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

originally posted by: desert

For Gryph's "mea culpa", te absolvo.

Gratias tibi.

HOW did Christianity turn something that aids into a strict disciplinarian?
BELIEVE ,you are in...end of story.
Not how much ,how well or how good. I'm still on the wall about other faiths but chanting in front of a Gohnzon(sic) would never do it for me....maybe my own cult...
YOU have to believe that Jesus died for your sin and the father to me...that rest doesn't compute.
I'm a horrible Christian for NOT believing in the words of man but my faith and God to guide me...with a big stick...





a reply to: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I know that one wrongful death is to many but I can think of a bunch of ways to die that are more likely to happen than death by cop.

The difference is that cops are supposed to "protect" us.

So death by cop is not acceptable. Even one death.

It gets even worse when the civilian that is killed by cop wasn't even threating to anyone.

Just because the cop is too fat and lazy to run after the civilian, is no excuse to shoot to death.

Let the civilian run, and go pick him up later at his home at your leisure. He's not going anywhere.

All animals have to return to their cave for a nap.

Jumpy ,skittish ,agitated,the fat one's use the radio,the odd aggressive,angry ,ego response, types (It's said to be 3%) should even BE around guns because they are certainly not looking to protect but more to control,even oppress.
I really wouldn't know I would have tried to be one.
But my brother IS and he doesn't hate or need to control or harm he just wants safe.







a reply to: AMPTAH

a reply to: TheRedneck

I disagree with you. The op himself has admitted that he believes the Second Amendment must be "compromised so we don't lose it"... In other words, he believes there isn't enough gun control and more should be enforced. The premise made by the OP since the start of this thread was a gun control issue.

He tried to link what the Dallas murderer did as a consequence of the belief of supporters of the second amendment. The OP did not even wait until we got more concrete evidence as to the intentions behind what this murderer did, instead the op tried to hide his intentions within a myriad of euphemisms.

His first premise started as:

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.
...

If some demented person decided to murder people for x reason and that person decided to use a car and run over and kill/maim as many people as possible, would you start a thread about "X person murders x amount of people running them over, there must be car control "? I am guessing you would not blame all car owners and start a thread about car control, instead you would try to find what was the ideology that drove that person to commit such crimes. Yet the op targeted the tool used by Johnson to make an argument in favor of more gun control. That was the goal of the op. Instead of waiting to get the facts and see what ideology or ideologies filled this man with hatred, instead the op went directly into making this a "Second amendment issue".

What Johnson did was not a second amendment issue. I am guessing that the OP is not at any time soon going to blame groups like BLM, and the African American Defense League for their calls to murder police officers and white people as the ideologies behind what Johnson did... Johnson was a member, and follower of groups like the African American Defense League, which together with other groups like BLM have been calling for the death of police officers and white people...

This thread was nothing but an attempt to deflect what Johnson did and to turn it into a "second amendment issue". It kind of reminds me to what the Obama administration is doing changing the narrative of events such as Islamic extremist attacks in the U.S. and instead blaming "the second amendment"...

This thread also reminds me of what groups such as SPLC claim that people who question government decisions must be "extremists" and have labeled people like Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Ron Paul amongst others as "extremists"... Which the DOJ claim the SPLC helps them fight "extremism" in the U.S....

It's all about deflection, and blaming the wrong parties and this thread is doing the exact same thing.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I disagree with you. The op himself has admitted that he believes the Second Amendment must be "compromised so we don't lose it"... In other words, he believes there isn't enough gun control and more should be enforced.

It sounds like you actually disagree with the OP. As I have stated, I will vehemently oppose any change to the Second Amendment that restricts or allows restriction of non-fully-automatic firearms. Now, if you oppose restrictions on nukes, perhaps you do disagree with me.

My agreement with the OP is simply that the "defense against tyranny" defense, if it is to be used to support the Second Amendment, must also apply to individuals who are deemed criminal by the result of using that argument. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

In my opinion, that argument is fallacious in any case. One cannot have a right to perform what must by definition be an illegal act. The right one can have is to self-defend. The difference between those two is the difference between offense and defense, or, if you will, between revenge and defense. A fight against an essentially undefined 'tyranny' can be construed to include offense and revenge against anyone believed to be a 'tyrant,' and that belief factor is a major wild card that tries to legalize illegality.

This thread was nothing but an attempt to deflect what Johnson did and to turn it into a "second amendment issue". It kind of reminds me to what the Obama administration is doing changing the narrative of events such as Islamic extremist attacks in the U.S. and instead blaming "the second amendment"...

