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

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?)

originally posted by: shooterbrody
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.

I see that you see my quandry/issue perfectly.

The majority were LEOs. I think there was one civilian wounded.

Yes, you encapsulate the point. When it came to "defending against tyranny" that would not happen in the abstract ... it would be our local police, National Guard ... maybe even our neighbors.

This side of the equation must be considered as well.

Great post!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Any time matters or questions regarding the intersection of gun control laws and the Second Amendment arise, the argument is made that the fundamental purpose of the 2nd is to allow citizens to stand up against a tyrannical government and its agents.

There are many Americans who, right or wrong, feel that many local police departments across the country are demonstrating an incomprehensible and repulsive lack of respect for the rule of law and proper law enforcement procedures in apprehending alleged criminals. We call this police brutality, overreach, etc.

The accusation from many Americans is that police and similar law-enforcement agents (as the enforcement arm of the local, State and Federal governments) have basically murdered American citizens while in the process of apprehension of suspected criminals, i.e. those suspected of but not convicting of various levels of crime.

This is not a racial issue. There have been accusations directed at the disproportionate number of Blacks seemingly executed, but, we also have the same kinds of accusations directed at those who have killed White people ... like for example, the situation surrounding the death of LaVoy Finicum in Oregon.

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? It was obviously a pre-meditated, coordinated effort to intentionally strike at police.

How do we answer this if these individuals were, at least in their own mind, acting proactively to protect the citizens of the United States from well-armed foot soldiers of a overbearing and tyrannical government?

(I would like to request that all members responding do so with logical, reasonable, on-topic posts, backed up where necessary by established facts.)

What say you ATS?

It is an interesting comparison to the original American Revolution. At it's start it was regular citizens, who had enough of the tyrannical British governments taxes and imposition of military forces into their city of Boston and their own homes. There were many instances of the citizens attacking British sympathizers and destroying their homes, etc... But, not armed killing took place until after the Boston Massacre event on March 5th 1770. That was the first blood shed in the fight. Blood shed, coincidentally, of one Crispus Attucks (a black man). That one event, and the medias conflagration of it caused many more citizens to join the rebellion.
Info on the 1770 "Boston Massacre"

Long story short, the killing began 5 years after an unarmed civilian black man was killed by the British soldiers. Even though there was a trial, and several were found guilty, it was the media (mainly Paul Revere) that whipped the public into a frenzy over it all during those intervening years. Does that sound familiar?

The next blood shed was when the British regulars (army soldiers) marched from Boston to Lexington & Concord to seize the cache of stored cannon, black powder, and shot from the citizens that were arming themselves in protection of themselves and homes. Again, there assembled on Lexington Green, the colonists faced off against the British regular army. At the height of the tension, a shot rang out (nobody knows which side fired first). Eight colonists lay dead on the field.

How does this compare to this situation in Dallas? Well, it is a loose comparison IMO. The police force is technically not a military arm of the US Government. It was heading in that direction with the program to sell surplus military hardware to these organizations, but that was stopped a while back. I have a few questions about this Dallas event (as I have not followed it closely enough to know).

Q: Was the police armed with these military surplus weapons and gear during this protest?
Q: Did the police act above and beyond their duty to keep the protest civil and non-violent?
Q: Who fired the first shot?
My Opinion: If the police fired the first shot, then these snipers, were justified in their actions against THESE officers at this time. If not, then this is not a case of self defense or of justified homicide. It is tantamount to murder. Even if it was in retaliation for a previous event, using the Revolutionary analogue, the colonists did not openly fire at the British soldiers until the fight had begun AT THAT TIME (not in retaliation for the events prior to that day).

That is my assessment.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
But randomly shooting officers on the street = murder.

But these were not random shootings. This was an attack, planned. There was mention of IED's planted. It seems that in the minds of those carrying out this massacre this was a needed confrontation with an arm of govt.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Are you aware of any "guerrilla type" actions in the Revolutionary war? I admitted earlier that I wasn't and havent' done the research.

Something similar to what we would call snipers today?

The second point deals more with the specific case there in Dallas. Remember that in the scenario I'm entertaining, the shooters feel that recent cases of "police brutality and assassination" are more than enough proof that the government has become an enemy of the people. They see the cops as the foot-soldiers of this tyrannical government. They took action (as snipers or guerillas) on that basis (at least, in their own minds and understanding).

Doesn't that come under the umbrella of a citizenry standing up for itself against oppression and potential murder?

If not, why not?

originally posted by: desert

originally posted by: jjkenobi
But randomly shooting officers on the street = murder.

But these were not random shootings. This was an attack, planned. There was mention of IED's planted. It seems that in the minds of those carrying out this massacre this was a needed confrontation with an arm of govt.

That was precisely the element of this attack that made me start thinking along these lines. It was apparently a coordinated attack by someone using at least a fundamental understanding of "military" tactics.

