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

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I agree that the actual Dallas shooter's targets (as stated anyway) were White making it more of a hate crime and apparently, findings are that he had experienced some sort of psychotic break recently (from findings in his actual apartment) etc.

As I've said, this thread was a scenario based on the events of Dallas, rather than some sort of half-baked analysis of the actual events, as so many zealots keep trying so desperately to turn it into (not you, btw.)

I gave you my understanding of the term race war. Of course, I can't deny that your usage is a possibility.

There are dangerous places to go in America. Believe me, in the South, there are places within the span of my memory that were not safe for Blacks to travel through, particularly after sunset. I don't deny that there is race-based crime.

In my scenario though, as there are White people who also believe that "the government" has acted improperly toward White people (LaVoy Finicum, e.g.), I particularly wanted to exclude race so that this didn't turn into what so many are trying to turn it into ... another White-Black-whos-the-real-racist-fest. (Again, not your comments.)

Thank you particularly for contributing with a diverse or dissenting opinion without trying to derail the thread!

a reply to: Gryphon66

ANTIDEPRESSANTS ,perhaps the plot is AGAIN confirmed ,then ALL the shooters used them...IF he in fact has done so.

originally posted by: Phage
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.

I was speaking in terms of killing someone without the benefit of a trial and being sentenced to death as skipping the due process of the trial and right to an attorney and going straight to the execution. In that sense the entire judicial aspect has been denied by the actions of law enforcement, and as such denies due process.

I'm going to say this one more time for the record.

In this thread, I proposed a scenario BASED ON the Dallas shootings, but not intended as an analysis or a statement about the actual occurrences that have taken place there. I wanted, and so many members have participated in a "what if" dialogue in order to explore the meanings of certain arguments associated with the Second Amendment, to wit, the "defense against tyranny" argument.

I want to say one more time that in terms of the actual events, the Dallas shooter by all intents and purposes seems to be a deluded murderer who had been planning an attack for some time. I condemn the murder of any law enforcement personnel.

Anyone who says anything else about my intentions or my statements here is quite simply either a liar or willfully ignorant.

(Or both.)

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Gryphon66

ANTIDEPRESSANTS ,perhaps the plot is AGAIN confirmed ,then ALL the shooters used them...IF he in fact has done so.

I caught that too, Cav.

Disturbing in more ways than one.

Good eye.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

In that sense the entire judicial aspect has been denied by the actions of law enforcement, and as such denies due process.

And, as I had to point out later. That entails a possible "infringement" on all of that persons rights.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I tried them before ...what I DO know they did to me...they stop emotions until you resemble a Vulcan, then if you miss a dose you get NUKED with feelings ..some crack.
I didn't like it.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Gryphon66

I tried them before ...what I DO know they did to me...they stop emotions until you resemble a Vulcan, then if you miss a dose you get NUKED with feelings ..some crack.
I didn't like it.

I understand completely. I tried the prescription drug Wellbutrin (also used as an antidepressant) for a bit years ago to address my cigarette smoking habit. Did nothing to change that, but, one day, driving home from work, I started yelling at myself in the rear-view mirror about how stupid and weak I had become. Needless to say, I discontinued the dosage, and I went back to not screaming at myself, LOL.

For some, these chemicals are life-savers ... for others ... the doorway of madness. And that's assuming that no one has altered the drugs for nefarious purposes.

I hope things stay evened out for you.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I just wanted to say again, how much I have enjoyed reading many responses in this thread. I feel like it's imperative that we move beyond the dichotomous world-views that we are offered everyday all around us via media, the entertainment industry, academia, religion, et. al. (as there's not one vector for this sickness that is being peddled.)

For example, I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in the right to bear arms and use them at need. I believe that need in almost all legitimate ways resolves around defense ... of myself, my family, my home, and to a lesser extent my community.

I'm obviously not a fan of the common, garden-variety complaint that the govenrment is being "tyrannical" simply because I do think that there is ENORMOUS potential for us to be mistreated by government at all levels even up to and including being killed for no good reason. I don't trust government, I don't really trust many folks who want to be involved in it because for many but not all, it is an expression of an innate need for "power over" or authoritarianism.

I do think it's high-time we face the logical interpolations of our statements, however, and as you've pointed out, and as I wanted us to ruminate on ... the logical implication of "standing against tyranny" is not as, pardon the pun, white and black as so many people try to make it out to be, and also, it's not some abstraction ... it would entail firing on and possibly killing our neighbors and other officials.

