Chris Dorner: Anyone else see irony between statements

[cbrer]

Of the uselessness of guns in the hands of citizens against a military or police department equipped with modern weapons and sensors, and the mobilization of resources against one armed man?

If one multiplies that effect by 10 million, it may illustrate part of the philosophy of armed citizens. Not coming down on one side or the other. Certainly not claiming that Mr. Dorner isn't (or is) a nut case. Just an alternate perspective to what seems to be a pervasive attitude here.

*Edited to correct spelling*

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. Just a heads up--It's Dorner.

[Electric Monk]

2. I've also seen an odd overlap between the "we need guns to protect ourselves from tyranical gov't"

posters and the "Dorner should be shot on sight, no questions asked, and just ignore his complaints about the LAPD" posters.

Weird, that....

[coalition_unwilling]

7. Yeah, it's definitely got me reviewing my notes on cognitive dissonance, that's for sure. - n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

8. To put it into a little bit of perspective, I guess.

I advocate for suicide awareness but, in this case, it would not pain me to see this man put an end to obvious suffering that has spilled over and cause suffering for others. That goes against everything I believe at my core but I cannot help myself in this instance. This is a heated situation that brings about heated reactions from people.

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. Not sure what you are trying to offer here

Cheers!

[cbrer]

5. Perspective & alternate viewpoint. nt

[JI7]

4. the guy is in hiding

[cbrer]

6. And? nt

[JI7]

10. he is in hiding because he wont be able to take on the cops

[tama]

12. So?

He declared one man guerilla war against LAPD, and in fact has taken many cops out, one killed, many wounded, and LAPD is so frightened it's acting very stupid and shooting hysterically at civilians. What's your point?

That politicians and bureaucrats making killing lists and giving orders are hiding because they won't be able take on "enemy combatants" on battlefied? Sorry but you are not making any sense.

[JI7]

13. LAPD is very incompetent, it's not just because of this guy

my point is that the whole thing about how we need arms to take on govt and other crap is still BS .

[tama]

14. I agree that's not a very good argument in terms of gun laws

while I agree that US needs a regime change and new social contract and freedom from bankster tyranny.

[MrScorpio]

32. Not just incompent, but corrupt as well

However, it doesn't justify Dorner's violence and you're quite correct that the "take on the govt" argument is bullshit as well.

This country has too many guns in its streets, many in the hands of people who are too fearful, violent and irresponsible to possess a weapon in the first place.

But what are we gonna do?

That's "Freedom!"

[cbrer]

15. Previous threads

Concluded that an armed populace isn't a credible threat to the government.

This situation shows that it isn't necessarily so. THAT makes sense.

[JI7]

17. no it doesn't, the guy is in hiding, he isn't any closer to being a threat to govt

than before he killed anyone.

cops and other innocent people get killed all the time because of crimes, accidents etc.

there is more effort being put to try to get this guy but it's not because they think he will bring down some organization.

[cbrer]

18. I'm not ascribing motives or goals

Simply the facts of the number/amount of human, material, and financial resources they're putting behind this hunt.

For one guy.

That's all.

[JI7]

21. it's been done with Bin Laden

[tama]

19. Monopoly of Violence

Statist Credo is that monopoly of violence belongs to state. Even RW libertarians agree and support night-watch state to protect private ownership of capitalists.

Social libertarians aka anarchist anti-statists - and all people everywhere who start and join armed rebellions against governments they consider too tyrannical to be tolerable - don't agree. Gun ownership and gun laws under statist monopoly of violence is not a big issue in that regard. If people decide that armed resistance is the way to go, they can get weapons from soldiers etc. joining the rebellion, they don't need to be "armed populace" to begin with to do armed revolution.

This situation gives some taste, however little, of "bringing war to home". Not quite the same, as the rebel is also a strong supporter of stricter gun laws and opposes NRA.

[randome]

28. Paradoxically, it's easier for one person to be more of a threat.

Easier to hide, easier to have already planned much of this out.

One person or perhaps a thousand or greater. But anywhere in between, it's an unwieldy number to be a credible threat.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Not really ...

Dorner is a, fairly recently separated combat vet and even more recently separated cop; whereas, those espousing the "armed citizens" philosophy, general are, and are counting in their number, a bunch of never served in any capacity, gun owners living a fantasy. Big difference.

[cbrer]

16. Under the conditions you're presupposing

Maybe so. I would say that there are way too many unknowns to realistically fill in so many blanks.

My only point was that an armed populace can pose a credible threat to a government. That's all.

[Heimer]

22. Completley valid observation

A group of people working together would likely be quelled very quickly.

A group of individuals working independently with a common goal or towards a common interest would be very dangerous indeed.

