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

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xtrozero

So the fact that all these "isolated pockets" are all saying the same things is just coincidental?

That assertion boggles the mind. Any backup for that claim? For example, any actual quotes from protestors which demonstrate only a local concern and not a national concern?

What are "all these"? There are SOME not "all these". 102 unarmed black people were killed by police in 2015. less than 1/2 were shot and most others were killed being restraint in someway or hit/crashed in police car chase. Yes, there are issues with police in many of these areas but there are 1000s of cities, towns and counties in America.

I agree with the demonstrations to high lite what appears to be too quick reactions in the use of deadly force and that needs to change.

a reply to: Xtrozero

We're not debating whether what folks are upset about is factual. In fact at this point regarding this subject that is inconsequential.

You are arguing that there is not a nation wide concern on the part of a huge number of people that there is a severe problem with the way the government is treating its citizens.

And there obviously is ... Despite the objective "facts" of the matter

a reply to: Gryphon66

Actually, nowhere in the second amendment is there a reference to tyranny. The only express explanation is "A well-regulated militia being necessary..."

Regulation didn't mean then what we think of today... it was more akin to our understanding of "maintained." The militia was simply all the citizens capable of taking up arms in defense of themselves and their country.

And people wonder why I prefer mathematics to english... nm, back on topic.

The point is that, as long as the population has the capability to defend itself, it is safer from attack. The Founding Fathers knew that the first act of tyranny is to remove the tools of resistance from the population. It's a tactic as old as history, practiced by every corrupt dictator ever to walk on dirt. They knew also the dangers of the new government replacing the tyranny they had just overthrown with new tyranny. Attack can come from internal as well as external forces.

So no, the second amendment does not condone violence against anyone. It simply recognizes that sometimes the only way to stop violence is with violent defense, and the best defender is he who is under attack.

TheRedneck

a reply to: desert

All of us,that way WHATEVER comes down the pike we can deal with it as we can.

a reply to: TheRedneck

LOL ... I don't disagree with your comment on the exact wording of the Second, nor on the likely interpretation, nor on the general laxitude of linguistic constructions.

There is however a repetitive argument made in "defense" of the Second and against any gun control leglislation that states that the primary purpose of the amendment is to enable the populace to "stand up" to tyranny ... that certainly seems to imply the right to take action to accomplish that as such.

I don't agree with that interpretation of the 2nd, but it is the most common.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I can't argue that is a common perception, but I can argue with those who hold it that the Constitution is an exactly worded document, not a romance novel. It is not designed to imply.

In the end, we have a right to keep (own) and bare (bring to use when necessary) arms (weapons). Period. I will go farther: that amendment grants us a right, untouchable by the government, to keep and bare ALL arms. I would happily support an amendment to it to specify that certain types of arms (full auto firearms, bazookas, RPGs, nukes) do not have that protection. It would pass easily, and would actually keep the second amendment reasonable and secure.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Very reasonable. I agree.

However, one of the things I hoped people would look at and examine for themselves as we thought about the query or scenario I posed in the OP is the actual logical outcome of constantly hyping that we are to use our firearms to oppose what we see as "tyrannical" on the part of government (any government.)

In the non-theoretical world, I don't think that we can say that Dallas (or Valdosta, or Bristol) is purely an example of that, but what we do see, in at least two of those attacks, is a formally trained ex-American soldier who believed in their hearts (and I will comment that I believe they were wrong, overall, on the facts) that they and their community are under attack, and they did what soldiers are trained to do when faced with an overwhelming force attacking their people ... they went to guerilla tactics.

Harping on the idea that these folks are "wrong" in their beliefs or that they are "controlled" by the media (which is actually fairly insulting if you think about it)) does not move us even one micrometer toward a solution.

In fact, that merely reinforces the problems that we face as a people.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I think we need to think things through, a bit better. I think we need to remember how to compromise in order to make the world as good as we can for as many as we can.

Well said. That is "the coolness of philosophers" which Thomas Jefferson said would be better than "have[ing] recourse to arms".

