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

originally posted by: introvert
Interesting approach.

If the intent of the 2nd is to allow individuals the right to protect themselves from what they believe to be tyrannical government, and that was the driving force behind those shooters in Dallas, are we not required to consider their act within the protections of the constitution?

On the other hand, if we would not consider that argument and simply charged them with murder, does that not give weight to the argument that the 2nd is not a right of the citizens to protect themselves from tyrannical government, but instead a right to help protect the government itself?

Yes, that is pretty much exactly the hypothetical I wish to ponder in the OP.

Even if the Dallas shooter(s) were proven to be partially "racist" in motivation, in a similar situation where only LEOs seem to have been targeted, and the shooter intends to stand against what they see as police/government brutality in basically murdering citizens ... how does would such an implementation of the actual argument of the Second Amendment not draw praise from anti-gun law proponents?

a reply to: Gryphon66

One man's terrorists is another's hero. All depends on which side you are on.

That is what it all boils down to.
Look at how long Jim Crow laws were tolerated in the Southern US.... until the issue got enough popular support, civil disobedience would accomplish nothing.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So, we come to my query: if it is revealed that the snipers involved in the Dallas shooting, who pointedly only struck against law-enforcement personnel, are among those that truly believe that there is a universal if not coordinated effort among the various levels of law-enforcement in this country to use their powers to overtly murder individual citizens ... how is this not right in line with the idea of a legitimate "standing against tyranny" response as commonly advocated by opponents of gun control laws?

I see the argument, I truly do. Though I'd be cautious to agree or condone it, (especially online) because that is the climate we live in today. I would also argue rationally, that this kind of thing is absolutely not what will win out against tyranny in this day an age.

Not unless the entire country revolted at the exact same, precise moment. The chances for that are slim. You are talking about a revolution, civil-war and it would likely bleed out much worse and much longer than anticipated, with foreign state actors getting involved. I read a thread a couple days ago, talking about simulations done with civil war, and in that case, Russia or others are going to proxy in arms/munitions, and then its not even about USA anymore. You have anyone in the military who decides to switch sides and suddenly it's a cluster####. They have this all worked out, (x)% rebel, (x)% refuse to align, government does (x) people do (y) and I think it's plans like these that likely scare people in power so much, it probably led to the militarization of police, which partly caused the problem to begin with, a self fulfilling prophecy.

But anyway, back to the point. One could argue that if people just allowed some realistic gun control debate and action, removing the ease of weapon procurement, mental health policies related to guns, etc-that in itself would appease the government. And taking up arms, like in the case mentioned, this only causes them to screw down harder, leading the country closer and closer to an armed conflict.

I don't say this as someone in favour of gun control or hoping to see the 2nd amendment washed. I say this looking at the issue objectively, as a worldwide issue. What's best for the US? Idk. But I will say, the 2nd amendment is commonly referred to as a 'protector from tyranny' or 'protector of our rights' except that all the peoples rights have been stripped away slowly over time. And to me it appears like the people have been hoodwinked.

Everyone is worrying about losing the 2nd amendment its like they hadn't paid attention losing every other right. So long as they kept that one. It really looks like that from the outside.

I covered this in a recent thread I did. and while some interpreted it as me trying to inject gun control debate into another topic, it truly wasn't.

This is my short-list on fixing the US:

1. Get money out of politics-lobbying/elections
2. No bailouts, ever. (Isn't that communism? 1960s called, "Irony")
3. Health care costs, free-universal if this high, lower if private.
4. No killing with "collateral damage" in peoples name, remotely, in undeclared war.
5. No spying on its own citizens
6. Remove all prohibitionist laws and divert drug problems to healthcare
7. Ban all NGOs or "citizen rights groups" funded by large corporate interests.
8. A corporation is not a person, unless it gets a brain & heart. Sorry.
9. Evaporate the TSA

I think every single thing on that list, everything related, that has been done, is a far worse violation of rights on the people. And it's happened because everyone's been distracted by their guns. Anytime they need to pass some arbitrary law that allowed the above, they would threaten gun control, so long as the 2nd amendment was protected, they could widdle away the other constitutional rights.

Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Holland, Iceland...is just a short list of countries that get stuff done politically. The two party system has failed in the US. It doesn't work. The above countries can get positive political change without the threat of guns. They aren't perfect, but they have suffered far less in the last 50 years vs the US in respect to their peoples rights.

So maybe thats the problem. People in the US are convinced they are protected by the 2nd amendment. It only protects you as a last resort. Frankly, if you make it to that point, you've already lost. There needs to be ideological and intellectual protections as much as there needs to be physical. You need active political protections, not last last resort protections.

Unless it gets to the point where the country implodes, the 2nd amendment does not have the ability to protect people from anything. And by that point everyone loses. The destabilization will ripple and destroy the world as we know it. It might help you sleep believing its protecting you, but if you look at the actual facts, look at history, look at what allowed the country to get into the state its currently in, everyone's been distracted holding their guns.

Ignore the gun control aspect of this post by the way. It's clear the only way to move forward positively, is for the people to admit to themselves and the government concede in kind: 1-the two party system doesnt work and needs to be abolished, 2-peoples rights have already been eroded and need to be returned, 3-much of the stated was achieved by manipulating the public with threats against the 2nd.

