I don't get why people freak out over the dead cops in Dallas.

[DetlefK]

There is a term for that situation: "Second Amendment Remedies"
You don't like a situation and you remedy it with a gun.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/second-amendment-remedies/

The right-wing has preached for years that the 2nd Amendment exists to keep a tyrannical government in check.

GOP Representative Sharron Angle coined the term "Second Amendment Remedies" when complaining that elections aren't going the way she wants. (Towards a "tyrannical" government.)

GOP Rep. Stephen Broden flouted the idea of a violent revolution to stop Obama.

The Bundys pointed guns at federal agents and had put snipers in position to take them down. The right-wing media applauded them for standing up against Big Government. (Until they became aware that the Bundys are embarrassing racists, then they dropped them.)






The dead cops in Dallas.

"If the system keeps you down, use your guns to destroy the system."

That is what the NRA, the Tea Party, the GOP have been calling for for years.

I don't get why people all of a sudden act surprised. The right-wing had furthered this sentiment for years. It was just a question of time until somebody would do what they preach.

[baldguy]

1. Only white people get to use "Second Amendment Solutions".

[Hortensis]

8. Yup. And Malaise is right -- wouldn't

it seem like some kind of perversion of nature if a white woman whipped out a gun and shot down a black man for crossing the street to her side? Second Amendment solutions people may be proud of their armed women, but they should be standing behind their men (presumably well trained in gun safety).

[malaise]

11. Not according to name removed

[Rhiannon12866]

30. That one never agrees with anyone here!

[malaise]

38. The first one was a first post

thought he/she should never have freed me

[MH1]

44. Damn, I miss all the fun.

Glad they got taken care of right away though.

[malaise]

48. Got taken care of too quickly

I really wanted to reply

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

50. Ok, gotta ask. Who was Message Auto Removed? nt

[malaise]

53. The first one was a first time poster

I can't even remember the user name but were it up to him/her I'd be a slave because she/he would not have freed me. Poor idiot - I was never a slave - just a proud descendant.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

55. That one I had figured. I guess for the 2nd one, it would be

against the rules to name them.

[malaise]

2. All those options are only for

white people - indeed white men.

[Jitter65]

3. And remember now, Walsh has warned Obama that "real America" is coming after him.

Personally I think Walsh should be locked up for threatening the President. But at least people should be reminded of the RW sentiments and behaviors that are now coming home to roost.

[aikoaiko]

4. Sadly, not many people are freaked out by the fatally shot police in Dallas, TX

There certainly won't be any federal gun control as a result.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. I know where you're trying to go with this but it's pretty ridiculous.

You're effectively claiming that if anybody claims to support the idea of a legal right to use deadly force in self-defense then all cases of the use of deadly force must be considered self-defense in their eyes.

The issue isn't whether or not people retain the right to defend themselves but, rather, is this an appropriate use of that right.

[jberryhill]

9. If the point of the second amendment is to be able to shoot at government employees

...then you don't get to decide when it is "appropriate" for someone else to do so.

You guys want you guns so you can feed the roots of the tree of liberty and all that stuff. You don't get to decide for someone else when it's time to start shooting at government employees any more than someone else gets to decide what gun you can buy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. "...you don't get to decide when it is 'appropriate' for someone else to do so."

Since when?

Are people who affirm the right of self-defense forbidden from serving on juries where self-defense is claimed?

Does someone inappropriately claiming self-defense abrogate the rights of people who do use self-defense in a justified manner?

Show me one other right where such silliness will be claimed.

You guys want you guns so you can feed the roots of the tree of liberty and all that stuff. You don't get to decide for someone else when it's time to start shooting at government employees any more than someone else gets to decide what gun you can buy.

Or, perhaps, the gun control advocates want gun control so desperately they make arguments that have no relation to reality.

[jmg257]

17. Pretty big "if". The whole point of the 2nd was so that the people

Would not have to shoot govt employees. And The govt would be best able to keep the guarantees of freedom made in the constitution.

The guys who want guns to shed blood for liberty or some bullshit need to join the Guard, and STFU.

[Hoyt]

14. I suppose shooter, like George Zimmerman, could say he was in fear for his life.

And, no, I don't support shooting police. Similarly, I don't support people carrying guns in public or arming up like they live in a compound.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Do you support the right to self defense?

[Hoyt]

18. Not the way you gunners view self-defense or the odds of needing a gun in your pants.

[TipTok]

19. Fortunately the world doesn't have any requirement to live by your personal standards...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Your personal prejudices, like all other personal prejudices, are immaterial.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that Philando Castile had a right to keep a gun in his pants.