I think that those born after 1980 do not remember or have seen since the 1990s a nation willing to compromise, to negotiate. In fact, compromise has been deemed a dirty word. Those born after 1980 were born into the beginning of The Great Divide, The Great Schism of America into encampments. Divided over religious beliefs, over social wedge issues, and finally into political encampments, all falling under the cry of "you're either with us or against us", our own fellow citizens being deemed "enemies" of each other.

Into the trench dug for domestic warfare was thrown divisive rhetoric. Just as with the 1914 WW1 Christmas Truce, we sometimes crossed the bridge to join with each other, such as after 9/11; but then just as quickly as in 1914, we went back to fighting, conflict.

We are a nation founded on Compromises, a nation that has used Compromises in the past, and a nation that has listened to "the coolness of philosophers" throughout its history to change itself, to ,as you say, "make the world as good as we can for as many as we can". We can get back on track, but it may take turning around a generation who do not understand negotiation and compromise, so that they can then explain it with their actions to future Americans. If not, then the trenches we dug to keep us apart will become trenches into which we fall into at death.

a reply to: desert

Yes.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The issue as I see it is not that they were armed, but that they had the feeling of being under attack. To expand on another oft-used slice of rhetoric: We don't have a gun problem; we have a minor mental health problem and a major political perception problem.

When we see middle-eastern fanatics committing horrendous acts, then are told we will accept refugees without proper vetting, even after terrorists in other countries have used that refugee immigration as entry, we have a perception that our government is putting us in danger.

When we see our jobs being moved to other countries and our leaders brag about trade bills at the same time, we have a perception that our leaders are hurting us.

When we see daily reports of unarmed, supposedly innocent people being gunned down by police, we have a perception our police force is a ruthless gang.

When we see high-ranking officials escape indictment, while the same speaker in the same release admits openly they violated the law, we have a perception that our leaders believe they are above our laws and dictatorial.

These are problems. They tell us we are trapped and in danger. They tell us we have to fight back or perish. Some will succumb to that feeling faster than others, and that is what we saw in Dallas, Minneapolis, Bristol, and Valdosta. The greater danger is that if the perception is not changed, more and more will succumb to it.

Today we have crimes. Tomorrow we may have a movement. Next week it could be a revolution.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Absolutely agree on general principles, quibbles with details not withstanding.

Well said.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xtrozero

We're not debating whether what folks are upset about is factual. In fact at this point regarding this subject that is inconsequential.

You are arguing that there is not a nation wide concern on the part of a huge number of people that there is a severe problem with the way the government is treating its citizens.

And there obviously is ... Despite the objective "facts" of the matter

I have concerns just as many do, but applying that to the topic of the thread there isn't a nation wide concern to over throw the Government using the 2nd Amendment as a means. A shooter pissed off at an unreasonable level to kill people is not fighting tyranny, nor is there tyranny going on in America. Bad police practices and doctrine within isolated cases is not nation wide tyranny or whatever we want to call an oppressed Government.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xtrozero

We're not debating whether what folks are upset about is factual. In fact at this point regarding this subject that is inconsequential.

You are arguing that there is not a nation wide concern on the part of a huge number of people that there is a severe problem with the way the government is treating its citizens.

And there obviously is ... Despite the objective "facts" of the matter

I have concerns just as many do, but applying that to the topic of the thread there isn't a nation wide concern to over throw the Government using the 2nd Amendment as a means. A shooter pissed off at an unreasonable level to kill people is not fighting tyranny, nor is there tyranny going on in America. Bad police practices and doctrine within isolated cases is not nation wide tyranny or whatever we want to call an oppressed Government.

And neither the OP nor anything I have said or commented on here suggests that there is "a nation wide concern to over throw the Government using the 2nd Amendment as a means ..."

You stated that there is no evidence for nationwide social unrest/distress, and I disagreed with you.

If that the understanding you have of the intent of the discussion, please let me attempt to clarify my query.