If we're going to argue for that, I believe we need to fully own that and understand it, otherwise, we're just play-acting.

Dangerous when deadly weapons are involved.

Thanks again, Redneck.

a reply to: Gryphon66

In your scenario anyone can be the victim of some perceived subjugation by government or law enforcement, real or imagined. As such, actions taken against the oppressors could be considered within the boundaries of 2A. I do believe, however, that the distinction would be paper thin and would not stand up to closer inspection. I believe the spirit of the law, or the amendment, refers to en masse retaliation, not individual acts of violence in response to individual acts of violence. (Your boss at work could be a tyrant, but 2A will not excuse your shooting him the lunch room) To engage in armed combat with government at any level you need a very strong and well documented case. Even then you will immediately be branded a terrorist lunatic suffering from delusions of conspiracy. A handful of acts in response to an incident or even a string of incidents would fall far short of the depth and breadth of evidence needed for these acts to be considered as battling tyranny in the name of freedom and democracy for all.

Using a somewhat liberal application of the term tyrant you might make a case on a technicality. But it would not stand up to the degree of intense scrutiny it would undoubtedly receive.

And thank you for the pleasant exchange of ideas. I had no intention derailing your thread. In fact, I rather enjoyed the discourse.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I feel trapped by times ,my ailments are the culmination of 6 short years of pushing hard and getting sick from it,but refusing to acknowledge it until my lungs stuck me in the emergency room.
If your brain chemistry IS NOT imbalanced but you are just sad because of environment and you take those it can happen.
ONLY A PSYCHIATRIST can tell you and GP s prescribe it ALL the time.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Others responding earlier in the thread concur with your thoughts that there would have to be some kind of "movement" or a certain percentage of the population would have to be involved in such actions to justify them under the "tyranny" argument.

Coming from the other side of the equation than I did, by the way, is the reason I think your comments are so valuable here, because you, just as I and others here did, found that the real turning point in the question is the paradoxical nature of what we call "tyranny."

Does it have to be widespread? Can tyranny be inflicted one person at a time? Who gets to define what tyranny is and who gets to approve actions under the "defense from tyranny" argument. Note that the historical justification of the Second Amendment's argument (as I understand it) was that the most important thing was to keep a standing force out of the hands of govenrment. If the only real defensive force were the citizens militia, then the function of same was reflexive ... the citizens would both be able to serve the govenrment as a defensive force when needed, and would resist the government's attempts to tyrannize with the use of a standing force. Paradoxical in itself.

I could have simply titled this "what is the true nature of tyranny" but then, how many hits would I have gotten, LOL?

Let me say again, I deeply appreciate your "coming from the other side" approach, and you have not derailed the thread in any way, shape form or fashion. You are completely welcome here and I hope you'll continue!

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Gryphon66

I feel trapped by times ,my ailments are the culmination of 6 short years of pushing hard and getting sick from it,but refusing to acknowledge it until my lungs stuck me in the emergency room.
If your brain chemistry IS NOT imbalanced but you are just sad because of environment and you take those it can happen.
ONLY A PSYCHIATRIST can tell you and GP s prescribe it ALL the time.

I hear you. We do have a problem with over-medication in this country.

I am a life-long sufferer from low-level anxiety ... the kind that just follows you around day after day ... manifesting in OCD type behaviors (checking the stove to make sure you didn't leave it on ... going back to the house seven or eight times in a row to make sure you locked the door, etc) and I have been helped immensely by a small dosage of an anti-anxiety drug.

However, my problem was manageable (if irritating) without the drug. I understand that others aren't so lucky, and I look forward to advances in medicine that are able to address those issues.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I was in and out of mental health places because I can't do math ,the system is STILL a joke.
THEY HAVE no legal definition of sanity UNTIL someone loses it.
THAT would require ALL of us NOT to worry about hiring the Schzophrenic guy so HE can support his self too.
I doubt they will even try, no money in it.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Gryphon66

I was in and out of mental health places because I can't do math ,the system is STILL a joke.
THEY HAVE no legal definition of sanity UNTIL someone loses it.
THAT would require ALL of us NOT to worry about hiring the Schzophrenic guy so HE can support his self too.
I doubt they will even try, no money in it.

