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

a reply to: NOTurTypical

All I know is that every time some white lunatic mows people down in a cinema or school, the NRA bolts out of the gate to remind us that "the only defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Might the problem here be that in Dallas, they proved that the best defense against an angry, well trained guy with a gun is a robot with a bomb?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

*sigh* Yeah that's not the topic.

We are not analyzing the facts pro-or-con of the police shootings.

a reply to: DJW001

But how hard is it for the average citizen to acquire a robot that can detonate a bomb? Citizens were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves. It's the people's check on government.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NOTurTypical

*sigh* Yeah that's not the topic.

We are not analyzing the facts pro-or-con of the police shootings.

You're the one who presupposed LE are "murdering people".

a reply to: NOTurTypical

But how hard is it for the average citizen to acquire a robot that can detonate a bomb?

Nowadays, any child can build one... and once again, you are missing the point: why the silence from the NRA?

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I loved your link! Family members (women as well as men) have served in past wars. Thanks!

Re "the true militia, as called for in the Constitution?" , then it is only current armed forces that should bear arms? Or are you saying that the right to bear arms is also extended to veterans?

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NOTurTypical

*sigh* Yeah that's not the topic.

We are not analyzing the facts pro-or-con of the police shootings.

You're the one who presupposed LE are "murdering people".

What do you call it when a cop shoots a man dead over a "broken tail-light?"

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: DJW001

But how hard is it for the average citizen to acquire a robot that can detonate a bomb? Citizens were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves. It's the people's check on government.

AH, a glimmer of the actual topic!

And if people (first Dallas, now Tennessee, Georgia, Missouri, et. al.) feel like they are defending themselves by proactively attacking the government via its foot-soldiers (law enforcement) a government these people see as attacking the people of the United States (hypothetically of course) ... how is that not at all related to the argument that the Second Amendment provides for a check on government overreach, abuse, tyranny, etc.?

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NOTurTypical

*sigh* Yeah that's not the topic.

We are not analyzing the facts pro-or-con of the police shootings.

You're the one who presupposed LE are "murdering people".

That is not true. Get on topic.

a reply to: DJW001

Because like many others, they're still shocked by what happened. I'm sure in the days to come, they'll have plenty to say, as Congress ramps up their latest, if you keep track, "gun control" efforts.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: NOTurTypical

But how hard is it for the average citizen to acquire a robot that can detonate a bomb?

Nowadays, any child can build one... and once again, you are missing the point: why the silence from the NRA?

The 2A was given to us by the founders to check the Fed. The Fed is armed, and an armed citizenry is a force equalizer on the Fed. The founders statements affirm this is the purpose of the 2A.

If I'm missing your point then please explain it better, why exactly are you concerned with?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NOTurTypical

*sigh* Yeah that's not the topic.

We are not analyzing the facts pro-or-con of the police shootings.

You're the one who presupposed LE are "murdering people".

That is not true. Get on topic.

You said this in my initial response to you, am I not allowed to address a statement you made? It's a critical point to make that the media is trying to sell the public a false narrative.

That's an interesting observation, but I wonder how relevant it is to the question. I'm not talking about a statistical situation here, I'm talking about the real, heartfelt belief among many Americans that our government (Federal, State and local) is out of control and that it's agents (police and other LEOs) are acting directly against American citizens to unjustly murder them.

The Second Amendment verified the English common law right to hold and bear arms to Americans citizens for the defense of themselves, their communities, and at need their nation.

Defense of their communities might have involved directly opposing acts of overreach and tyranny by government. In their world, this would mostly likely have come at the hands of the State Governors many of whom were loyal to the British Crown not the tiny Federal Government in Washington.

This absolute warping of the facts of history, that the Second Amendment was ONLY directed at somehow limiting the acts of the United States Federal Government is pure absolute hogwash.

Let's get back on topic, please.

a reply to: Gryphon66

But the man in Dallas never said or implied he was trying to protect himself or others from the government. He said he hated white people and the cops. His motive was hatered, not self-defense or preservation of rights. It was a calculated and planned mass murder of law enforcement officers.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Sure you can address any comment I actually made ... that doesn't let you paraphrase and misrepresent what I said.

Many Americans do BELIEVE that the govenrment regularly oversteps its authority particularly in the area of killing citizens.

The normal saw about the incredible power of the media is not going to work here. Talk about facts.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
And if people (first Dallas, now Tennessee, Georgia, Missouri, et. al.) feel like they are defending themselves by proactively attacking the government via its foot-soldiers (law enforcement) a government these people see as attacking the people of the United States (hypothetically of course) ... how is that not at all related to the argument that the Second Amendment provides for a check on government overreach, abuse, tyranny, etc.?

Just one of the groups that Micah Johnson followed online is the African American Defense League. Their title says it all, and they have declared a reason to subscribe to their Second Amendment rights.

“Since the government can’t or refuse to protect its black citizens, we enact/reserve our rights to bear arms.” Dr. Mauricelm-Lei Millere

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Gryphon66

But the man in Dallas never said or implied he was trying to protect himself or others from the government. He said he hated white people and the cops. His motive was hatered, not self-defense or preservation of rights. It was a calculated and planned mass murder of law enforcement officers.

May I ask that you go back and read the OP, or the many times I've clarified what we're talking about here?

We are not doing an armchair analysis of the Dallas shootings, we are considering a common argument made about the Second Amendment considering the Dallas shootings (and now TN, GA, MO) as a template. Thanks.

originally posted by: desert

originally posted by: Gryphon66
And if people (first Dallas, now Tennessee, Georgia, Missouri, et. al.) feel like they are defending themselves by proactively attacking the government via its foot-soldiers (law enforcement) a government these people see as attacking the people of the United States (hypothetically of course) ... how is that not at all related to the argument that the Second Amendment provides for a check on government overreach, abuse, tyranny, etc.?

Just one of the groups that Micah Johnson followed online is the African American Defense League. Their title says it all, and they have declared a reason to subscribe to their Second Amendment rights.

“Since the government can’t or refuse to protect its black citizens, we enact/reserve our rights to bear arms.” Dr. Mauricelm-Lei Millere

That's really interesting. Our little "theoretical" pondering may be approaching a real-world circumstance.

Hmmm. I wish that fact made me happier.

a reply to: Gryphon66

This absolute warping of the facts of history, that the Second Amendment was ONLY directed at somehow limiting the acts of the United States Federal Government is pure absolute hogwash.

It's certainly not "absolute hogwash", we have the writings of the founders and the men who debuted and signed the Bill of Rights. I'll add a few of them:


"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison


"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams



And I could go on, and on, and on, and on. The founders and framers of our Bill of Rights were clear and unambiguous about the 2A right of all citizens.

edit on 9-7-2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)