A common argument made by "defenders" of the Second Amendment against gun control laws is that the fundamental purpose of the 2nd is to provide for "the people's opposition to a tyrannical government." Given that in situations like Dallas, there is the possibility that one of the motivations for this action was a heartfelt belief that the government (as embodied in the police officers) takes violent, unjustifiable action against its own citizens (not purely racial because Finicum and Castile are examples) and has therefore (in their minds) crossed the line of Tyranny. Therefore, if one accepts the "fundamental purpose of the 2nd" as stated, is there an argument that an individual might take such actions and see them not as murder of LEOs, but as a guerilla action against the foot-soldiers of a tyrannical government?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

A common argument made by "defenders" of the Second Amendment against gun control laws is that the fundamental purpose of the 2nd is to provide for "the people's opposition to a tyrannical government." Given that in situations like Dallas, there is the possibility that one of the motivations for this action was a heartfelt belief that the government (as embodied in the police officers) takes violent, unjustifiable action against its own citizens (not purely racial because Finicum and Castile are examples) and has therefore (in their minds) crossed the line of Tyranny. Therefore, if one accepts the "fundamental purpose of the 2nd" as stated, is there an argument that an individual might take such actions and see them not as murder of LEOs, but as a guerilla action against the foot-soldiers of a tyrannical government?

I think using this logic you can apply it to anything to justify killing since there is no limit to what one can say qualifies as a tyrannical government. A cop could give me a speeding ticket for doing 120 MPH and I could justify killing him for being a tyrannical government foot-soldier, so I don't think that was the intent of the founders.

In the end its the victor who writes the history anyways

a reply to: Gryphon66

There is however a repetitive argument made in "defense" of the Second and against any gun control leglislation that states that the primary purpose of the amendment is to enable the populace to "stand up" to tyranny ... that certainly seems to imply the right to take action to accomplish that as such.

So in essence what you are saying is: You hold on to the 2nd with the argument of a possible fight against government tyranny, but when someone actually fights against what they see as tyranny everybody says "hell no", right?

Well there it is then, bloody paradox. I thought paradoxes had no answer anyway?

Good luck guys with getting your answer, can you let us know in other parts of the world when you solve it? We have been asking the same question for ages, but probably never asked it right. We usually resort to "What the bloody hell would you do against your government anyway, if push came to shove?" or something along those lines.

Question to put out there....

In my 6 decades here in America, I can't remember at what point the idea of "the fundamental purpose of the 2nd is to provide for 'the people's opposition to a tyrannical government.' " rose to prominence. Does anybody remember when that notion started?

I honestly don't remember it before the 1990s.

a reply to: desert

I remember it from the 70s and it wasn't a new notion then.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hmmmm, yes, it may have been heard/read in certain circles in the 1970s

From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960. He began by citing an article in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine and argued that the amendment enforced a “right of revolution,” of which the Southern states availed themselves during what the author called “The War Between the States."

At first, only a few articles echoed that view. Then, starting in the late 1970s, a squad of attorneys and professors began to churn out law review submissions, dozens of them, at a prodigious rate. Funds—much of them from the NRA—flowed freely.

source

I remember increasing public talk of what to do about guns in the 1980s, after Ronald Reagan's shooting; but it was just that there was a right to guns, not that guns were to protect from a tyrannical govt.

Then in the 1990s, there was the famous Wayne Lapierre "jack-booted thugs" fundraising theme about the fed govt. That is when Bush Sr. made his public NRA resignation, over that theme. I think this is what I mean by the idea of tying the 2cd Am to tyranny of the fed govt. It became a widespread notion with Mr. Lapierre's theme. Mr. Lapierre's background had been as a lobbyist and political consultant, so I am not surprised that he would come up with that theme in 1995 while working for the NRA.

Up until now, I don't think it occurred to Americans that there was a paradoxical nature to this theme. I wonder if the NRA will continue to work that theme or find a new fundraising theme.

a reply to: desert

That's what my history taught it was for, in Colorado.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

What year?

I remember history classes discussing tyrannical King George and govt classes discussing tyranny in general, that would have been in the 1970s.