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

a reply to: desert

And you never had shooting classes or ROTC?

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Ok, I thought when you said history, you meant history classes. No, I never had shooting classes; everything I learned I learned from family members and friends. I never had to take a shooting class. Hell, no, I never was in the ROTC ..... when I was in school in the Viet Nam war years being in ROTC wasn't something one did. Did I go to my high school prom? Hell, no, I never went to my prom, either. There was a lot of stuff we didn't do back then.... out of protest.... and I will not say what we did do back then. .... in case my kids ever find out it's me here.... not that I'ld be embarrassed.... its more like I'ld embarrass them.....

So, then, what were the years of your being informed about the 2cd Am?

a reply to: desert

The right to protect against tyranny is not what occurred in Dallas - aggression in the form of murder. If those particular police officers had unlawfully or unjustifiably aggressed then the actions could be viewed as protective in nature

a reply to: NOTurTypical

The 2A was given to us by the founders to check the Fed. The Fed is armed, and an armed citizenry is a force equalizer on the Fed. The founders statements affirm this is the purpose of the 2A.

Not exactly, but I'm not going to stray further off topic again.

If I'm missing your point then please explain it better, why exactly are you concerned with?

A trained sharpshooter believed that the local police were agents of tyranny, and exercised his Second Amendment rights as expounded by the NRA. Why has the NRA not applauded him? Why have they not condemned the police officer who shot a driver who was legally carrying a firearm? What are you not understanding?

originally posted by: Twosmoke
a reply to: desert

The right to protect against tyranny is not what occurred in Dallas - aggression in the form of murder. If those particular police officers had unlawfully or unjustifiably aggressed then the actions could be viewed as protective in nature

And yet, some people call laws requiring you to buy health insurance "tyranny." Apparently, tyranny is in the eye of the beholder. (Not that I am justifying his actions, but they were not the act of a madman; they were based on a clear political strategy supported by sound tactics. He was a revolutionary, not a psycho.)

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Twosmoke
a reply to: desert

The right to protect against tyranny is not what occurred in Dallas - aggression in the form of murder. If those particular police officers had unlawfully or unjustifiably aggressed then the actions could be viewed as protective in nature

And yet, some people call laws requiring you to buy health insurance "tyranny." Apparently, tyranny is in the eye of the beholder. (Not that I am justifying his actions, but they were not the act of a madman; they were based on a clear political strategy supported by sound tactics. He was a revolutionary, not a psycho.)

Excellent point

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: NOTurTypical

The 2A was given to us by the founders to check the Fed. The Fed is armed, and an armed citizenry is a force equalizer on the Fed. The founders statements affirm this is the purpose of the 2A.

Not exactly, but I'm not going to stray further off topic again.

If I'm missing your point then please explain it better, why exactly are you concerned with?

A trained sharpshooter believed that the local police were agents of tyranny, and exercised his Second Amendment rights as expounded by the NRA. Why has the NRA not applauded him? Why have they not condemned the police officer who shot a driver who was legally carrying a firearm? What are you not understanding?

The second amendment and judge of what's tyranny are for white conservatives... Only.

a reply to: DJW001

This thread caused me to think about what DO some people believe is govt tyranny. Seat belts is also an old one. Then came helmets. Lightbulbs. For fun, try googling any noun followed by tyranny.
We honestly live in an age of revenge and unreasonableness. We're devouring ourselves.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Not exactly, but I'm not going to stray further off topic again.

At this point, if you have something relevant to say, please feel free. I think we've covered the several angles of the OP, so, if this branches your thought in another reasonably direction ... go for it.

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: DJW001

This thread caused me to think about what DO some people believe is govt tyranny. Seat belts is also an old one. Then came helmets. Lightbulbs. For fun, try googling any noun followed by tyranny.
We honestly live in an age of revenge and unreasonableness. We're devouring ourselves.

The primary paradox is the concept of "tyranny."