Behind all of our keyboards are real people with real problems and that often gets glossed over in our zeal to defend our thoughts and positions.

I've only brushed up against the "mental health gestapo" a few times in my life ... but not even one of the times was any fun.

There's so many people with so many abilities and experience that can be productive members of society ... that are kept from it for one stupid reason or another. That's one of the real reasons I fight as I do for equity and fair treatment.

Because way too many times, people are caught in the "Damned if you do/damned if you don't" Catch-22.

there is in people a desire to kill the oppressors, while there also exists a consistent desire to demonize any and all who use violence for whatever reason, while lionizing the victims of the shootings as martyrs, regardless of how corrupt they may be.

Unfortunately, married to this theme is the common practice of targeting indiscriminately the good as well as the bad within a subgroup, and seeing as how in any corrupt system, the good are always outnumbered by the bad, the tragedy comes in that evil always conveniently positions its troops elsewhere. The result is mad rebels end up killing about as many good as bad, making the ratio even more imbalanced in favor of evil.

Evil then uses the innocent as well as the guilty blood to produce martyrs for the masses to institute ever escalating levels of tyranny. In the form of crackdowns, they will use the blood of innocent men to justify doing exactly what it is that led to their assassinations in the first place.

Thus evil always finds these kinds of events profitable.

Any tactic capable of significantly putting a dent in tyranny is going to ultimately rely on either overwhelming numbers of good men (which do not exist), or a few good men relying on clandestine CIA style tactics, which traditionally seems anathema to the moral fiber of men calling themselves good.

This of course, presents a problem.As the media uses sweeping generalizations to make every targeted victim a saint without parallel, the same media influences educational and religious institutions into promoting the slander of any and all efforts and tactics that may be absolutely necessary for the liberation of oppressed peoples.

So now evil controls your police, your pastors, your teachers, and exploits the victims of your radicals to produce martyrs to raise more funds, write more laws, and rape society with wild abandon. All in the name of Safety, Security, and Peace.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You have here created a discourse on something I have thought about before, but never was able to put into words. It's kinda addictive...

When I was a young redneck, I was as full of venom and spitfire as anyone. I never thought about my actions from another perspective. I only saw the many desperate attempts to kill myself doing completely stoopid stunts (a natural biological responce to offset the fact that rednecks breed so fast) as cool, just like I saw my rants against "the man" as justified.

I was one of those tough enough to survive youth as a redneck, and as I aged I began to notice that the young-uns' activities were not really that cool or that justified in my eyes. I had a different perspective. This thread ties directly into those observations, and gives me pause to examine my deepest-held beliefs.

Redneck likes that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: skynet2015

That's an excellent set of philosophical observations. I'm not a big fan of the concept of slating behaviors into "evil and good" but nonetheless, that's mostly a semantic quibble.

The basis of the quibble though, is the facility with which such concepts are translated into ABSOLUTES, which is what we see in your last paragraph. I realize that you are actually pointing to another paradox (freedom vs. safety), and I appreciate that, but as I've indicated here, I'm not a big fan of purely black-and-white thinking.

Great post though, thank you!

a reply to: TheRedneck

If I've done anything to initiate a discourse on meaningful issues, I've done more than I'm able to accomplish in about 99% of what I usually write/contribute here, as I get too easily drawn into the milieu of partisanship, even though, believe it or not, my only real interest is in making sure the best facts, the most compelling evidence, are made clear so that folks can make their own best decisions.

A loaded firearm in the hands of a human being represents the awesome power of life and death. I know that there are plenty of other ways that we can kill, but honestly, on a individual level, nothing comes close to modern handguns and long guns.

That power is something our Founders entrusted us with, each of us. Whether they did that with an understanding of how powerful those weapons would someday become is of course, a minor aspect of the ongoing debate. To my mind, in most cases, however, it's an unimportant one: they ceded/codified that power to every future American citizen.

The only reasonable question therein to me is the idea of responsibility and accountability. Anything else is unnecessary authoritarianism which ALWAYS leads to a loss of personal liberty and equity before the laws of the land.

That power is another aspect of the paradoxes I saw in the initial question:

A bullet does not care whether it strikes a good policeman or a bad cop. A bullet does not know whether it is being used for freedom or for terror.

Those questions fall to us, the humans, the thinking ones.

I just want to be sure we're actually thinking, rather than merely reacting.

At least, that's what I hope. Glad the discussion is meaningful to some.