There is a difference between arguing that the Second Amendment must be compromised and arguing that an interpretation of the reason behind the Second Amendment is fallacious. The Second Amendment would be just as valid if it said, "To make sure that Miss Elly's favorite cow doesn't die, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The key to our rights is the declaration, not the introduction.

Those who propose gun control are attacking the right itself. We are debating the reasoning behind that right.

TheRedneck

We talked about blind belief earlier in this thread, and we've seen multiple examples of that being expressed here. I'm constantly reminded that it is pointless to reason with belief.

Rationality, evidence only have meaning and logical and reasonable communication only happens in a conversation where both sides are willing to listen to the other.

My OP presented a query, not a statement, not an analysis. That question or scenario is very straightforward and fairly easy to understand.

I wonder if this discussion has informed us of anything. For me, I've gained new respect for several members, and am learning to simply ignore those that favor deceitful rhetoric over open and calm discussion. I've realized that the long-standing issue I have with an absolutist or unlimited interpretation of the Second is that many times, the true adherents don't really believe what they claim to, anyway. They don't believe that all Americans have the right to open carry, they may say they do, but they don't. When it comes down to it, too many of these zealots fall back on coded language and dog-whistle terminology that very clearly demonstrates that they only wish THEIR side (however they see that, political, racial, religious, etc.) to have unlimited rights and they want their "enemies" to be jailed for any reason and shot in the streets.

So many complain about petty or invented "government overreach" while openly defending police brutality and "bad kills" as examples of law and order.

This tells me their hearts ... the core beliefs they have ... are the most gutless kind of authoritarian hypocrite.

Yet on the other hand, I've seen one member who is very strongly supportive of a fairly strict interpretation of the 2nd who says wonderfully rational things like:

My agreement with the OP is simply that the "defense against tyranny" defense, if it is to be used to support the Second Amendment, must also apply to individuals who are deemed criminal by the result of using that argument. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

(That is of course a quote from The Redneck's most recent post here.)

Indeed, what a eloquent statement of what equality under the laws actually means ... "good for one, good for the other."

One is either opposed to ALL misuse of power by the state, at every level, or one is merely pouting that their "side" is currently out of power and will do anything to get back in.

Power-over-others is the quandary, the issue, the fault and the problem that we must address and balance out. It's not enough to be a revolutionary when out of power and a partisan when in office.

Honestly, I'm getting disgusted by the whole theatrical mess.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You owe me a hat.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

It sounds like you actually disagree with the OP. As I have stated, I will vehemently oppose any change to the Second Amendment that restricts or allows restriction of non-fully-automatic firearms. Now, if you oppose restrictions on nukes, perhaps you do disagree with me.

I was disagreeing with some of your last posts in which you seemed to agree with the assertion made by the op. BTW, as for the nukes part... overreaching much? You are talking about WMD, a nuke is a wmd that needs specialized knowledge to be kept safely in storage... I am not calling for people being able to own nukes... Nor people being able to own other wmd...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
My agreement with the OP is simply that the "defense against tyranny" defense, if it is to be used to support the Second Amendment, must also apply to individuals who are deemed criminal by the result of using that argument. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Except that the OP made false comments about the "attacks by police he mentioned".

I seen examples of people simply not following instructions by the police and reaching for something down their pants, or making threats while walking towards cops and then the cops shoot them. In some instances the officers find a weapon, while in others there was nothing there. But the officers are not able to read minds and know whether or not those suspects had a weapon, so it is easy for some to claim "but he was unarmed".

www.reuters.com...

Are there cases of police brutality, and other cases in which some police officers have abused their power? Yes, unfortunately it does happen, but it is not a systemic problem.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
In my opinion, that argument is fallacious in any case. One cannot have a right to perform what must by definition be an illegal act. The right one can have is to self-defend. The difference between those two is the difference between offense and defense, or, if you will, between revenge and defense. A fight against an essentially undefined 'tyranny' can be construed to include offense and revenge against anyone believed to be a 'tyrant,' and that belief factor is a major wild card that tries to legalize illegality.
...
Those who propose gun control are attacking the right itself. We are debating the reasoning behind that right.

TheRedneck

I agree with your above statements, but the OP wants to talk about "some people exhibiting blind belief, using deceitful rhetoric, ect" but what did he do?... He claims "police officers are killing too many blacks as well as others but specially blacks" , yet the op doesn't say a peep about the fact that the majority of murders of black people in the U.S. are done by other blacks in gang/drug related problems.

