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

a reply to: Gryphon66

The Second Amendment if taken in its original interpretation advocates for terrorism.

No one ever likes to talk about that.

In a way it's fitting that we have a Constitution that advocates terror and our War on Terror has severely weakened the Constitution.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

Still not a comparison to the American Revolution.

Why not? The Constitution assures people the right to peacefully assemble for a redress of grievances.

Once they take up arms against the government, they have entered rebellion status.

Do you think the government is going to let that slide and say "Gosh, you're right. Killing cops is the only course of action you had left. I guess we'll concede to your unstated demands and grant you complete pardons for taking the life of innocent American citizens."

a reply to: neo96
LEO not Government?

State powers to police were originally assumed in the 10th amendment constitution. The amendment states that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution. So the individual states had the right to police as they saw fit, and your argument that LEO not being a FEDERAL Govt would have been correct. However, all that changed with the 14th amendment, which granted United States citizenship to former slaves and to all persons "subject to U.S. jurisdiction". It also contained three new limits on state power: a state shall not violate a citizen's privileges or immunities; shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and must guarantee all persons equal protection of the laws. These limitations dramatically expanded the protections of the Constitution. Part of that expansion has included FEDERAL oversight of individual state's policing powers. This goes back to 1868, and has been upheld as a FEDERAL Govt. responsibility ever since. All local police are ultimately responsible to the FEDERAL Govt, and thus their actions are either condoned or condemned by our great white father in Washington....

Not that I don't agree with many of your points, but I have to show off my useless education every now and then.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96

Thanks for your on topic answe Neo.

So for you the defense against government tyranny is limited to a re-enactment of the American Revolution.

I see what you mean.

The ability for the federal government (or more specfically the lack of it)
to police itself was proven in 1963... reinforced by the Warren Commission.
Ever since that change of course, the laws and their enforcement have
been beneficial to the government and not the people.

The rule of law and all other basic underpinnings of a free country went
away beginning on 9/11, with even more bad laws and worse selective
enforcement. What we have now is its supplanting of justice by the will
of men.. exactly the political environment of The Crown v. the Colonies.

Unless and until the real covert revolutionaries and subversives are exposed,
we'll just keep sliding into some increasingly uncomfortable dystopia.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Not really.

There have been attempted revolts throughout our history.

Whiskey Rebellion, Anti-Rent War, Battle of Athens (an example of how to use the 2nd to battle local government tyranny including corrupt policing), Bacon's Rebellion (lead to early instance of elite divide and conquer tactics with VA Slave Codes of 1705), Battle of Liberty Place, Black Boys ...

Wiki has a whole list and I'm only in the "Bs."

I left off the Civil War, but surely you are aware of it as the most famous one aside from the Revolution.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Second Amendment if taken in its original interpretation advocates for terrorism.

No one ever likes to talk about that.

In a way it's fitting that we have a Constitution that advocates terror and our War on Terror has severely weakened the Constitution.

I seem to have missed that part in the original text.

a reply to: ketsuko

So you stand with several others here ... The only way you can imagine Americans taking up arms against what they see as unjust government must take the form of one of the historical rebellions?

Okay that's an answer but not the only one. Thank you for your comments

originally posted by: ketsuko
I seem to have missed that part in the original text.

What do you think using weapons to fight back against the government is?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I've thought about this issue over the course of the day and I believe I have come to the conclusion that it would be damn near impossible to take up arms against a government (tyrannical) at this point, and be able to invoke the 2nd amendment as justification for the act.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66

I've thought about this issue over the course of the day and I believe I have come to the conclusion that it would be damn near impossible to take up arms against a government (tyrannical) at this point, and be able to invoke the 2nd amendment as justification for the act.

What makes you think that? During the American Revolution only something like 20% of people supported the rebels and less than 1% took up arms.

I happen to agree with you that there's no way for rebels to win if they're fighting along a traditional axis of holding/defending ground, but fighting along an asymmetrical axis of disrupting commerce until the government gives away a states worth of land for self governance could happen.