[treestar]

67. Suppose he had got the upper hand and shot the cop

Would he be able to claim self-defense?

[KittyWampus]

22. do you support the right of citizens to use arms to overthrow a tyrannical government?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. Yes.

[Hoyt]

28. Maybe we don't want your version -- or other armed group's -- of what our government should be.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. I want a government where POC of color can exercise their rights without fear.

[Hoyt]

34. Assuming that is why you arm up, there are more who don't want that and are willing to arm up.

Don't think we need that kind of war. I suspect it is better handled without your guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. Philando Castile was lawfully exercising his rights.

[Hoyt]

40. If Castile, McVeigh, Lanza, etc., didn't have that option, I think we'd all be better off.

You may be an exception, but I don't believe for a moment that most gun fanciers care about Philando Castile and/or that is the reason they arm up.

In the event, I'd suggest MLK, John Lewis, James Chaney, Obama, etc., have/had a much better approach to improving society than those with gunz.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. You're lumping Philando Castile in with Timothy McVeigh and Adam Lanza?

I sincerely hope the jury will forgive me for pointing out the fact you're becoming increasingly deranged.

[Hoyt]

43. Maybe so, but your support of more guns to stop police brutality is similarly deranged.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. First, gain enough integrity to not put words into people's mouths then you're allowed to address me

[Hoyt]

47. "Allowed to address you" -- LMAO

[beevul]

58. Did you really just compare a lawfully armed, murdered black man to adam lanza?

That's disgusting, even for you.

[Hoyt]

60. Stop reading one word at a time while pointing. I said if people didn't carry guns we'd all be bette

off. Well at least the 90+% who don't need a gun to go out in public. Try to take off your gunner glasses for awhile.

[beevul]

61. Bullshit.

You lumped a lawfully armed, disgustingly murdered black man, in with mass murderers:

Castile, McVeigh, Lanza, etc

There is no defense for that hoyt. No defense at all.


Bookmarked.

[Hoyt]

62. Like the 2nd Amendment you left out the rest of the sentence and context.

Glad you preserve my posts. Maybe, you'll learn something.

[beevul]

64. The context is not an acceptable excuse.

I thought that had been made clear.

[treestar]

92. all had the right to bear arms

that's the problem. I have a Second Amendment right to have a gun, and so did Adam Lanza. That's a commonality we have.

It's the number of guns lying around and the people who snap and kill other people had the same right as those who don't snap and kill people to have the gun. This is important to the protectors of the Second Amendment. They may as well admit, before Adam Lanza did anything wrong, he had the same right. They are still protecting that right, even for those who have not yet snapped but will in the future.

[sarisataka]

86. How many times

Have we been told that someone who carries a gun is simply a terrorist?

As the song says Whoomp There It Is. A lawfully armed black man is no different than a mass murderer or a terrorist, who did not even use a gun.

[sarisataka]

87. There is one of two ways

Reading your reply to

Philando Castile was lawfully exercising his rights

. If Castile, McVeigh, Lanza, etc., didn't have that option, I think we'd all be better off.

1 all gun owners are terrorists and alegally armed black man is no different than a person who murders 20 children or someone who blows up a building full of people

2 rights are simply too dangerous and we need a totalitarian government to guide us and tell us what we are allowed to do

I would say I am curious as to which it is but only in a morbid sense. Both are disgusting.

[Igel]

69. That's the assumption.

But the assumption requires exactly the same type of stereotyping that we'd like to dispose of.

Look at color, and judge whether or not the person's telling the truth or lying just from that. All we have are our biases and a video made a minute after the fact, which already shows a disagreement as to what happened.

I've been neither beaten black nor blue, and try to avoid assumptions I don't have to make. I don't have to make this one. In fact, if I make an assumption at this point it's now part of my biases, and if there's contrary evidence to my beliefs in the matter I'm likely to discount it for any reason, however weak, I can find. Or simply forget it existed. I'm human, and that's how humans do.

[treestar]

68. Supposing an army developed

that thinks the government is so oppressive it needs to be overthrown, and you don't agree with that. You might defend the government with arms, but you would not claim it was a problem for the group that thought they were oppressed to attempt overthrow?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. People claim all sorts of things. That some people make claims that are wrong or that I do not

agree with does not abrogate the rights of others or obligate others to endure a violation of their rights.