Great minds?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Interesting question! I would say that unless and until someone thus charged, asserts that as a defense, in public and in open court, we will not really know. I suspect though that doing so will ignite a much more open discussion in the general public.

originally posted by: Enderdog
a reply to: Gryphon66

Interesting question! I would say that unless and until someone thus charged, asserts that as a defense, in public and in open court, we will not really know. I suspect though that doing so will ignite a much more open discussion in the general public.

I think it's an important question all round. For all of us on any and all "sides" of these issues. We must stop yelling at each other across the trenches of our arbitrary political positions and as we used to say "get real."

Of note, the one shooter that has been identified thus far seems to have had no prior criminal record.

HuffPo

Not sure they qualify as a well regulated militia. I see no way this is a self defence issue. There is not enough evidence to suggest all police are government agents looking to kill people and they need revolted against.
All the police I ever knew just want to keep the peace and go home to their family safely at the end of the day.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Aw, shucks, I'm just someone who lived through the 1960s and remembers it very well.

When a group of people see that another group is "out to get them", they usually retaliate. If this Dallas group felt that "jack-booted thugs" were acting against them and they had no other recourse except armed violence, then they would act accordingly. Will their action inspire others to take up arms against the govt power structure? Time will tell if cooler heads prevail.

BTW we are talking here not about private citizens against other private citizens. This IS private citizens taking up arms against a govt group.

a reply to: gladtobehere

The boston massacre

The Boston Massacre was the killing of five colonists by British regulars on March 5, 1770. It was the culmination of tensions in the American colonies

The high taxes had people bitching and complaining for awhile but they didn`t take up arms until the brits starting shooting people in the streets,that`s when the top blew off off powder keg and all hell broke loose in the colonies.

originally posted by: Orionx2
Not sure they qualify as a well regulated militia. I see no way this is a self defence issue. There is not enough evidence to suggest all police are government agents looking to kill people and they need revolted against.
All the police I ever knew just want to keep the peace and go home to their family safely at the end of the day.

In the real non-theoretical world for a moment, let me say clearly that I absolutely agree with your statement. The vast majoirty of LEOs are folks just like you and me who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect the public.

That said, I truly believe that we are going to have to face some of the issues I'm trying to direct attention to here ... in the near future. I hope not, but, I'm a realist.

I think we should all consider just "how far" we are willing to go in the defense of what we think is right. When the rubber meets the road, we aren't going to be using our rightfully-borne arms to attack a faceless government ...

... it will be people, some of whom are only "doing their jobs."

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: Gryphon66

This IS private citizens taking up arms against a govt group.

That's what makes this "different."

originally posted by: gladtobehere
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.

Fair enough, but I doubt it was that easy... I'm gonna look it up. I bet there was some military group who actually seized power in the end, but your right it's sold as that...


The one time in all of human history nonviolent protests worked, lol. So even if it is "as sold" it's prob the exception that proves the rule.

originally posted by: 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? It was obviously a pre-meditated, coordinated effort to intentionally strike at police.

How do we answer this if these individuals were, at least in their own mind, acting proactively to protect the citizens of the United States from well-armed foot soldiers of a overbearing and tyrannical government?

(I would like to request that all members responding do so with logical, reasonable, on-topic posts, backed up where necessary by established facts.)

An interesting perspective.

You'll have to wait for established facts for a bit, I think.

For right now we know that the shooters killed white policemen who were not wearing any armor, and were allowing people to freely protest peacfully.

The police they killed were in Dallas and were of the transit authority, not city police.

Police are localized authority. The transit police in Dallas have no connection to other police in other parts of the country (or even the state of Texas) that have shown isolated over-reach of their authority, or murdered. Striking against them is not a strike against Minnesota or Louisiana.

I'm sure in their own mind they were making a statement. But I don't see even a significant minority of people agreeing with their methods.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't like how 5 probably very good people died bc of the bad decisions of a few others.

But cops are very rarely charged in shooting deaths. I don't know how they are not held responsible. If they were held responsible, then these 5 cops would probably still be alive.

There IS something wrong with our system.

I cannot believe the driver of the paddy wagon in Freddie Gray's death was not charged. It is HIS responsibility to get the subjects to jail, etc safely.

OK, so you may think im just as sweet as a flower on this message board but Ive been in a paddy wagon before. Its scary as hell. Your life is in the hands of the driver and you get NO SEATBELT! (why are there not seatbelts in them?)

Anyways, I can totally see how some jackass was swerving (just bc he could) to hurt the boy, and I could totally see how just 1 jerk swerve could break a neck.

That driver got off way too easily and it makes me sick. The system is crooked and unfortunately it came to the shootings of these 5 innocent cops. I blame the system more than the shooters. The shooters will get whats coming to them, they are nutballs, but the system is wrong and this will keep on happening if it does not recognize this.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The one time in all of human history nonviolent protests worked, lol. So even if it is "as sold" it's prob the exception that proves the rule.