The secondary paradox is that the authoritarian response to a possible reaction to actual government overreach is to proclaim it "rebellion" and "terrorism" (which I have a hard time not saying "duh" to the next time the sacrosanct argument rears it's head.)

Another is the idea that the relatively unrestrained proliferation of firearms under Texas law evidently does NOTHING to keep anyone safer.

Not to mention that one of the main reasons for the Second Amendment in its time was to offset the government keeping "standing forces" which in that day referred to armies but, very arguably, can refer to our militarized police forces.

When a shooter says, "I want to kill white people", he pretty much becomes the tyrant himself.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
When a shooter says, "I want to kill white people", he pretty much becomes the tyrant himself.

Right.

That's what's been released in the statement.

Now, more in line with our thought experiment, what if he'd said "I had to strike at the government-sponsored murderers of my people."?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Any time matters or questions regarding the intersection of gun control laws and the Second Amendment arise, the argument is made that the fundamental purpose of the 2nd is to allow citizens to stand up against a tyrannical government and its agents.

There are many Americans who, right or wrong, feel that many local police departments across the country are demonstrating an incomprehensible and repulsive lack of respect for the rule of law and proper law enforcement procedures in apprehending alleged criminals. We call this police brutality, overreach, etc.

The accusation from many Americans is that police and similar law-enforcement agents (as the enforcement arm of the local, State and Federal governments) have basically murdered American citizens while in the process of apprehension of suspected criminals, i.e. those suspected of but not convicting of various levels of crime.

This is not a racial issue. There have been accusations directed at the disproportionate number of Blacks seemingly executed, but, we also have the same kinds of accusations directed at those who have killed White people ... like for example, the situation surrounding the death of LaVoy Finicum in Oregon.

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?

I can follow your logic OP. I'm not sure of your stance on the 2A, but you are right - in a very ironic way. This is why often times, you will hear people like me say we need to fight the ideologies, not the tools. I may catch flak for saying this, but one can't fault this guy for what he did IF HE TRULY BELIEVED IN WHAT HE WAS DOING. The accuracy of what he believes is wrong, but he truly believed it, and used his right as an American citizen to fight it. I may also catch flak for saying this, but I don't consider this guy a terrorist. Criminal, sure, but, though he expressed he wanted to kill white people, he focused his rage on cops, the ones who he felt were his and "his people's" "oppressors"

a reply to: chuck258

Thank you Chuck for your honesty. I think you're the first pro-2nd Amendment "fight against tyranny" proponent that has had the guts to stand 100% behind the argument!

Bravo.

I think we all need to consider what we're willing to accept in the definition of "tyranny" ... because you've pointed DIRECTLY at what the logical implications of the usual arguments allow for.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I had assumed that those who hold "that armed conflict against a tyrannical govt is a Constitutional right" would uphold that right, without restraint, for ALL citizens. Sadly, it appears not. In one of my prior exchanges in this thread

" ..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."

"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."

"But your militia would be defending against another group of Americans and not going up against an unjust govt"

We are talking now about armed conflict among "militias", citizens taking arms up against each other. That to me is domestic warfare. At least in the past when we have had war, literally lines were drawn. What we are talking now is not a rebellion isolated by geography but one that would consume any area.

It IS a game, then. My right against your right. But a game with deadly consequences. Killing fellow citizens exercising their right, which you, in fact, allow that they have, but at the same time saying it is your right to kill them.

This is insane! This is what happens in lawless third world countries!

And it's also possible in a first world country where citizens buy into a 1995 Wayne LaPierre "jack-booted thugs" (ie. govt) fundraising idea as a divine right in the Constitution. This is insane!

This is scary.

a reply to: desert

Not a very reliable link, it seems:

The Brennan Center uses a combination of inter-disciplinary research, innovative policy development, legislative advocacy, litigation, and communications work to win meaningful, measurable change in the public sector. We seek to devise fresh, practical, data-driven, bipartisan legal reforms backed up by high caliber, rigorous research. We publicize those ideas and communicate to voters and lawmakers the necessity of the reforms we support. We then work to ensure that lawmakers enact these new laws to advance democracy and justice. And if these laws are challenged, we defend their legality and reasonability in the courtroom. We also pursue litigation to block or overturn laws that dismantle existing protections or further restrict rights, and file friend-of-the-court briefs rich with data to inform courts of the practical effects of legal arguments.