[treestar]

89. What if an army developed

of people who claimed they were being oppressed and they needed to attack the government that was being unfair to them. They have that right, don't they?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. Are their claims legitimate?

[treestar]

91. to them they are

who gets to decide? We have the right to bear arms, and one of the reasons is potentially oppressive government.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. "who gets to decide?"

That's what makes it a war. A challenger will claim legitimacy. The government will claim legitimacy. Only one of them will be right but they will not be able to reconcile.

War doesn't determine who is right, only who is left but the absence of the ability to fight will decide the issue in a far more lopsided manner.

We have the right to bear arms, and one of the reasons is potentially oppressive government.

Yes. I agree.

[Jerry442]

25. No.

It's like saying, "Do I support the right of a six-year-old to defend himself with a gun against someone trying to hurt him?" In theory, seems like a good idea, but the reality on the ground is that you'd end up with kids shooting down dads who wouldn't buy them Froot Loops.

Saying "I support the right of citizens to use guns to overthrow a tyrannical government" translates directly in everyday reality to "I think people should be able to shoot cops that piss them off."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. Do you think 6 year olds should be allowed to vote?

[heaven05]

36. but, but

cops shoot unarmed people that piss them off for some reason or other. Either they are "resisting arrest", "looked like they were going for a weapon", mouthing outrage about an uneccessary stop(Sandra Bland?), running away, eyeballing(Freddie Gray, ect, ect, ect. People don't want to accept that behavior anymore and the fact that our democracy's justice system protects only murderers in blue, the murders of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown comes to mind and people who can afford to buy expensive legal defense.

The people who don't understand Dallas are basically the ones afraid of a change in the status quo, methinks.

[MH1]

46. No this was about a political statement made by the other side, re "second amendment remedies"

(maybe someone will dig up the source so we can be reminded of the context, but it's a pretty infamous statement)

There is a difference in the way the phrase "second amendment remedies" was used, vs actual self-defense.

[treestar]

66. No it wasn't

It was the right wing preaching we need guns in case of government oppression. Not thinking that oppressed people might not be white people.

[IL Lib]

77. Bingo eom

[Soxfan58]

6. I hope you meant

We should not be surprised. Because we need to freak out till this wild west mentality is gone.

[DetlefK]

13. I needed a click-bait title.

Of course it's sad that these cops died. Most cops are good people. However I don't get why people get all of a sudden surprised after:
* making cops work in an environment where literally any random person they interact with could be a bad-guy-with-a-gun
* years of right-wing propaganda that guns are the solution to your problems with the government

What other outcomes than a) unprofessional behavior by cops and b) intent to kill cops could this possible have???

I certainly would not want to be a cop in the US. Would you? Just imagine the constant pressure because you never know whether the guy you're interacting with will pull out a gun.
And the same party who decries that there is a "war on cops" at the same time holds up the ideal that a gun is one's personal defender of personal freedoms from a tyrannical government.

[Hoyt]

16. I agree. It doesn't take much for a "good guy" with a gun to go off. Fight with spouse,

pressure at work, PTSD, prescription drug, dementia, mental illness, paranoia, a drink or two, meth, and a lot more. Sometimes, they go off on private citizens, family, etc.

But, gunners say that's the price we must pay so they can have more gunz, keeping the murderous craziness alive.

[TipTok]

21. Go hunting for some pre-cogs so you can identify who is going to commit a crime..

... before it happens.

Otherwise, you'll just have to live like humantiy has for the last few millenia and deal with things as it comes, included the threat of violence from a small minority of people.

[Jerry442]

26. Could it be that this is the desired outcome?

A society where everyone but the 1% is constantly at each other's throats in a life-or-death struggle is a society where the 99% may never achieve enough solidarity to act in their own interests.

[kacekwl]

35. I would like to know how many police officers

support concealed carry or open carry. Does anyone know of such a survey ?

[MH1]

49. I know that in Pennsylvania, police organizations usually favor whatever meager gun control

measures make it into legislative discussion.

[jmg257]

52. Here is one...

https://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/

PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives

Never before has such a comprehensive survey of law enforcement officers’ opinions on gun control, gun violence, and gun rights been conducted

Top Line Takeaways
Breaking down the results, it's important to note that 70 percent of respondents are field-level law enforcers — those who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis — not office-bound, non-sworn administrators or perpetually-campaigning elected officials.

1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.

3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.

4.) Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.

