It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Teikiatsu
Are you saying that that would be valid in modern society then?
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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
I don't disagree with anything you've said, but, I'm not talking about the logistics of an actual rebellion.
The police are representatives of a government that is seen by some to be committing illegal acts like assassinations, etc. I'm not arguing that point and that's not the topic.
Where is the line drawn between an action of the People and a disgusting murder of innocent police and LEOs?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: jjkenobi
Well I'm 100% certain you cannot claim sniping a random police officer as "self-defense".
I also don't see how you could see it as protecting yourself against the government. If the police officer were at your home trying to confiscate your weapons or your children/family then yes, sure.
But randomly shooting officers on the street = murder.
Is that true as well if you see the police officers as representative of a government (local in this case) that murders its citizens randomly at will? Keep in mind, this larger question is not one of race, because you have situations like LaVoy out in Oregon.
When the State becomes a murderer, is it murder to wage "guerrilla war" (sniping) on that state's foot-soliders (police?)