The 1960's Civil Rights demonstrations were non-violent on the part of the oppressed group, and were successful.
Blacks were joined by whites and marched in large numbers, that was enough to get the message through.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krakatoa

Are you aware of any "guerrilla type" actions in the Revolutionary war? I admitted earlier that I wasn't and havent' done the research.

Something similar to what we would call snipers today?

The second point deals more with the specific case there in Dallas. Remember that in the scenario I'm entertaining, the shooters feel that recent cases of "police brutality and assassination" are more than enough proof that the government has become an enemy of the people. They see the cops as the foot-soldiers of this tyrannical government. They took action (as snipers or guerillas) on that basis (at least, in their own minds and understanding).

Doesn't that come under the umbrella of a citizenry standing up for itself against oppression and potential murder?

If not, why not?

OK, I spent a little time reading more on this story, so I can speak with at least an understanding of THIS event. It seems the officers shot were simply standing guard, were not engaged in active suppression of the crowd, or intimidating them in any way. The shooter picked them off while they were standing there.

In comparison, the only time something like this happened at the start of the American Revolution was following the battle in Concord against the British soldiers. When the solders were ordered to withdraw, colonial militia (organized and trained militia, not lone gunmen) kept heated fire upon the retreating soldiers. The soldiers essentially ran a gauntlet of musket fire almost their entire retreat back to Boston. The colonial militia fired at them from behind rock walls, buildings, and tree cover.

However, in the case of the colonial militia, there are a few very important differences to this Dallas event.

• They were organized and trained official militia not single person shooters
  
• They fired upon the retreating soldiers as a continuance of already existing fire from the battle itself and not upon men that were not shooting at them prior (like a man standing guard and not engaged in violence)
  
• This was AFTER an open and deadly battle not a peaceful protest
  

There are differences, and they are important to note. Had this happened during an existing violent clash with the protesters by the police, then it would be more justified. But, it was not. It was perpetrated by a man that "wanted to kill whit people" and "hated white people" according to the discussions with him afterward while he was holed up in the parking garage (also claiming that he placed IED explosives all over the city).

No, this situation is different, and IMO unrelated to the events of 1775.

We have a society where the economy has been used as a weapon against minorities for over a century.

Early 20th century progressives created modern ghettos with zoning laws. Those laws stunted economic growth in minority communities across the nation.

It wasn't until the middle of the 20th century when schools were built in these areas, and why desegregation was such an important aspect of access to education for blacks. Much of which came too little and too late before the damage was done.

There's rampant poverty in the black community which leads to rampant crime. Rampant crime leads to over represented police interventions and prison populations which further feeds the cycle.

In this formula we have suppressed economic conditions, terrible education access, terrible health care access, and other issues that contribute so much more to violence in a society than just about anything else.

We point to European countries as examples of gun laws and yet we fail to analyze whether such gun laws are even a contributing factor.

If you legalized all guns in Japan they would be no more prone to breaking the law and violence as if you'd kept them illegal. Japan has the most advanced free market system in the world, excellent education system, and an excellent health care system. They are the most law abiding society in the world.

The Swiss have guns(albeit with tight regulations) and have all the same things Japan does with comparable crime rates let alone violent crime.

As a proponent of gun rights I often see guns as irrelevant to a discussion about criminal violence in society. Everywhere you look gun laws don't tend to have much of an impact on crime to include laws that liberalize access to them.

When looking at macroeconomic trends in criminal activity across the world with firearms in focus we see trends that diverge fantastically from what would be conventional wisdom on BOTH SIDES of this debates. Guns and access to guns does not means more violence. Conversely, less guns and less access to guns does not mean less violence.

America would do far better to fix its fiscal house and liberalize its economic activity, fix its broken health care system, and stop using the education system for political indoctrination instead of actually teaching young minds to be successful in a 21st century economy, and end the war on drugs and many of these problems will start to disappear.

We've been hitting the same button expecting a different result each time for decades. Einstein said this was the definition of insanity, but I believe it better suits the definition of stupidity.

We can keep being stupid and focusing on all the wrong things or we can admit we have these problems, identify where these problems are rooted, and take some real and meaningful action.

The problem with gun control is that it tries to lay the weight of these difficult issues entirely on the existence of a hunk of polymer and steel.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
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.

Just did literally 5 min of reading, but no haps on that one either, migo....


Gandhi was the voice of reason in a car storm of violent riots . Indian independence came AFTER they had been tearing stuff up. Then Gandhi swapped tactics.

The threat and presence of violence remained, but ghandi offered peace and organization. Not much in human history has been bloodless.


Big changes require a military...or militia I guess.

That said police brutality is fixable without revolution or violent action. Just the attention is great..finally.


It's just the selling it as a black only issue that is stupid..your telling 87% of the population,

" Nothing to see here. This does not effect your children! It only effects black children! So don't worry about it at all..."

It is HORRIBLE "beeping" marketing, for a legit issue...