There are cases in which is hard to decide what exactly happened because we only see one advantage point, or hear one point of view, and we can only make an opinion on what we saw, but not on the facts until the facts are made apparent.

The OP trying to link events like what Johnson did with "those who proclaim the Second Amendment also protects against tyranny" is deceitful to say the least.

He claims to be pro second Amendment but is obviously unaware that the founding fathers did agree that the second amendment was about protection, including against tyranny, but what Johnson did, among other people were/are not examples of people fighting against tyranny... The Founding fathers did not state that it was ok to murder on account of "perceived offenses".

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66

You owe me a hat.

TheRedneck

Stetson?

Color?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It appears that you're mostly posting to distract and evangelize, but in good faith, I'm going to try one more time.

Do you comprehend the concept of a "what-if scenario?" If so, that's the thread you're participating in. We're not talking about a factual analysis of the Dallas shooting. We're talking about logical implications of common arguments about an important issue and most of us seem to be having a decent time doing so.

Let me be specific regarding my complaints about what you keep doing here. You've posted stating the opposite of what I have said over and over, you keep misstating and restating things I've said, based on your own beliefs about what I am saying.

I've stated repeatedly and clearly what I intended to accomplish here, and several posters, even those who don't always agree, have had a very pleasant, and I think, enlightening conversation.

Why are you trying to twist repeatedly what we're saying and doing into your own strawman agenda?

Again, I am pointedly NOT SAYING that Michah Johnson is some sort of freedom fighter. I've stated directly at least three times that to me, based on the data, he looks like a deranged murderer. Yet, you keep claiming that I'm saying the opposite.

Do you want to discuss the actual topic here or simply continue to make obnoxious and untrue claims?

Cops will have to kill a lot of innocent people before they are required to be responsible for their acts,

o before there will be separate review boards (like the national transportation and safety review board for aircraft),
o before sane rules of engagement are instituted,
o before they take it among themselves to dissolve the lying and planting of evidence and
o operating as a paramilitary organization (and bragging about it),
o before they stop the 'us vs them' mentality,
o before they reconsider their roles to be to actually protect and serve.

They continue to do actions which result in large pay offs by their city managers which should be sending a message that they are too focused on 'officer safety' and are actually manned by people who are too cowardly to be good cops.

Are there cops who sometimes do good acts. Sure. But if these same cops hide and condone the misdeeds of their buddies are they worthy of being called 'good cops'?

a reply to: Maverick7

If there is misbehavior and actual criminal activity on the part of local law enforcement, in your mind, would that constitute a valid example of government abuse of power and/or tyranny?

Would that kind of activity represent the kind of official action that the Founders put the Second Amendment in place to protect our communities against?

a reply to: Maverick7

If there is misbehavior and actual criminal activity on the part of local law enforcement, in your mind, would that constitute a valid example of government abuse of power and/or tyranny?

Would that kind of activity represent the kind of official action that the Founders put the Second Amendment in place to protect our communities against?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I was disagreeing with some of your last posts in which you seemed to agree with the assertion made by the op.

On many points I do agree with the OP; on others I do not. On 'compromising the Second Amendment,' for example, I am very selective on what could be compromised and what could not. But on the possibility that Johnson was responding to what he legitimately believed to be tyranny, I agree with him. There is no rule of debate which says one must be completely in or not in agreement with another debater. On the contrary, the most effective and useful debates are when the parties attempt to find grounds for partial agreement.

BTW, as for the nukes part... overreaching much?

Not at all. As written, in a strict sense, the Second Amendment protects the right to own any type of weaponry. That includes a nuclear bomb. Our response has been to hand down legislative restrictions and judicial decisions that are in direct opposition to the wording in the Second Amendment. This then becomes a precedent for future action to further weaken it, as we have seen with various weapons bans.

I propose the proper way to remove mass destruction weaponry from Second Amendment protection is to amend it to specifically exclude those weapons where there is essentially unanimous agreement against private ownership... nukes being the most obvious example. Additional examples would be tanks, RPGs, full-auto firearms, etc. By doing this as an amendment, it sets a precedent that the Second Amendment cannot be weakened through legislative or judicial whims.

My greatest concern is that there are a number of activists and politicians who would happily amend it out of existence if possible. Thus my statement about a strict restriction on what I would consider appropriate for inclusion of regulated weaponry.

I seen examples of people simply not following instructions by the police and reaching for something down their pants, or making threats while walking towards cops and then the cops shoot them.