5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).
...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. This is a survey of police officers. I think Question #5 most closely, though not directly, answers

your question --

https://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/

[kacekwl]

88. WOW I am surprised.

Shocked actually.

[avebury]

41. "Most cops are good people."

The job of a cop is to serve and protect the citizens of his/her community. Cops who don't fight to get rid of the bad or incompetent cops lose the right to be called "good guys" because they are not really serving and protecting their community and in fact become accessories to the bad acts.


What happens when a cop(s) commits a bad act? 99% of the time the blue wall goes up and the police union is there, all to protect (cover up) for the bad/incomepent cop(s). That is protecting and serving the bad/incompetent cop not the public.

What is shocking about the Dallas shooting is not that it happened but that it hasn't happened sooner and that so many people never saw that something like this could happen.

It is called blowback because far too many police departments are more interested in protecting the bad apples then actually performing their jobs to protect their communities. Do you think that incidents similar to Arab Spring only happen in other countries? The NRA, Republicans, Oath Keepers, and other assorted right wing nuts keep talking about 2nd Amendment remedies. Do they really think that 2nd Amendment remedies only apply to white people? They are now reaping what they sowed.

[malaise]

51. Add to that the never-ending wars

Disenchanted military have been taught how to kill for the interests of the 1%. It follows that those with 'issues' and 'agendas' will use their training for their own agendas no matter how twisted.

War is good for nothing but killing. So we now have many police who are ex-military and some disenchanted and 'disturbed' ex-military who all have the same training. What a recipe for disaster.

[frankieallen]

81. "War is good for nothing but killing"

Nice thought I suppose, but no place in reality.
ever hear of WW2 ? Hitler? Japanese bombing Perl Harbor?
American revolution?

[malaise]

83. Ever heard of Iraq

an illegal war and occupation. Stop for a while and examine your own atrocities.

[frankieallen]

84. yes, I have heard or Iraq. Is Iraq "all wars"? I never said all wars were justified.

You said war was good for nothing but killing,
which i called you out on, because it's a blanket statement that is simply not true. Do you think going to war with Germany to fight Hitler was "only good for killing" ?
I curious to the depth of your ignorance.

"Stop for a while and examine your own atrocities."
What do you mean by that?

[Ohioblue22]

20. The wild west had strict gun control in that you weren't allowed to have guns

[jmg257]

37. Wasn't that the trigger for the OK Corral shoot-out?

[Ohioblue22]

57. They didn't want to return give them up

[beevul]

59. Which applied only to carrying in town.

Ownership, not so much.

[Igel]

71. Like most of this thread, it's using a broad brush to paint a picture with a thousand little flowers

You don't get anything out that you think you're after.

The "wild west" didn't last for long, had fuzzy borders, and didn't ban guns. Individual towns--we're talking little patches of a few hundred people to a few thousand people--did ban guns, but it wasn't evenly enforced.

By the way, this was the kind of law that eventually went to SCOTUS, who found that the gun control laws enacted by states and local governments were constitutional because the 2A didn't apply to states but only to the federal government. Such local laws were found to be Constitutional at the time.

They didn't decide the issue as to how the 2A applied to federal rules because they weren't asked that question. However, it pays to point out that from 1865 to the 1930s and beyond, the US Constitution was interpreted by courts as applying more and more to state and local government in areas like free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, due process, etc., etc. Until then, it would be legal for a state, if its state constitution allowed it, to ban certain kinds of speech, prohibit assembly, have a state religion, or ban letting blacks vote. We like having the amendments trickle down to lower jurisdictions when we like the outcome, but not when we don't, we like having the US constitution rein in local government.

My home state of Maryland was Catholic and had enacted a lot of blue laws to enforce Sunday-sabbath observance. Bloody pain, because when I was young the laws still existed. State liquor stores closed at 6, and if you were a Saturday-sabbath keeper who couldn't get to a liquor store before it closed after work it meant you had a heck of a time doing something like buying wine for Passover or beer for a Sunday cook-out. Now, in Texas, it still trips me up when I'm shopping and buying wine Sunday morning. No alcohol sales until noon, but now that's "morality" and not "religion." One area of Houston still has a 19th-century restriction based on "morality" of not allowing alcohol sales. Originally done out of religious motivation, it's also just "morals-based" now.

[randr]

27. I am sure the board room of the NRA is celebrating the success of their

Second Amendment Remedy.

[Hoppy]

29. Because the remedies are supposed to be for white people. Black peeps ain't supposed to be allowed

to have guns.