I don't think you can use the 2nd alone as justification for the act. The 2nd simply gives you the tools to rebel implies that you should rebel if you feel the need. The reason for rebelling would be other laws.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Have you actually looked at that list of historical rebellions and all the many forms they have taken?

For example, I'm looking at the Green Corn Rebellion in 1917. It was a group of radical whites, tenant farmers, blacks, Native Americans of several tribes in Oklahoma who were protesting against the draft. Part of their plan was march cross state eating green corn off the land (the name). They ambushed two police officers, set fire to bridges and cut telephone lines. They were heavily armed.

They were largely socialists resisting corporate exploitation and oppression and angry about the draft being imposed for WWI. Ain't nothing new under the sun! Surviving fliers from the time scream "Rich Man's War. Poor Man's Fight!"

There were 800 to 1,000 of them rebelling against the draft which they saw as an invasion of their rights. Their plan was to march all the way to DC picking up more and more compatriots on the way, overthrow "Big Slick" Wilson, repeal the draft and end the war. One wonders if "Big Slick" and "Slick Willy" are related as nicknames?

Too bad an informer sold them out and a large armed posse met them outside of the first substantial town they came to. About three people died as a few quick shots were exchanged before everyone broke and ran.

The fallout of the event was the discrediting of the socialist parties in Oklahoma where they still are not popular.

a reply to: Aazadan

A war.

Terrorism is different. It doesn't necessarily have the stated aim to overthrow a regime. It simply wants to impose changes through terror, as we have seen, do not generally pick military or government targets. They prefer soft targets where their attacks will be likely to meet little to no resistance.

originally posted by: ketsuko
A war.

Terrorism is different. It doesn't necessarily have the stated aim to overthrow a regime. It simply wants to impose changes through terror, as we have seen, do not generally pick military or government targets. They prefer soft targets where their attacks will be likely to meet little to no resistance.

The rebels in the Revolution were terrorists from the British perspective. From the perspective of many in the Middle East we are the terrorists.

The goal of terrorism is rarely regime overthrow because terrorists have only a limited ability to control territory, it's to get concessions from those in power. It rarely ends up like it did in Cuba.

a reply to: Aazadan

You freely admit - terrorism is about wrangling concession from a government power through the use of fear.

Terrorism is a tactic. As you say, terrorists don't have the military might to project force in conventional ways, so they use terror by targeting soft targets where there is little resistance to no expected resistance.

Simply calling a group terrorists doesn't make them terrorists although it does help if you are playing the moral equivalence game.

If everyone who engaged in warfare was simply to be labeled a terrorist from someone's point of view, we wouldn't need all these descriptive terms for soldier (you know like soldier) like guerrilla, mercenary, revolutionary, terrorist, etc. (there are lots more out there).

But I guess Luke's father was dead too.

Interesting. So, if this one event is seen by others of like mind as a way to rise up against a (white) govt sanctioned police state that deprives them of their Lives and Liberties and if those others join up and become a rebellion, then they would be allowed taking up arms to change an unjust govt.

And, this armed uprising would be asymmetrical indeed. Hence, why terrorists do what they do.

originally posted by: desert
Interesting. So, if this one event is seen by others of like mind as a way to rise up against a (white) govt sanctioned police state that deprives them of their Lives and Liberties and if those others join up and become a rebellion, then they would be allowed taking up arms to change an unjust govt.

And, this armed uprising would be asymmetrical indeed. Hence, why terrorists do what they do.

There is that possibility.

Of course, that is also why the rest of us are also allowed our rights to keep and bear. We then can form the militia to defend ourselves.

originally posted by: ketsuko
We then can form the militia to defend ourselves.

But your militia would be defending against another group of Americans and not going up against an unjust govt. If the rebellious group decides to call itself, let's say, The Micah Johnson Militia to go against an unjust govt, then who is the true militia, as called for in the Constitution?

originally posted by: Jonjonj

a reply to: Gryphon66

I can see where you are going with this , good question isn't it?

