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

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well to be an effective force you need sufficient numbers, you need a cause enough people are willing to fight for.

If that were to happen it would be one side versus the other. Tyranny vs. liberty most likely.

So to answer your question it would be all of the above. But it's also not that clear cut.

Local police. 
State police. 
Government agents. 
National Guard. 

Parts of those groups would also choose sides. It would be like-minded individuals vs the other like-minded individuals.

It's still illegal to kill people. The Dallas Police were not engaged in attempting to move or suppress or otherwise move against the populace. They were on a beat doing their normal jobs and were ambushed. There is no paradox and no need to trot out the second amendment. Using events like these to promote suspending the second amendment "in the name of safety" simply criminalizes half the population who would never dream of committing a crime or targeting people because of their color. And even if you did this, the criminals would still have guns.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
That certainly the preferable way to change the government; just not the only way.

Better order US Constitution.... there... read read.... ...... Article 1, Section 8...."The Congress shall have power To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions".... Article 3, Section 3 "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

order US History book.... read read ..... ...... Shays' Rebellion..... Whiskey Rebellion

Happy for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions. – Thomas Jefferson

It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. – Abraham Lincoln

a reply to: Gryphon66

Just because the Founders rebelled against the authority of the crown did not exempt them magically from laws of the same authority until they had completely won free.

Every single person who signed the Declaration did so with the knowledge that putting his name to paper was a death sentence if they were captured or lost.

Why do you think John Hancock signed his so large? He wanted to be sure everyone knew he was damned if they caught him.

If this IS what this group is after, and it is a group, we are learning that this was a planned and executed attack, not a lone wolf one off like Charleston, then they have yet to state their intent to rebel, whom they are rebelling against and why and what their intent after winning any rebellion would be. And it would remain to be seen how much of public opinion they would carry in support of their revolution.

And, of course, those who remained loyal or did not support them would be carrying out the laws as per normal. They would not be exempt from it even while rebelling against it. So for that side, this would remain simply a murderous massacre/mass shooting and be prosecuted as such although open rebellion would move it up to the level of treason.

totallyhistory.com...

Many locals knew of the acts of the British forces to remove the gunpowder stores even though an apparent military action was not planned to begin with.

Trying to take the colonists right to defend themselves was one of the last plans of the british before the colonists "stood up to tyranny".

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

George Santayana

a reply to: rockintitz

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but, I'm not talking about the logistics of an actual rebellion.

originally posted by: schuyler
It's still illegal to kill people. The Dallas Police were not engaged in attempting to move or suppress or otherwise move against the populace. They were on a beat doing their normal jobs and were ambushed. There is no paradox and no need to trot out the second amendment. Using events like these to promote suspending the second amendment "in the name of safety" simply criminalizes half the population who would never dream of committing a crime or targeting people because of their color. And even if you did this, the criminals would still have guns.

Of course it's illegal to kill people. It would be illegal to kill people when and if there was an actual move by any of the People to right the wrongs of what they see as a tyrannical government. The police in Dallas were doing their jobs, certainly, but in the scenario I am asking people to consider, the shooters saw those people, doing their jobs, as representative of a government that murders it's own people in the streets and beside the highways.

There is actually a paradox and a reason to reference the Second Amendment in the scenario I suggested in the OP. You may not have read it, but I am not offering an analysis of what actually happened, I'm asking a "what if" question that folks are welcome to respond to or not.

No one is talking about suspending the Second Amendment, please don't try to make this discussion about that. I was very clear in what I said and my question has NOTHING to do with that issue.

a reply to: ketsuko

When does the line get crossed between defense/offense against tyranny and illegal action?

There is plenty of evidence, right here, that any number of people might see any level of our government as corrupt.

What's the line? What's the trigger? WHat's the "acceptable circumstance"?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

When does the line get crossed between defense/offense against tyranny and illegal action?

There is plenty of evidence, right here, that any number of people might see any level of our government as corrupt.

What's the line? What's the trigger? WHat's the "acceptable circumstance"?

I don't know, but for the Bundys and the people who supported them, it was abuse at the hands of the Bureau of Land Management.

