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

a reply to: Teikiatsu

So screw it then?

I'm not talking about maintaining the same status quo of the past 50 years.

I'm talking about abolishment and major reforms in education, liberalizing economic activity, and seeking a real solution to the rampant inflation in the health care industry.

Maybe let's put some thought into this. Doing the same thing we've been doing for the last half century is obviously not working.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Again, I wasn't comparing the Dallas Shooting to the Revolutionary War. Someone else brought it up, i know we used guerilla tactics, I wasn't (and still am not sure) if that included using planned snipers but I'd guess it did at some point, documented or not.

I am not seeking to compare this shooting to the Revolutionary war. I was asking a specific question because of your evident historical knowledge about snipers not this shooting.

I am also not making ANY sort of statement that these LEOs who were murdered were, in fact, encouraging tyranny.

What I am pointing to is a basic question, which I will repeat the essence of:

If the shooters took this action (or any other action) believing that they were acting as citizens striking against the agents of an overbearing tyrannical government that seems willing, at least to some (and not only BLM), to be indiscriminately murdering citizens, would they be justified acting as such under the common "the Second gives us firearms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government" argument.

Thanks for your thoughts.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So screw it then?

I'm not talking about maintaining the same status quo of the past 50 years.

I'm talking about abolishment and major reforms in education, liberalizing economic activity, and seeking a real solution to the rampant inflation in the health care industry.

Maybe let's put some thought into this. Doing the same thing we've been doing for the last half century is obviously not working.

Sounds close to what I'd like to see. Scale back. Keep in place what works but get rid of what doesn't. Don't add more layers to a system of rules that are not being fully enforced in the first place.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krakatoa


If the shooters took this action (or any other action) believing that they were acting as citizens striking against the agents of an overbearing tyrannical government that seems willing, at least to some (and not only BLM), to be indiscriminately murdering citizens, would they be justified acting as such under the common "the Second gives us firearms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government" argument.

certainly something to think about, as if they surrendered their freedom for the better of society.

However, without knowing more about this, I don't think this was the case. I think they were furious and nutty.

There is no absolution for crimes committed against the state inherent in the second amendment. The second amendment only insures that the citizenry has a “means” to stand up to the state; it does not give them the “right” to stand up to the state.

The “right” to stand up to the state only comes by committing the act and even then only if you gain power. Otherwise if you do not gain power you are still subject to the laws of the state.

There is a very fine line between freedom fighter and terrorist; and it all comes down to who is writing the history books.

So in this case of the Dallas shooter; since it is unlikely his/their actions will amount to anything more than the death of a few innocent police officers, than his actions do not warrant being elevated out of the realm of criminality.

If by some chance his/their actions galvanize the country to create some much needed reform; than history will look more favorably on them.

a reply to: projectvxn

Another amazing post full of great insights!

In the suggested scenario of the OP, I wondered if these shooters in Dallas, obviously well-organized utilizing what could be called militaristic techniques, turned out to be ordinary American citizens who in their hearts believe that the police are functioning as the enforcement arm of a state that is indiscriminately killing citizens rather than apprehending them (Lavoy Finnicum or Philando Castile) were acting on the basis of an understanding of the Second Amendment that the citizenry are to act against tyranny on the part of the government, which would definitely include executing individuals in the street and by the highway, would they be justified? Isn't that part and parcel of one of the fundamental arguments regarding the Second Amendment?

a reply to: DanDanDat

I haven't suggested that the 2nd absolves any crimes.

The arguments I've referenced regarding the need for firearms to stand up against a tyrannical state certainly imply that we have the right to do so.

I'm also not asking or even questioning the legality of the shooter's actions except to the extent that IF the shooter (or a shooter) took similar actions against police and law-enforcement under a strong belief that they represented a tyrannical government would their actions be JUSTIFIABLE under the argument that we have guns to stand against government abuse and overreach.

The police are part of the enforcement arm of the government and they represent government authority whether at the city, county, State or national level. The most likely agent of government oppression at any level would be the local police.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DanDanDat

I haven't suggested that the 2nd absolves any crimes.

The arguments I've reference regarding the need for firearms to stand up against a tyrannical state certainly imply that we have the right to do so.

The arguments you reference 'do not' imply that we have the right to stand up against a tyrannical state.

They only imply that we have the right to posses the "means" to stand up against a tyrannical state.

What we do with those "means" ether fall within current law ... or step outside of current law if our actions make current law obsolete.

Washington was a criminal; until he (and others) beat back the British government and installed new law. If he was not successful in beating the British he would have died a criminal and not a president. This fact is true regardless of his inalienable right to bear arms.

a reply to: DanDanDat

I beg to differ with you. These arguments claim that the People have both a right and an obligation to strike against an oppressive government that threatens their individual liberty and the common rights of humanity, one of which, is not to be shot in the street or by the highway during a routine apprehension action.

"Current law" in the scenario I'm putting forth would be the law of the oppressor, of the tyrant, and their trained thugs and soldiers. It seems illogical to speak of the restrictions of current law when we are discussing an armed rebellion against tyranny ... at least, in the mind of my theoretical version of the Dallas shooter.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
The second amendment only insures that the citizenry has a “means” to stand up to the state

Let's see.... search Amazon for "bomb robot".... add to cart....

