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

a reply to: ketsuko

A pretty poor revolutionary if there is only one of him.

A poor revolutionary, but a revolutionary nonetheless.

a reply to: desert

Do you recall the John Birch Society?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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."?

If we could say with a degree of certainty that it was the sponsor's idea to kill black people, then perhaps. But if the employees act on their own rather than under orders, it is not the government sponsor that is responsible and the action against them would not be defense against government run amok. In order to qualify ALL police would have to be targeted equally, not just white police.

I still strongly believe that if BLM really means black lives matter, they should be going after the group of people who take the most black lives - other black people. Why focus on the group who take the least? That makes no sense unless the real issue is not about the lives, but rather race. Black people kill black people every day, and we blame the guns. White people kill black people, and we blame racist white people.

We have to get rid of the double standards and excuses if we are ever going to get anywhere. Maintain the divisions and things will never change. If only someone could promise hope and change...and actually do it...instead of making things worse.

I had heard the words many times, but I never believed that there would ever be a race war in this country beyond the vocal activist and occasional vandalism. Now I can easily see this spiral out of control. Group-think is a dangerous thing. It lets people lose themselves in the relative obscurity of 'the group'. "I" didn't do anything - the group did. People tend to believe that the group will suffer the punishment equally, when in reality it is the individual, spurred on by the group, that will suffer the consequences of his actions. Where there is a perception of anonymity is actually guilt through association. When this eventuality hits home, it only furthers the sense of being unfairly targeted. "We" did this, but "I" got in trouble.

It is a death spiral that feeds on its own energy. I fear this will get far worse before it ever gets better.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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."?

If we could say with a degree of certainty that it was the sponsor's idea to kill black people, then perhaps. But if the employees act on their own rather than under orders, it is not the government sponsor that is responsible and the action against them would not be defense against government run amok. In order to qualify ALL police would have to be targeted equally, not just white police. I still strongly believe that if BLM really means black lives matter, they should be going after the group of people who take the most black lives - other black people. Why focus on the group who take the least? That makes no sense unless the real issue is not about the lives, but rather race. Black people kill black people every day, and we blame the guns. White people kill black people, and we blame racist white people. We have to get rid of the double standards and excuses if we are ever going to get anywhere. Maintain the divisions and things will never change. If only someone could promise hope and change...and actually do it...instead of making things worse. I had heard the words many times, but I never believed that there would ever be a race war in this country beyond the vocal activist and occasional vandalism. Now I can easily see this spiral out of control. Group-think is a dangerous thing. It lets people lose themselves in the relative obscurity of 'the group'. "I" didn't do anything - the group did. People tend to believe that the group will suffer the punishment equally, when in reality it is the individual, spurred on by the group, that will suffer the consequences of his actions. Where there is a perception of anonymity is actually guilt through association. When this eventuality hits home, it only furthers the sense of being unfairly targeted. "We" did this, but "I" got in trouble. It is a death spiral that feeds on its own energy. I fear this will get far worse before it ever gets better.

Great points, and I think one possible answer is how it is okay for blacks to call each other the "n-word" at least in their eyes, but it isn't okay for whites..
Same deal with blacks killing other blacks. I guess many feel it's fine for blacks to kill other blacks, but it is bad news for whites to, which might explain the displayed vengeance against white cops in Dallas, even though meanwhile in Chicago and Detroit, blacks killed blacks like a carnival shooting gallery and nobody said a word about it in the news or elsewhere.

I don't like this myself at all, but I'm just pointing out what seems to be going on, and it really is quite strange and disturbing.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Thanks for a really well-considered and expressed post! I have a few thoughts in return.

If the employees routinely act on their own and are never seen being corrected or even held accountable, there's no reasonable distinction in terms of danger: apparently, the employee's acts, even though they are not sponsored "officially" become, nonetheless, the acts of the employer.

Yes, the real "facts" of the Dallas shooting betray a racial motivation. (At least, in the Official Story that we've been told.) But remember, my scenario is only using Dallas as "a template" in which a sniper military-style attack is waged against the (to use your "employee" scenario) hired mercs that are inflicting the government's will seemingly randomly (because just as many people feel that situations like Lavoy Finicum in Oregon ALSO represent govenrment-mandated murder by LEOs)

Again, in this scenario, the "racial" angle just doesn't wash. The government acts unjustly against Blacks and Whites, and has committed (at least, in the minds of some, who still see all levels of law enforcement unified as "The Establishment" or "The Man." (And for that matter, as far as your statistics go, it's the population proportion of Blacks killed by cops, not to mention that white people shoot white people too ... and here's an innovation toward reality ... why don't we just say that PEOPLE shoot PEOPLE ... but that's an aside.)