[KharmaTrain]

30. Depends On What Type Of Government...

...for a small or medium sized police department a well armed gunman can wreck a lot of havoc...however they do have the ability to call in more resources to equalize the gunpower differential...many many times over. Doner reminds me of the D.C. sniper...a lone wolf determined to spread fear and could play this game of hide and seek for a while but eventually he will make a mistake and he'll be subdued.

Playing the insurrection card...sure, a small armed "citizenry" may be able to hole themselves up in isolated areas, but without a coordinated command and control structure they're no match for a national guard unit. It's a fool's paradise to think a personal arsenal is going to prevent a tyrannical government...they have bigger and better toys.

[dogman]

11. No

This is still a police matter. A larger group would not necessarily require greater resources unless they were all functioning independently. They have shown the power against Waco or Ruby Ridge. Large group or small, it is just a matter of time.

[LAGC]

23. Neither Koresh (Waco) nor Weaver (Ruby Ridge) were conducting operations against the government.

They were blatantly breaking the law, showing up "on the radar" so to speak, and allowed themselves to get holed up, surrounded, and eventually "smoked out."

A better analogy would be the Beltway "Snipers" (Malvo and Muhammad). Look at how much terror they instilled in the public? And they were only 2 people!

Imagine several hundred lone-wolf pairs conducting similar operations, "under the radar", but instead of targeting random civilians, they targeted military officers instead?

The government wouldn't necessarily have the upper-hand in such a scenario.

[Demo_Chris]

20. Not going to weight in on gun control, but excellent post (cont)

I won't say it misses the point, because it doesn't, but it will certainly miss the intended target. But then, many of them are not interested in reality anyway.

[baldguy]

24. Not every gun totin' yahoo is as well armed or as capable as this guy seems to be.

And, in any case - Do you think the most reasonable response to being fired from your job, getting dumped by your girlfriend, being pulled over for a traffic infraction, or having your candidate lose an election is to go on a shooting rampage?

And what do you think the eventual outcome will be? Should Dorner go free?

[cbrer]

25. Love your tag line

Your questions are all great. Perhaps deserving of their own posting.

*However*

They're all beyond the scope of the issue I raised here. Which is simply:

If the government feels it must devote this amount of resources to get one guy, then an argument for an armed populace being a legitimate threat to an ostensibly corrupt government gains some credibility, IMHO.

Regardless of skills, or arms, or qualifications as a "Gun totin' Yahoo". 100,000,000 gun owners could be a legitimate threat.

Not even counting the fact that many of the police and military would join that fight rather than fire on their own family members.

There have been threads here that posited the opposite. Complete with catchy little posters of fighter jets and black helicopters.

From there, the discussion could take off in at least a half dozen different directions. Hell, the government is already pissing on the constitution, and no one seems to give a crap. So maybe the whole theory falls apart because of lack of interest.

But I don't think so...

[JVS]

26. I'd think this would be more of a "See why we need drones!" event

Of course, there's a lot of issues here. Among them police arming themselves to the teeth and then having someone go rogue, police arming themselves to the teeth and shooting up people who in no way match the description (the two newspaper delivery ladies in the different make and color vehicle), recruiting police from the military with recent combat experience, psychological screening of both police and military personnel, and the list can go on and on.

[cbrer]

27. Yup! But don't accuse me

Of being a conspiracy nut!

[Cosmocat]

29. What is perverse

is the same people screaming about needing a well armed populace to protect its citizenry from the government are the same people, for the most part, who scream that you can't possibly arm our military enough to keep us safe.

I get your point but it lacks a pretty big dose of proportion.

First, "multiplied by 10 million" is fantastical.

We have a couple of isolated incidents separated by time.

A BIG stretch from there to 10 million.

Heck, a BIG stretch from there to 2 ...

This falls in line with the concept that ANYTHING can happen.

An astroid can hit the planet, a super virus can wipe us out ...

Even if you had 10 individuals running around bushwacking government officials, they would still be hiding in the weeds, and one moment from termination.

And, the reasonable level of regulation being advanced falls 1000 steps short of the complete elimination of fire arms, nothing even close.

Simple assault weapons ban and magazine limitations.

The tipping point of the ability of the government to impose its tyranny on us won't be crossed if have to change magazines after 10 shots are fired.

Just another vague, fantastical means of trying to avoid reasonable regulation of firearms.

[jmg257]

31. If the philosophy of the armed citizens is to run around terrorziing and killing

innocent people for a bit, then they are all set...at least for a little while. But other then earning scorn and causing their eventual deaths, what will they have accomplished?

The LAPD and other local PDs aren't going anywhere. A treaty is not going to be offered to Dorner.

What IS the resolution for an armed insurrection fighting govt forces?