And here I thought that the right to vote helped me stand up to the state. ALL my fellow citizens exercising their right to vote, to tell what we want done. We must be doing something wrong if we have to resort to violence. We were set up to have a bloodless revolution every four years. Every time we vote. Even Malcolm X said

America is the first country... that can actually have a bloodless revolution.

a reply to: desert

I read that about the "bomb robot" just now.

When the weapons of war are brought home to use against the populace ... what's next, a Hellfire missile?

Maybe the OP isn't as "theoretical" as I thought ...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DanDanDat

I beg to differ with you. These arguments claim that the People have both a right and an obligation to strike against an oppressive government that threatens their individual liberty and the common rights of humanity, one of which, is not to be shot in the street or by the highway during a routine apprehension action.

"Current law" in the scenario I'm putting forth would be the law of the oppressor, of the tyrant, and their trained thugs and soldiers. It seems illogical to speak of the restrictions of current law when we are discussing an armed rebellion against tyranny ... at least, in the mind of my theoretical version of the Dallas shooter.

you can certainly beg to differ; but the second amendment gives us a right to bear arms. It says nothing about a right to fighting a tyrannical government.

Fighting your government is treason until you win and change your government.

Yes the second amendment may imply that the citizens have an “obligation” to stand up to their government if the situation warrants it; but it does not give them the “right” to do so.

“obligation” and “right” mean two very different things. And this particular obligation carries with it a hefty price if you turn out to be wrong or if you loss. The second amendment simply insures that the citizen gets to make the choice; that they aren’t forced to inaction because their government has overwhelming power over them.

originally posted by: desert

originally posted by: DanDanDat
The second amendment only insures that the citizenry has a “means” to stand up to the state

Let's see.... search Amazon for "bomb robot".... add to cart....

And here I thought that the right to vote helped me stand up to the state. ALL my fellow citizens exercising their right to vote, to tell what we want done. We must be doing something wrong if we have to resort to violence. We were set up to have a bloodless revolution every four years. Every time we vote. Even Malcolm X said

America is the first country... that can actually have a bloodless revolution.

That certainly the preferable way to change the government; just not the only way.

a reply to: Gryphon66

now searching Amazon for "Hellfire missile" .....add to cart.... better get Express Delivery.... what's next? ..... searching Amazon again... "advanced weapons technology".... add "personal" to "advanced weapons technology"......

This thread is a good starting point for discussion, as the theoretical becomes applied.

a reply to: Gryphon66

We are talking about whether the Dallas shooters had a right to kill policemen they might have seen as enforcing the will of a tyrannical government under the common argument made about the Second Amendment.

A right to kill? What does that mean?

You do realize that if an uprising were to happen it would never be considered "legal" in the eyes of the government, right? No matter the cause.

Only when the dust settles, and the winners write the history books.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not immediately aware of similar actions taken by American revolutionaries against the British ... but I'd be willing to bet that there are incidents of "sniper attacks" that could be found.

Lexington & Concord comes to mind - the legal authorities (at that time the British) came to seize some traitor's (colonists disloyal to the crown) weapons stores and were met by an rag-tag resistance which was quickly put down. On the way back to Boston they were attack by cowardly snipers.

Selah!

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Gryphon66

We are talking about whether the Dallas shooters had a right to kill policemen they might have seen as enforcing the will of a tyrannical government under the common argument made about the Second Amendment.

A right to kill? What does that mean?

You do realize that if an uprising were to happen it would never be considered "legal" in the eyes of the government, right? No matter the cause.

Only when the dust settles, and the winners write the history books.

Right to kill in the defense of one's self and community, by acting offensively against a corrupt government.

You actually touch precisely on my point. Who would we be "fighting" in such an uprising?

Local police.
State police.
Government agents.
National Guard.

The right to bear arms in defense would no longer be abstract.

originally posted by: olbe66
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not immediately aware of similar actions taken by American revolutionaries against the British ... but I'd be willing to bet that there are incidents of "sniper attacks" that could be found.

Lexington & Concord comes to mind - the legal authorities (at that time the British) came to seize some traitor's (colonists disloyal to the crown) weapons stores and were met by an rag-tag resistance which was quickly put down. On the way back to Boston they were attack by cowardly snipers.

Selah!

Ah, "cowardly snipers" ... that's important in this context.

Thanks for pointing this out.

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: Gryphon66

now searching Amazon for "Hellfire missile" .....add to cart.... better get Express Delivery.... what's next? ..... searching Amazon again... "advanced weapons technology".... add "personal" to "advanced weapons technology"......

This thread is a good starting point for discussion, as the theoretical becomes applied.

You do understand that the British of the late 1700s posed the "Hellfire missile" of their time and brought them to bear against their treasonous American colonists.

You don’t need Hellfire missiles. Just determination.

a reply to: DanDanDat

So why wouldn't the "shall not infringe argument" in the Second apply now to robot bombs and potentially Hellfire missiles?

I mean, we have to be ready to stand against these folks who are deploying them, right?

Remember, in the scenario I'm suggesting here, we're dealing with folks who have become convinced the government is indiscriminately killing citizens in an unjust manner as a means of oppression.