The epithet "race war" could just as easily been seen as an action-reaction against "established Tyranny." It goes without saying that statistically, every level of government in this country is now and has been dominated by White people. Again, in our scenario in this thread, how do those who make the "defense against Tyranny" argument promoting an absolutist interpretation of the Second think such a defense is going to start? Well, some in this thread have stated it would have to be like the American Revolution, or that there has to be some critical mass of people involved in such a thing.

I think that's absurd, given the current size of the government (National, State, local) the resources of the government and the standing "armies" of the government (not even talking here about National Guard or regular military ... law enforcement at every level now has access to combat equipment and armament) the only reasonable way such a "stand against tyranny" would have any chance of success is if it happened in extremely small and diverse "guerillla actions" across the country, sometimes by individuals, sometimes by very small groups ... ala the idea of a "death of a thousand cuts" ... striking similarly to what we now call terrorism ... (which is a kind of guerilla warfare and we all like to ignore that fact.)

I submit, that future real-life "defenses against tyranny" would actually look EXACTLY like Dallas (and Valdosta, and Bristol).

... and that is one of the things I wanted us all to think about, because in a modern realistic model of "defending against tyranny" we're not going to stand on opposite sides of Concord Bridge and fire at each other once every minute or so.

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. Interestingly, if we WANTED to make my question in this thread about race (which I explicitly didn't in the OP) the similar situation would be for those who were upset at the action taken against LaVoy Finicum in Oregon. The complaint, made by many in that situation, was that Finicum was MURDERED by an overreaching government (both Federal and Oregon State LEOs) in an ambush style action. If you were one of those folks or not, how pertinent would it have been to have someone say "well, there were nine other instances of cops killing white people today or there were 72 white on white crimes this last week, why don't you do something about that first?"

It's "reduced" to a racial issue because it actually seems to be, in some cases. It's seen as a racial issue because there is and has been a history of systemic racism in this country. It's seen as racial because although they are actually fairly few and far between, there are real, dyed-in-the-wool racists on both sides that give plenty of fodder to the ideas of racial division.

Actually, in the last few days (and I have watched my own city "erupt' in protest for the last two nights) there does seem to be some small hope that we're starting to actually address the possibility that there is an issue here of racial inequity. (and whether there is or isn't ... there is the widespread PERCEPTION that there is.)

I think we need to start having a stronger "what if I were in their shoes" reaction rather than "why don't they deal with their own problems first" response.

But that's just me. Opinions vary.

a reply to: Hr2burn

I hear what you're saying.

As far as the "civil revolution" goes, my hope is that we think about exactly what that will entail, to wit, a complete and unrecoverable loss of our current way of life.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Well put. Agree. Ideas are spread much faster nowadays (the last 20 years forward especially). And the "horror du joir". There is also populace confusion re the "Fourth Estate", and the "Fourth Estate" has turned themselves into a "Fourth Whorehouse".

Political and popular demagogues have always spewed hatred and divisiveness and lowered the bar on civil discourse, but, in recent times, rapid communication amplifies their appeal to the reptilian parts of the brain. And more and more of their ideas adhere to people; demagogues breed fear and cowardly acts. If citizens have lost the will or know how to overcome this irrationality, then we reap what we have sewn.

a reply to: MOMof3

Very well. I remember the "Impeach Earl Warren" signs along Southern California highways in the 1960s. And 40 years ago, when I moved away to a rural part of Calif, I ended up unknowingly in a hot bed of the KKK and the JBS. Got acquainted with a person big time into the JBS. And a co-worker of my spouse at the time approached him in a bar after work, not wearing his white hooded outfit, and wanted to know if he'ld like to join the Klan. Sans the white robes, this man blended quite well into society, intelligent and friendly.

The JBS and the KKK faded, but after 1980 the KKK and white supremacist thinking resurged, and by the 1990s white supremacists had pretty much ditched the outfits and acquired several group names.

