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

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes I heard what you said. I'm saying you're incorrect.

The fundamental argument justifying the sacrosanct nature of the 2nd draws on the argument that we have a fundamental right through the English Common law to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

You're no more of an authority here than anyone else. You're welcome to discuss but please address the topic NOT what you want to try to turn it into.

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 revolutionary war was fought by 3% of the colonial population, with additional logistical support from foreign nations.

who would use the 2nd in the dallas shootings ? the targets were good guys with guns !

shake my head

a reply to: Gryphon66

You're no more of an authority here than anyone else.

Which means self inclusion.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Are you saying that that would be valid in modern society then?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

The protesters were not the snipers.

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?

double post on phone

I'm going to stop here until I get back to the computer ... Please stay on topic ... Many folks here want to discuss the issue in presenting

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Are you saying that that would be valid in modern society then?

Nah, I'm just being a devil's advocate against the idea that a 'small group' is invalid. The Bundy Ranch protesters are a similar comparison, as far as I'm concerned.

But also to give an idea of what 3% of America would be like today... the population of America is 6% black men. Meaning to be comparable to the American revolution, 50% of all black men would need to be mobilizing against the police countrywide.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Where is the line drawn between an action of the People and a disgusting murder of innocent police and LEOs?

When a piece of paper that was already sourced get created.

Listing a long train of abuses.

Declaring separation.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

This is not a comparison to the American Revolution once again.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Because that part of things is found in the Declaration of Independence.

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.

The document then lists the grievances in detail.

Then they list the measures they have taken to petition for redress for grievance (maybe why it's also in the Bill of Rights? along with Amendment 2) ...

Then the signing.

A lot of the COTUS was shaped by the Founders' experiences with the government of England leading up to and during the Revolution. You cannot understand it if you don't look at it through the lens of history. The Revolution would not have been successful without the access to arms. Hence, after having experiences with both grossly abusive government whose only answer to complaint was to become even more abusive and having to rebel militarily to rectify that, the Founders left the door open in their foundational documents for future generations to attempt the same if needed.

a reply to: ketsuko

Still not a comparison to the American Revolution.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Invalid as a voice to be recognised, certainly not. Invalid as a medium for full scale bloody, social revolution...anybody with a modicum of intelligence knows the answer to that I think.

a reply to: Gryphon66

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

I was pointing out what these people perpetrating these random attacks don't have.

A following. A plan. A mission.

Chaotic random attacks with no clearly defined end goals do not constitute a rebellion. They're cowards taking pot shots at anyone they can.

a reply to: Gryphon66

If you want to know when the 2nd ties in to rebellions, then you have to understand why it's there to begin with, and that has to go back to the first Revolution.

I understand this makes an unsavory comparison because right now we have no declarative statement from this movement, assuming such exists, beyond being mad at BLM, wanting to kill whites and wanting to especially kill white cops.

But you can't invite a discussion of the reason why so many use the argument that the 2nd is partially there to guard against tyranny of government without discussing why that argument is made which, like it or not, goes that far back.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The protesters were not the snipers.

I never said they were.

I never said they were

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.

The police are the law enforcement personnel for the local government. How others choose to see them is not the issue.

If the Dallas Transit Authority is assassinating people on order of the Dallas mayor, there might be an argument.

Where is the line drawn between an action of the People and a disgusting murder of innocent police and LEOs?

It can only be an action of the People if it has support of the People (ketsuko estimates 30%+), or at the very least the People are not telling them to stop. I'm sure there are some vocal minority who think this is justified, but they are not the voice of the People.

In this case these murderers took cheap shots against unarmored soft targets. The DTA was not rounding up protesters. It was not tear-gassing. They did not have riot gear out and ready to go. They were not attacking the BLM. The DTA (nor any other police department in the nation) are under orders to kill every black man they see.

These murderers have made no public declaration against the police, the Dallas Transit Authority, the city of Dallas, the state of Texas, or the United States. They have made no redress of grievances. The colonial rebels made their thoughts publicly known to the British crown.

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?)

When the state becomes a murderer of otherwise law-abiding citizens, yes.
In circumstances where a splinter group takes aim on law enforcement trying
to protect peaceful protestors-- no matter what the context, absolutely not.

The extreme countermeasure of utilizing remote explosive technology in a
domestic sutuation has a precedent this week. I know the latter was off-
topic, but relevant. Where is a visible and overt over-reach made to notice?
Possibly only in the individual's ability to do so, and notice others' like mind.

It took a lot less injustice, yet more people of a like mind to revolt in the
18th century here. How scrambled the collective American mind remains is
the push against the tipping point that will likely never be breached either.

"We need a catalyzing event.." Dick Cheney. I would add universally galvanizing.

a reply to: ketsuko

Don't forget now.

King George was a RACIST.

That was over thrown by other RACISTS.

That didn't give a crap about 'slaves' until the 1800s.

Then didn't give a crap about their RIGHTS until the 1960s.

And still didn't really give a crap until somewhere between 2008-2016

When it became politically beneficial.

Then after a shooting in Dallas.

Someone claims a 'paradox' and tried to equate the 2nd to a mass police shooting.

a reply to: neo96

Thanks for your on topic answer Neo.

So for you the defense against government tyranny is limited to a re-enactment of the American Revolution.

I see what you mean.

PS get your little off topic temper tantrum out of the way. Numerous posters here recognize I have not "equated" this shooting to anything except what I have stated which you are grossly trying to misstate.

doh