Whether or not gun control would be needed to fix it would be part of the debate. But its not worth that concession unless you get something in return, and that is an intelligent way to negotiate with government, which gives people a power they currently lack.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Gryphon66

Added it to my reply

Thank you. That is a sad statement on the state of interracial relations in this country.

However, my basic question remains. IF the shooter believes that he was acting against a tyrannical Government by striking against the foot soldiers (LEOs) of same ... isn't this an actual implementation of the arguments surrounding the Second Amendment?

If not, how do we know the difference? There are not many situations in the real world in which someone has a singular motivation. This shooter as motivated by race as well. Does that mean that they weren't exercising tehir Second Amendment rights?

Where is the line drawn?

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Gryphon66

IF the shooters thought they were acting in defense of nation against a usurpacious government then...

I'm really not sure.

We had a revolution in our nation once before against the English, are there any similarities?

What caused or sparked the American Revolution?

I think it is a guarentee they did...


I mean how many shady unarmed police shootings, where no one even faced charges were going to happen before some idiot does something stupid...



You can't allow authorities to act without accountability. Since the state will not hold them accountable a bunch of crazy people are..

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, I was really asking more of a question.

At the end of the day, the most effective tool vs a usurpacious government, is mass civil disobedience and non-cooperation.

I would argue that people have a right to own whatever firearm they want, its a matter of principle.

Guns are not the problem. Violence is the problem.

I think most see an armed retaking of the government to play out with a majority coming together all at once to fight. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Events leading up to the Revolutionary War had plenty of skirmishs before it totally kicked off and I can't see it being any different today if it came to that... God forbid.

There may be an initial united push in the beginning, but it would then turn into pockets of resistance and guerilla warfare.

There are many weapons out there but not many consider their weapons will ever have to be used in such a manner and frankly quite a few won't have the stomach for what must be done. I'm not saying a majority of Americans are cowards per se, I'm just saying many are fairly conditioned in other ways which would inhibit their ability to fight. "Armchair patriots" if you will; they enjoy the idea of being armed, but probably won't take any action and would rather take on a more logistical support role.

This is just my hypothetical opinion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Gryphon66

Added it to my reply

Thank you. That is a sad statement on the state of interracial relations in this country.

However, my basic question remains. IF the shooter believes that he was acting against a tyrannical Government by striking against the foot soldiers (LEOs) of same ... isn't this an actual implementation of the arguments surrounding the Second Amendment?

If not, how do we know the difference? There are not many situations in the real world in which someone has a singular motivation. This shooter as motivated by race as well. Does that mean that they weren't exercising tehir Second Amendment rights?

Where is the line drawn?

All of those conspiracy "they are comming to ban guns" crowd doesn't seem to realize it is American service members they would be killing when fighting against "tyranny".

Our own sons and daughters, fathers and mothers....

With the way the media sells this stuff as a racial issue rather than an accountability issue concerning all citizens is partially to blame, as well as a total lack of accountability by law enforcement..

originally posted by: EternalShadow
I think most see an armed retaking of the government to play out with a majority coming together all at once to fight. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Events leading up to the Revolutionary War had plenty of skirmishs before it totally kicked off and I can't see it being any different today if it came to that... God forbid.

There may be an initial united push in the beginning, but it would then turn into pockets of resistance and guerilla warfare.

There are many weapons out there but not many consider their weapons will ever have to be used in such a manner and frankly quite a few won't have the stomach for what must be done. I'm not saying a majority of Americans are cowards per se, I'm just saying many are fairly conditioned in other ways which would inhibit their ability to fight. "Armchair patriots" if you will; they enjoy the idea of being armed, but probably won't take any action and would rather take on a more logistical support role.

This is just my hypothetical opinion.

More the fact we have families and really cushy lives to throw away on a revolution over BS political talking points.


You need a labor force willing to do house to house fighting if you want to ban guns...a really big one....


The army wouldn't do it...

Local police wouldn't do it...

No one would be willing to.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You have offered an interesting perspective.
Law enforcement is an arm of the government, and would be the "first line" enforcers. Had the suspects in the dallas shootings only shot law enforcement your theory may have more weight. Civilians were reportedly shot so I don't think an argument of "standing against tyranny" would hold up.
That said this may be what the beginning of what "standing against tyranny" would look like. It is ugly and will tear the country apart.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: introvert
Interesting approach.

If the intent of the 2nd is to allow individuals the right to protect themselves from what they believe to be tyrannical government, and that was the driving force behind those shooters in Dallas, are we not required to consider their act within the protections of the constitution?

On the other hand, if we would not consider that argument and simply charged them with murder, does that not give weight to the argument that the 2nd is not a right of the citizens to protect themselves from tyrannical government, but instead a right to help protect the government itself?

Yes, that is pretty much exactly the hypothetical I wish to ponder in the OP.

Even if the Dallas shooter(s) were proven to be partially "racist" in motivation, in a similar situation where only LEOs seem to have been targeted, and the shooter intends to stand against what they see as police/government brutality in basically murdering citizens ... how does would such an implementation of the actual argument of the Second Amendment not draw praise from anti-gun law proponents?