It's like when St. Ronnie of Raygun was only governor. Open carry was good until the Black Panthers started following cops, carrying loaded shotguns. Open carry was no longer a good idea. He signed legislation abolishing open carry.

[SheriffBob]

31. Insurection

I believe shooting government officials is classified as "insurrection" as enumerated in the constitution.

Since it is unlawful, the NRA should be prosecuted for their gun propaganda policies which encourage insurrection.

[seabeyond]

56. 15% increase in cops death this yr. 71% murdered by whites. That is a significant increase.

Though, I need to look at the information because it did not clarify if deaths were only by gun, or perpetrated by a criminal. A lot of police death on the job is car accidents, which makes sense.

With the increase of guns as the answer, the increase of police deaths.

Makes sense.

[maryellen99]

63. Where was this anger when the 2 Las Vegas cops were killed by that couple who were Bundy Followers?

[treestar]

65. Food for thought

The right wingers need to reflect. They are not good at that.

[Initech]

70. I quote the Joker in the Dark Knight:

"I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hmmm? You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds! "

It's pretty much exactly what happened here. Nobody batted an eye at Orlando or Sandy Hook or San Bernardino or Paris, gun sales went through the roof every time there's a mass shooting. But a couple of police get shot - OMG it's total freak out mode!

[DetlefK]

74. That quote also came to my mind.

[jmg257]

78. "Nobody batted an eye at Orlando or Sandy Hook or San Bernardino or Paris" Huh? Where is that true?

"gun sales went through the roof every time there's a mass shooting" - which has little to do with the event, and more to do with the reactions to them; certainly shows where eyes have been batted.

Admittedly, I am a bit lost on this one.

[Initech]

82. I meant that because Congress doesn't do jack shit when it comes to guns.

And every time a mass shooting happens things get worse, not better. Instead of disarming, we're arming more and more and more because there's this fear that someone is going to take away your guns. Sandy Hook happens and instead of taking steps to disarm, the families of the victims get harassed by "truthers". Orlando happens and instead of disarming, we're encouraging more LGBT Americans to arm themselves. And the NRA's only solution to a mass shooting isn't gun control, it's "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".

[jmg257]

85. Ah - got ya - understood. nt

[Igel]

72. it assumes a certain amount of communalism.

That's only deeply rooted in certain portions of American society. Some of the more atavistic ones, who missed the Enlightenment and how it mixed with Christianity to reshape some value systems.

If you fight tyranny, you fight not the abstraction but the action. They come for you, you resist.

Otherwise you're in the same boat as Muslim extremists who fight the tyranny of drone killings in Yemen by shooting people in Paris, and you fight the killing of Iraqi Muslims by shooting people in Bangladesh. It's Western Christians killing Muslims, so you resist that by killing Western Christians. A cop in Florida kills somebody, by mistake or by intent or because of a misperception, you protest in NY City and kill a cop in Oregon. Tit for tat. Just like settling a dispute that reduced your tribe's numbers by requiring that the other tribe present you with a fresh wombs so you can replenish your numbers--ignore the fact that the wombs are attached to female bodies with brains, all that matters is the tribe, the collective, the commune. I think "communalism" is good word for this and use it for such situations. (It's an South Asian subcontinent usage, as far as I know. We use "collective punishment," but that's far too narrow an application of the concept. There's no punishment in assuming that the person with the same skin color or language or religion as you is the one telling the truth in any disagreement, so it's communalism but not collective punishment.)

In this case, it's easy to misconstrue what another person says and to present that misconstrual as the other person's intended meaning. The technical term for this is "straw man."

(Straw men are staples here. And by "staple" I don't mean a small piece of wire bent in order to hold pieces of paper together or to hold something against a flat surface. It's a metaphorical extension of staple, like bread or potatoes.)

[TipTok]

73. The fact you don't get it seems to be a personal problem...

[TeddyR]

76. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense

Not a right to overthrow the government. I believe there's a court case rejecting this right to revolution but couldn't find it.

In any event, the shooter in Dallas wasn't rebelling against an oppressive government. He was a murderer trying to kill white people and more specifically white cops. He didn't have any grander political aspirations.

[Warpy]

79. Good thing to point out to antigovernment gun lovers

I guarantee they'll splutter, insult you, and change the subject because the guy taking on the tyrannical government was the wrong color to fit into their fantasy built on The Turner Diaries.

That's why there is so much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the increasingly lily white far right.

[wiggs]

80. Good post. That's the culture they and we have allowed for a long time. nt