The JBS resurgence seems to have exploded in recent times. (I've got a family member who actually has hosted meetings in his home.) They are conservative right wing extremists. This is how nutty their thinking is: right wing intellectual William F Buckley Jr warned his Republican Party in the 1960s to not let them take power in the party.

Here's an interesting article tracing how this right wing extremist thinking sewed the seeds for what we reap today.
From "Operation Wetback" To Newtown: Tracing The Hick Fascism Of The NRA

a reply to: DJW001

And McVeigh did not act alone. Terry Nichols is his convicted accomplice. And both associated with the Michigan Militia. And let's not forget the influence of the book highly popular back then among extremists, The Turner Diaries.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, I gotta be AFK for a few days. I, too, still want to hold out hope that our great nation will recover, that our citizens will sit back and actually think through, really really think through the consequences of "civil revolution".

a reply to: Gryphon66

"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?"

It is being answered already as we speak, right here on ATS. They are changing the meaning of the second amendment again and trying to pretend that they never meant a tyrannical government, or something along those thoughts. Same old, same old.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
If only someone could promise hope and change...and actually do it...instead of making things worse.
...........
It is a death spiral that feeds on its own energy.

Hope and change in America has come from movements OUTSIDE of politics pushing politicians to do what we want. It is unreasonable to believe that electing one person will go about changing what is in the hearts and minds of the citizen s/he governs. Pres Lyndon Johnson did not pass Civil Rights acts merely because he thought it was a good idea, but rather it was a Civil Rights movement that made it possible.

America has changed in recent years, but not for the better, because the hearts and minds of citizens have not changed. The "actually doing it" is up to citizens.

If we stop feeding on the energy of a death spiral, don't give it more energy, then there is the possibility to change for the better. A tornado depends on consuming energy to last.

originally posted by: MOMof3
They are changing the meaning of the second amendment again and trying to pretend that they never meant a tyrannical government, or something along those thoughts.

Yes. I think they realize that if they call it a "right" to an armed revolution, then they would have to understand that that "right" is for ALL citizens and not just for themselves. Up to now, they have assumed that only they would rise up against "tyranny".

a reply to: Gryphon66

And to you also, well considered and well said!

If there is never any correction or accountability I would agree. But there is at least some. Granted, it seems a bit slanted. Not to the degree of hillary, but not a level playing field. Not taking severe action against those who would commit such acts does not necessarily indicate the acts are condoned, though it may give the impression that is the case.

I would add Waco and Ruby Ridge to that list and I have repeatedly expressed my disgust with both. And I have close ties to Waco. One of my best friends was one of the first people killed there. The things said about him were simply not true. I had known him since high school when we played in a garage band together. I spoke to him on many occasions about where he lived and I met david koresh. Men, women, and children were murdered that day. Slaughtered.

I would not say that a race war is reaction against established tyranny except in the example of the aggressor effectively becoming the tyrant, more in name than anything else. But I would disagree that the only way a more generally accepted idea of a revolt against tyranny would be in the form of small guerrilla style acts. Though certainly that would be part of it. The US military, and militarized police, are indeed a formidable foe. But I cant help but think of a passage by Douglas Adams in which he describes a ship, spiraling out of control to certain doom, due to the fact that the captain had recently killed 2/3 of his crew in a disciplinary action and there were not enough people left to run the ship. If there were sufficient numbers to actually attempt a reformation of government by force, either the government would have to accept that change is inevitable, or, wipe out a good majority of the people leaving the entire country is distress and in need of everything necessary for survival. They would put themselves in the position of having to care and provide for the masses or find themselves with too few people left to make a country. With the general population out of the way the nation would be ripe for the picking of a more capably armed aggressor. Whether it was at the hands of the American people, or whomever seized the opportunity, America would cease to be in its present form.

I can still see a race war without a nationwide revolt against government. The BLM side would continue its actions in similar fashion, and expand to attacking white people in general. White people would retaliate. And the scale of this is where it gets tricky. Law enforcement would have the unenviable task of fighting both on a case by case basis - an untenable position leading to the declaration of martial law if the numbers were sufficient. Few enough incidents could be managed by local law enforcement. If the conflict became great enough, everyone would lose.

So many good comments here.