Excellent question. If these people truly believed they were acting in a manner that suppressed government tyranny, a 2nd amendment supporter that believes the 2nd is a right to protect ourselves from such tyranny should logically support the intent behind the act.

If they did not, that would mean that particular 2nd amendment supporter only supports the exercising of that right based on their personal interpretation of tyranny.

I've never looked at this issue that way.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, I was really asking more of a question.

At the end of the day, the most effective tool vs a usurpacious government, is mass civil disobedience and non-cooperation.

I would argue that people have a right to own whatever firearm they want, its a matter of principle.

Guns are not the problem. Violence is the problem.

Name one instance where that worked??


There are countless examples of armed revolutionaries taking power, but I'm not sure nonviolent protestors ever have..

a reply to: EternalShadow
It is generally accepted that 20% of the Colonists were loyal to the British Crown during the Revolution.
A third of the population supported the Revolution, while the rest basically sat back and watched it play out, willing to accept either outcome.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: introvert
Interesting approach.

If the intent of the 2nd is to allow individuals the right to protect themselves from what they believe to be tyrannical government, and that was the driving force behind those shooters in Dallas, are we not required to consider their act within the protections of the constitution?

On the other hand, if we would not consider that argument and simply charged them with murder, does that not give weight to the argument that the 2nd is not a right of the citizens to protect themselves from tyrannical government, but instead a right to help protect the government itself?

Yes, that is pretty much exactly the hypothetical I wish to ponder in the OP.

Even if the Dallas shooter(s) were proven to be partially "racist" in motivation, in a similar situation where only LEOs seem to have been targeted, and the shooter intends to stand against what they see as police/government brutality in basically murdering citizens ... how does would such an implementation of the actual argument of the Second Amendment not draw praise from anti-gun law proponents?

Excellent question. If these people truly believed they were acting in a manner that suppressed government tyranny, a 2nd amendment supporter that believes the 2nd is a right to protect ourselves from such tyranny should logically support the intent behind the act.

If they did not, that would mean that particular 2nd amendment supporter only supports the exercising of that right based on their personal interpretation of tyranny.

I've never looked at this issue that way.

I think that is universal...

The villian is only the hero for the other side.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: EternalShadow
I think most see an armed retaking of the government to play out with a majority coming together all at once to fight. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Events leading up to the Revolutionary War had plenty of skirmishs before it totally kicked off and I can't see it being any different today if it came to that... God forbid.

There may be an initial united push in the beginning, but it would then turn into pockets of resistance and guerilla warfare.

There are many weapons out there but not many consider their weapons will ever have to be used in such a manner and frankly quite a few won't have the stomach for what must be done. I'm not saying a majority of Americans are cowards per se, I'm just saying many are fairly conditioned in other ways which would inhibit their ability to fight. "Armchair patriots" if you will; they enjoy the idea of being armed, but probably won't take any action and would rather take on a more logistical support role.

This is just my hypothetical opinion.

More the fact we have families and really cushy lives to throw away on a revolution over BS political talking points.


You need a labor force willing to do house to house fighting if you want to ban guns...a really big one....


The army wouldn't do it...

Local police wouldn't do it...

No one would be willing to.

I wouldn't say they wouldn't try it.. How many resisted the house to house "test" in Boston? You might say that was circumstantial, but it was still a HUGE infringement.

Now with the use of foreign troops perhaps? My hypothesis would change dramatically. Americans will not stand for that at all.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Mass civil disobedience?

Gandhi's India.

They kicked out the British without firing a single shot.

But dont get me wrong, I'm not saying people should be limited as to what they can own.

I'm simply suggesting that there are more effective ways to deal with a pain in the butt government.

a reply to: boncho

Thank you. Your post speaks eloquently and fully to the question I'm looking at.

Like you, I am not in favor of generic "gun control" efforts and believe the Second Amendment to be just as important as all the others. It is the constitutional basis of our nation.

However, when I hear the "we need our guns to stand up against tyranny" argument, I always wonder whether they are actually ready to do so? Have they considered what that action would mean, what it would be like?

It would involve firing on local and/or State police, federal Agents, etc. Looking at this scenario in Dallas provides a real-world example of what that might be like.

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.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66

One man's terrorists is another's hero. All depends on which side you are on.

That is what it all boils down to.
Look at how long Jim Crow laws were tolerated in the Southern US.... until the issue got enough popular support, civil disobedience would accomplish nothing.

Indeed. Excellent observation.

Again, I'm not arguing that the Dallas shooter(s) DID feel like they were standing against tyranny ... but it's conceivable, even if they were also motivated by racist delusions, that they do see the actions of some police and LEOS as "government overreach."

I think it's a question we will have to answer and address increasingly in the coming years. Thanks for your comment!

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Yes. Exactly. Tyranny that must be opposed doesn't exist only in the abstract.

It would be Americans we would be against ... the police, the State troopers, the National Guard, the FBI/ATF etc.

I believe that when we make those arguments ... we need to be grounded in reality and think about what we are saying.

Great post!