Well, there was a response to government tyranny in Dallas yesterday. It is a direct result of the NRA and the 2nd to fight said tyranny.
So, the question then becomes is the result of nearly unfettered access to guns helpful or is this governmental tyranny another line of BS and the 2nd is outdated?
Because one person decided they have had enough isn’t a revolt. Just like the guys in Oregon or the Bundy Ranch stand off didn’t spark off anything either.
An armed revolt is illegal and treasonous. Losing will probably mean you death. If you are going to stage a revolt, “Declare Independence”, or stage a coup you damn will better make sure you have both a good portion of the populace supporting you and the manpower to stage that revolt.
Just because one person failed to start a revolt doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen in the future. Though I have contended many times that things aren’t nearly bad enough at this point for a revolt to gain traction at this current time.
I just have to add, TX shooter does seem to have been highly trained or practiced and looks like a war combat vet from the data coming out. FL shooter, I really don’t think he had a high level of proficiency or training, he was inside an extremely very crowded building, a very different scenario.
[quote=“rkt88edmo, post:206, topic:81122, full:true”]
… Use of lethal force when there is not an imminent deadly threat is just summary execution.
… In this case, form what I’ve read so far, the shooter seems to have been contained and there was no imminent threat. [/quote]
I found this use of a remote bomb extremely troubling as well.
Apparently the suspect did mention the existence of IEDs during the standoff communications, so perhaps the police thought they were preventing bombs being detonated (?).
But the chief of police, when reporting the use of the remote bomb during the press conference this morning, did not explicitly say why it was used - just that it was. He mentioned the bomb so matter-of-factly that one would think it was a common occurrence.
I am withholding judgment until all facts are in, but am concerned. I understand the adrenaline and emotions and the horror of it all, but everyone deserves due process. Everyone.
Agree, for all we know, they convened a committee of experts during the hours that passed and were consulting with the FBI and that was the decision reached as the best possible one and the bomb bot wasn’t just an expedient means to an end. Hopefully we will learn more about the decision process that came about.
It does seem like it hinges on his IED threats though and officer safety. But I am curious as to what the vetting was on the use of bomb bot and whether they had an existing policy for deploying something like that.
I’m saying it’s both silly and potentially dangerous, given the fantasies and fancies it seems to encourage. I don’t know how much overlap there is between survivalist BS and the modern ‘security’ business. I do know from past acquaintance with one man who helped engineer the growth of that business that the 2 aren’t completely distinct. Back in the 70s when we were in high school he always had the latest copy of “Soldier of Fortune”, a war porn magazine from that era. I lost touch with him in adulthood, but stayed in touch with a mutual friend who has told me the man’s youth-fantasies became his career.
What is distinct right now I think, is that ‘security’ biz training and free access to powerful weaponry has opened the door to political slaughter. Very political slaughter. The mass murders of the past 5-7 years had been difficult to correlate to political ideology; the only thing they’d highlighted was the need for gun control. Now, in rapid succession, we’ve seen 2 men trained in the use of arms deploy them on discrete civilian target populations. More robust target populations than you find at an elementary school.
I’d argue that both recent mass killings show up most survivalist/weapons fantasy for the hollow crap that it is. But, I don’t see that viewpoint gaining traction.
Seems fair to me. The attackers were murderous and violent, regardless of any rationalizations.
Imagining themselves as a revolutionaries/guerrillas doesn’t change the fact that they’re still murderously violent. Many murders think they’re special for various reasons and imagine themselves all sorts of things, it doesn’t make them less murderous. Fantasies about motivations don’t erase the fact of murderous and violent behavior. Assuming these murderers were motivated by the mindless, delusional zealotry you imagine is just a reason for further condemnation.
The Orlando shooter was employed by G4S as a guard. He seemed to have waited until the crowd was tired and wasted, c. 2 AM. He took out one guard. He managed to murder very large numbers of healthy, fit young people (mostly men) by determining when they were most vulnerable.
I’m not sure a guy without training could have done this with such horrific efficiency. The death toll will probably increase if it hasn’t already BTW. One woman at my church is a family friend of one of the wounded. He was on life support when she spoke out about him on Father’s Day Sunday, and his prognosis was poor.
I’m familiar with the training standards for armed guards including federal facilities that agencies like G4S serve. The bar is very low. There isn’t anything I’ve seen that indicates he was in any way well trained or disciplined.
I don’t think the standards need to be that high to help with effecting mass slaughter of unarmed civilians. The shooter in Orlando knew enough to find the safety on his weapon and to hit vital parts of 50+ bodies, reload, etc., all while apparently communicating via cell phone using various formats (I think Facebook was indicated).
I’m not one bit surprised. The anger in this country is beyond the boiling point, and there will be more protests. Guaranteed. There will be more violence, and the crisis will deepen. And yes; this is a crisis.
There was violence and heated exchanges at the protest I attended last night. Things will get worse before they get better.
I’m not advocating violence. Further violence will not help the situation, but I think it’s inevitable.
Decades ago, The Civil Rights Movement worked to instill Civilian Review Boards. The machine would not budge. The police police themselves, still. I think it’s high time we revive the call for/DEMAND for, significant reforms in police forces nationwide. And Civilian Review Boards are a good start. As it is now, we have the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.
I can’t say because we haven’t had a massive revolt since 1861.
Though when I defend the right I don’t usually bring up the tyranny angle (as it is very unlikely it will be used), and rarely even beat what I call the “the defense drum”, though it is a valid reason.
I think if you were going to have an armed revolt, it would be much better with arms. I don’t foresee that happening in America in my life time (I will let you know if that changes).
The lack of needing arms to overthrow the government doesn’t mean I support removing the right or that the right is archaic. Personal defense is still a valid reason. And putting aside rights, defense, and overthrowing the government, the fact is that 99.985+% of all gun owners hurt no one with their guns. Many if not most of the people who use guns for violence get them through illicit means. So, the fear of violence is disproportionate to how many people actually use them for violence.