I have nothing more to say than to nod and agree.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Here's my point: millions of Americans believe that citizens are being targeted by various levels of government and are being assassinated in the streets and beside the highways. Either in light of my little proposed scenario or in the harsh reality of the real world ... whether this belief is absolutely factual ... is unimportant.

The approach here is all to often to attempt to discredit what people believe. That works fine on here, but in the real world, it's meaningless.

People believe that cops, law enforcement, FBI, etc. are killing American citizens outside the rule-of-law. That seems to be a fairly clear component of what an unjust "Tyrannical" government would look like.

I'm going to be completely honest here: to me the term "race war" is nothing more than a dog whistle for promoting fear and antagonism toward minorities that no longer seem to be staying "in their place." It's a historical relic, but I'm not surprised it's being trotted out again at this time.

The ironic thing here, however, is that I think the typical pro-gun advocate making the "rise up against tyranny" speech didn't consider that one of the most obvious ways that would happen is by a racial minority becoming utterly fed up with the actions of a White-dominated government (at virtually every level, national, State and local.) I wonder if that will be called "standing up against tyranny" ...

Obviously not .. .we've seen what they call it here ... "rebellion" ... "terrorism" ... "race war" ...

They've forgotten that many gun control laws were originally enacted PRECISELY over such race-based fears.

a reply to: desert

Exactly. But there's more to consider.

I drove a truck cross country for 8 years. During that time I became intimately familiar with the fact that there really is no "U.S. culture." Instead, there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of individual cultures and subcultures across the nation. Some are eerily similar, while some made me feel I had entered a new continent.

If we extend that phenomena to the globe, the number of cultures easily reaches into the hundreds. The U.S. has a fairly short history and a fairly consistent heritage, whereas other countries are much older and their histories can be very dissimilar. It is logical to presume that their cultures would be very different compared to ours.

Modern communication has now suddenly thrown all these cultures together.

Is it any wonder there will be different viewpoints on everything from food choice to politics and religion? These differences must work themselves out slowly over an extended time period... that's why nature rarely thrusts two competing groups together quickly. Now let's pick a few select groups and proclaim they need "equal rights," Then proceed to allow them special consideration.

That's no different than mixing a barrel full of various gunpowder and throwing lit sparklers in it.

But that's what we have done in the name of "tolerance" and "equality."

Now, I do not hold in any way with disproportionate treatment of any individual based on such superficial details as race, origin, gender, religion, etc. In my mind, however, this applies to all individuals, not just selected groups, and therefore anything that specifies a group is in itself part of the problem. It's like the first few days at a sandbox in kindergarten: there will be fights, there will be crying, there will be anger as the kids sort out who they all are. But any good teacher knows that the absolute worst thing they can do is to become the protector of one or two of those kids. That will always lead to later abuse when Teacher isn't around. The best way to handle things is to let them work it out on their own, interfering only when things get out of hand, and taking great pains to not show any preferential treatment. It's hard, and it can seem cruel at times, but it is the only way which works 100% of the time and always has.

We didn't do that. We took the easy way out and showed preferential treatment. Now 160 or so years after we stopped one of the more heinous practices in our history, we still have racism. Every time we try to restrict it out of existence, it grows. Every new law makes it worse. We have to, at some time, get back to letting people be people and applying governmental protections across the board without regard to groups.

Unfortunately, we will not do that. At least not this time around. The whole mess will blow up in our faces, and indeed I think that is what prompted the events that prompted this thread. Once the smoke settles, those who remain will have to find their way again, and no one can know which path will be chosen next time.

I only hope that path is brighter than the one we're on.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I know you directed that comment to another member, but your point about there being "many Americas" is spot on and deeply profound.

The greater interaction and communication you mentioned is precisely one of the challenges we face as a "nation" moving forward.



Also, this is just about the clearest commentary I've ever read on the subject ...

originally posted by: TheRedneck

We didn't do that. We took the easy way out and showed preferential treatment. Now 160 or so years after we stopped one of the more heinous practices in our history, we still have racism. Every time we try to restrict it out of existence, it grows. Every new law makes it worse. We have to, at some time, get back to letting people be people and applying governmental protections across the board without regard to groups.

I wish I could give you actual Applause!

a reply to: Gryphon66

I wish I could give you actual Applause!

You just did.

Now spread the word of true peace.

TheRedneck