Soutce: www.brennancenter.org...

I was around in the 70s... actually the late 60s. I don't know what the lawyers and pundits said back then, but I do know what my family and my friends' families talked about. They talked about the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to guarantee us the right to defend ourselves, even if from the government.

There were some instances where the right to defend oneself from the government changed governmental policy. Roads were rerouted because pulling eminent domain was too dangerous. Regulations were sometimes abandoned for fear of creating a problem. I could go on, but you get the idea. People, I think, were more peaceful back then, but they also were more willing to fight for what they believed in.

The tones used back then weren't as anxious or demanding, but that was because there was no need. We all felt our right was secure. Only when politicians began suggesting restrictions on guns did the conversations become more urgent. And only then did the shootings like we have today begin. Shootings back then were over someone messing around with someone else's wife or someone trying to steal something... occasionally an argument would get out of hand, but that was very rare.

I really would be a little more discriminating who you listen to about history. Someone earlier mentioned the winners write the history books. As true as that is, lately it seems some try to rewrite them before being declared winners.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you for your reply. For sure, I can remember in Los Angeles in 1965 adults discussing using guns to protect themselves during the Watts Riots. But, honestly, I don't remember hearing the 2cd Am specifically granting a right to rise up against a tyrannical govt until recent years, when it came out in popular talk.

I am thinking now that Wayne LaPierre's 1995 NRA fundraising letter, a copy of which can be found here, had something to do with promoting the idea that the 2cd Am meant you had the right to armed resistance against the govt.

I really liked your points OP, they are not new thoughts or positions, just all in one well thought out paragraph. This is a volatile subject and perhaps ultra-sensitive as of the moment. If anyone has read up on the steps Hitler and the Nazi party made, the chess pieces they put in place if you will, prior to war and holocaust, it is eerily similar.
Our police officers don't seem to hold the same positions and responsibilities of the policemen we had when I was growing up. I truly feel, we are working up to a point where a civil relevolution will be the only option. IF that ever comes to fruition, heaven help us if it's with pocket knives and muskets.
Going even further, there has been plenty of threads here on ATS where cops have been questioned and argued with, that it is not there responsibility to protect and serve the populous. Who's is it then?? I will watch over my own, and if in he right position, others as well. Not that I feel I'm a hero, but I couldn't turn my back on an assult, rape or murder. Could anyone else?? Can you do that with your bare hands? I don't want to find out personally.
People will always use anything they interact with irresponsibly. It's human nature. I guarantee there are far more deaths from cars being used in this manner, than guns. Guaranteeing our freedom and the rights that were fought for by the people that formed our nation, is going to require a war of sorts again. Time will tell.

a reply to: DJW001

A pretty poor revolutionary if there is only one of him. At that level, he has no hope of actually overthrowing anything. At best, his tactics can only hope to influence through fear which is more akin to terrorism.

Terrorists do what they do to force capitulation through fear. They know they have no hope of winning outright so they seek to bring about their ends through other means, in this case through fear.

This puts him in the same category as Nichols and McVeigh who also had anti-government agendas with no hope of carrying them out beyond provoking change through fear.

a reply to: desert

It might have triggered more response among the MSM. I'll grant that.

Remember that we're discussing an era that was technologically quite different than today. No Internet, only NBC/ABC/CBS for news. Radio was for sports and music; no one had heard of Rush Limbaugh. People still read newspapers. Telephones were all connected to the house by a cord, and long-distance was too expensive to use much.

That made it harder for the MSM to get feedback from actual people, and air time was too expensive to waste on opinions that would only reach a few thousand viewers. It also made it much harder to blanket the population with the latest horror du joir.

TheRedneck