I will say that given that all we know about this group is that they were apparently angry enough that they wanted to kill cops and white people and especially white cops, if that is their statement of rebellion and it's guiding principles, it's a wee bit Helter Skelter for me and they are more or less declaring war against roughly 72 to 77% of the country.

I am not sure they would get widespread enough support to succeed with their grievances. Most of us do not have a death wish and a revolution based off of grievance against whites sounds a bit, well, genocidal for me to have a whole lot of sympathy with it.

In practical terms, it likely has something to do with scale, organization, targets chosen, persistence, stated intent, all kinds of things like that.

a reply to: ketsuko

Again not what I'm asking in the OP.

Given the fact that some American citizens, perhaps these people who were shooters in Dallas perhaps not, feel that their government is acting against the rule of law in what is commonly referred to as "tyrannical" take up arms (as many have argued is the fundamental reason for the 2nd) against that government AND the forces that execute the will of that government ... How are we to fault them IF we too believe that it may be necessary at some point to take up arms in defense of what is right. How would that start if not in a scenario like this Dallas shooting a highly planned military style guerilla action?

Are you saying it's only an act of defiance against such a government if a certain number of people are involved? How many?

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

That is absolute GARBAGE.

Micah Johnson wanted to kill WHITE people, and did so because of a perceived 'injustice'.

LEO at the state level has NOTHING to do with FEDERAL rule of law.

Two entirely different animals.

There is no 'paradox'.

Someone is trying to compare apples to oranges.

In other words a FALSE equivalence.

a reply to: neo96

Did you read the OP Neo? May I ask that you do?

I'm asking for input on the scenario I suggested.

Specifically I stated it has nothing to do with race.

Please don't try to divert this thread to something off topic, thx.

a reply to: ketsuko

Just because the Founders rebelled against the authority of the crown did not exempt them magically from laws of the same authority until they had completely won free.

YES they did.

Hell they even left us a guide.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

www.archives.gov...

Key phrase GOVERNMENT.

LEO are NOT government.

It's job is ONLY to enforce LAWS government makes.

And by consent of the governed.

Means DEMOCRACY.

As in a MAJORITY.

Bound by the confines laid out in the BILL of RIGHTS, and the 14th.

a reply to: Gryphon66

And I already told you that the 2nd Amendment is no defense. All it does is give you the right to keep and bear arms. It does not give you a right to rebel anytime you feel like you've been oppressed.

All it does is make sure that if the time comes, you have the chance to try because you have your own weaponry.

Similarly, I already explained that even though you may be rebelling and consider your cause a just one, until you have clearly won through, you are still subject to the laws of the governing entity in full should they catch you.

Ask the South how their cause ended up and how much their explanation of revolt against perceived tyranny helped them when all was said and done. And don't equivocate because I know how you think about it.

a reply to: neo96

Law enforcement officers at the Federal, State and local level are not the executive arm of the government?

Neo, again I'm talking about using the Dallas shooting as a template for a situation in which the direct actions of Government - local, state and Federal are seen as an attack on the People, and someone like the Dallas shooters uses their 2nd amendment rights to stand up to that tyranny.

Please if you don't wish to discuss the topic, again, don't try to derail.

a reply to: neo96

My point with what I said being that even thought the Founders believed their cause just and that it was perfectly right for men to throw off oppressive government, a duty even, it wouldn't have been any excuse to the Brits if they'd lost or been captured. The Brits would have hung them just the same.

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?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Law enforcement officers at the Federal, State and local level are not the executive arm of the government?

No they are NOT.

FEDERAL AID was dispatched AFTER.

Neo, again I'm talking about using the Dallas shooting as a template for a situation in which the direct actions of Government - local, state and Federal are seen as an attack on the People, and someone like the Dalls shooters uses their 2nd amendment rights to stand up to that tyranny.

False EQUIVALENCE.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Neo, again I'm talking about using the Dallas shooting as a template for a situation in which the direct actions of Government - local, state and Federal are seen as an attack on the People, and someone like the Dalls shooters uses their 2nd amendment rights to stand up to that tyranny.

And which tyranny were the Dallas transit police forcing upon the protesters?

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?

The majority of colonists never wanted to rebel against England, but there were enough who did with enough more who supported them that they won, so it happened.