I suppose the answer is simply when the majority take up arms and actively rebel against the government, you will have your answer. Because it can't just be left to a small group, can it?

I'm actually sort of surprised to see that is the primary reaction of many to this scenario, that any actual efforts at curtailing or confronting the actions of a tyrannical government would only work as a large-scale (almost national) coordinated effort.

I thought almost everyone understood that scenario would really only work (if it worked at all) with a dissolute guerilla cell structure of very small groups acting independently, at least at the outset.

Still though, the thing to me is ... we have the argument made over and over that the REAL MEANING of the Second Amendment is the ability of the People to stand up against a tyrannical government. Yet, when it comes down to it, and we look at a possible real-world scenario (sadly using the Dallas murders as a template), some of the greatest advocates for that argument are now talking in terms of any such action being equivalent to a rebellion, that there are all sorts of "requirements" for the People to act ... apparently, any such effort must conform to the American Revolution ... which is to my mind fairly absurd ... because of ... well, 240 years or so of history, the fact that our country is over 10 times as large ... the differences in the structure of the government, etc. etc. ... to compare the two situations is romantic fantasy at best.

In the title I mentioned a paradox which I stated was the intersection of the idea of "rebellion" vis-a-vis the Second Amendment right to bear arms with the actuality of something like Dallas. However, as we've seen, the authoritarian urge runs deep in some ... the question was immediately attempted to be flipped to the FEDERAL government only (when there are 3 other levels government JUST as likely to abuse our rights as the Federal level ... and more exactly, the idea that many people in this country CURRENTLY have that there is a real problem (not White, not Black) with the trigger-happy tendencies of police forces across this country.

That's not a liberal idea, either:

“We must restore the confidence of our people to be safe and secure in their homes and on the street. The senseless, tragic deaths of two motorists in Louisiana and Minnesota reminds us how much more needs to be done.”

Donald Trump calls for restoring law and order after Dallas shootings

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66

I've thought about this issue over the course of the day and I believe I have come to the conclusion that it would be damn near impossible to take up arms against a government (tyrannical) at this point, and be able to invoke the 2nd amendment as justification for the act.

I view the primary promise of the 2nd as one of my right to defend myself and my family. I know that others see it differently.

I really wanted to look at the more common explanation that the 2nd is to "let us stand against tyranny" and how that might actually play out in a real world scenario (patterned after Dallas). I see that aspect of the 2nd as mostly moot at this point, realistically. I know it was a factor in 1791. It just isn't, that much today ... for precisely the some of the reasons that have been brought out here.

The idea that some folks have that the only government that might need rebelling against is the Federal is, as I have said, absolutely backwards. I'm more worried about a rogue Sheriff or Police Chief or Mayor, as that level of "tyrannical government" is much more likely to f### with my life.

What were your thoughts, after so much thinking today?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: desert
Interesting. So, if this one event is seen by others of like mind as a way to rise up against a (white) govt sanctioned police state that deprives them of their Lives and Liberties and if those others join up and become a rebellion, then they would be allowed taking up arms to change an unjust govt.

And, this armed uprising would be asymmetrical indeed. Hence, why terrorists do what they do.

There is that possibility.

Of course, that is also why the rest of us are also allowed our rights to keep and bear. We then can form the militia to defend ourselves.

So ... you'd be equivalent to a Loyalist in your Revolutionary period scenario? You do know that's why the British so woefully underestimated the forces needed to quell the "Rebellion" in America, right? Loyalists assumed they were in the majority and assured the folks back home that that tens of thousands would rise up to defend the Crown's interest.

If you're right, and the situation would be similar today (and it wouldn't but I'm going with your theory) you might be surprised as the inaction of "the rest of you" as you call it.

What you and the rest of the "defend against a tyrannical government" apologists should keep in mind the next time you make that argument is that you are talking about doing almost EXACTLY what was done in Dallas ... you are talking about taking up arms against local and State police, Federal agents, and the National Guard.

You don't get to shoot your one or two big imagined enemies and call it a day when SHTF.