Each case must be taken on a case-by-case basis. You are correct that many cases of police shootings, I would hope the majority of such cases, are justified. Indications of hostile intent, whether real or reasonably imagined, are legitimate cause for the police to use deadly force.

What I do not think believe is justifiable, but which has been reported, is the shooting of a suspect in the back as he is fleeing, the continued rapid-fire use of tazers after a suspect is down, or overly aggressive use of weaponry where there is no reasonable indication the suspect is dangerous. These are cold-blooded murders, not legitimate police responce, and should subject the officers involved to the exact same penalties as any other citizen.

Along the same line of reasoning as my last explanation, an agreement on one point does not indicate blanket agreement on all points. An opinion on one instance of alleged police brutality does not imply a matching opinion on another.

And I do believe instances of legitimate police brutality are becoming far too systemic.

what Johnson did, among other people were/are not examples of people fighting against tyranny...

I do not believe we can make that judgement call. If you will read back a few posts, I proposed a definition of tyranny, and in the process, observed how difficult it was to establish a complete definition which did not indicate tyrannical behavior in our own government. It is absolutely reasonable to believe that perhaps Johnson thought he was rebeling against tyranny.

None of us have the ability to look into his head and feel what he felt. Not me, not the OP, not you. We can examine his statements for clues, and those indicated a tremendous hatred for both police and white people. But do not forget his previous actions indicated a love of country... Johnson was a veteran. So what made him snap? We don't know, but I can accept the possible explanation that he believed he saw tyranny and was reacting to it based on a belief some Second Amendment supporters advocate.

The OP trying to link events like what Johnson did with "those who proclaim the Second Amendment also protects against tyranny" is deceitful to say the least.

Where people argue the right to fight against tyranny, that link is already there. The OP is simply pointing it out.

Where people argue the right to effectively self-defend, no such link is apparent and no such link has been suggested by myself or the OP.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Gryphon66

Only Stetsons qualify as true hats.

Black. It scares people.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Power-over-others is the quandary, the issue, the fault and the problem that we must address and balance out. It's not enough to be a revolutionary when out of power and a partisan when in office.

Honestly, I'm getting disgusted by the whole theatrical mess.

Excellent post!

I think belief can change, but blind belief is usually taken to the grave. Blind belief refuses to listen to or to acknowledge another possibility. The Earth is flat, and that's that!

Yes, both sides must be willing to listen to each other. That is the start of negotiation, the underpinning of democracy. Average Americans saw negotiations in action as members of unions, but starting in the 1980s, union membership declined. Up until the 1990s, negotiations were always a part of the American political process; but a line in the sand was drawn in the 1990s, when the leader of one side, Newt Gingrich, called the other side "enemies". When one side deems the other side "enemies" and is unwilling to no longer compromise, that is a declaration of war on fellow citizens. And with war, there are only battles.

And when one side acts in a highly authoritarian manner, questioning its members' allegiance to party, applying a test for purity, and purging those who don't pass the test, we end up in a fog of authoritarian sentiments. Those who cannot comprehend beyond those sentiments do provide quite a show. A theatrical mess, indeed!

a reply to: Gryphon66

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Forgive me for interjecting here, but as I'm sure you are aware, self-expression is not exactly a problem for me...

EV's points, while seemingly antithetical to the discussion we are having, are nonetheless appropriate to his thinking. If we are to examine the Dallas shooting in the light of potential perceptive differences between individuals, is it not appropriate to realize that EV's perception is just as appropriate?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Any and all comments are appropriate as far as I'm concerned. However, I do feel that we should be honest with each other, and not blatantly, after repeated re-statements of the intent of the OP, and my own position here, restate, misstate and outrightly misrepresent what has been clearly said over and over again.

If anyone wishes to engage with ME personally the only basis to do so is to deal with what I have said, not what their argument requires me to say.

But, sure ... EU and anyone else is free to comment as they wish. Free country.

a reply to: desert

I hadn't realized just how strong my belief is about "belief" until this thread. LOL

I think we must be willing not only to listen to each other, to try to understand the other persons arguments, but also to accept that they quite simply and rightfully believe or hold a position DIFFERENT than ours.

Consensus doesn't require absolute agreement.

I think by and large (and I cite myself equally here) we've become so picayune with our semantics that we pick on one word that someone else uses (like for example here, "belief" and-or "tyranny") and we get stuck in our belief about that word and what it means.

I guess all to often I and others use an inverted Golden Rule ... we do unto others as they have done unto us.

That's backwards, but it's subtly backwards.