whenever possible.

The taking of a suspect's life when unnecessary is indeed a violation of that suspect's right to due process. The police, in unnecessarily taking the suspect's life, have prevented the suspect from accessing that right.

Key word: unnecessary.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The taking of a suspect's life when unnecessary is indeed a violation of that suspect's right to due process.

I talked about deprivation of rights. In the case of death, due process is one of...all of them.

a reply to: Phage

I don't really see a way to argue with that...

I may have misread your intended message.

TheRedneck