[subego]

**** RL.

Let me just test the waters by making a broad argument.

The endgame of using the Second Amendment against the government is the collapse of said government. Qualifying uses are for when the idea of violently overthrowing the government is less extreme than what the government is itself doing.

For smaller scale issues, it would fail to be pursued to the end, and therefore serve as an ineffective tool for change, or it would be pursued to the end, which for a non-qualifying issue would be a truly horrifying result.

Does this situation merit destruction of the government?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It won't though. Cops as a group aren't super-resilient to being killed off. They already have a challenge putting asses in the seats, even without being killed intentionally.

Seriously, subego, what's your fabled second amendment for, if not for a time when police are killing citizens openly and without cause? What more would it take for you as a second amendment advocate to say "this. we have an amendment for this situation"? Because if there's no reason for the second amendment then we might as well stop paying the costs of it, and if there is a reason for it then I'm having a hard time reconciling why this doesn't qualify.

I have wondered: If the cops were to actually catch one of these cop killers alive and get him to trial, could he use 2A as a legal defence? I'm guessing it would be a hail Mary if he could, but could he?

Should 'hail Mary' be capitalised?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I have wondered: If the cops were to actually catch one of these cop killers alive and get him to trial, could he use 2A as a legal defence? I'm guessing it would be a hail Mary if he could, but could he?

No. Murder is still illegal, no matter the method.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No. Murder is still illegal, no matter the method.

That's not true - just get a badge!

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It won't though. Cops as a group aren't super-resilient to being killed off. They already have a challenge putting asses in the seats, even without being killed intentionally.

Seriously, subego, what's your fabled second amendment for, if not for a time when police are killing citizens openly and without cause? What more would it take for you as a second amendment advocate to say "this. we have an amendment for this situation"? Because if there's no reason for the second amendment then we might as well stop paying the costs of it, and if there is a reason for it then I'm having a hard time reconciling why this doesn't qualify.

It's a matter of scale, Uncle. I don't mean to downplay the seriousness of the issues we face today, but if you can count the number of incidents on your fingers and toes when talking about a 330+ million population, it really doesn't represent the norm. That's not to say the factors that lead to those incidents aren't present more pervasively, but as a whole in order for what you're talking about to be triggered, it would have to be a much larger scale and the political/diplomatic process (which can be painfully slow) must break down. Not to mention a large portion of the black population live in urban centers most often controlled by the democrats, which often have extremely restrictive gun laws in comparison to the rest of the country.

Some domestic terrorist killing 5 cops, and a double digit number of cops killing unarmed black men quite frankly doesn't indicate a total breakdown or collapse of our free society is coming anytime soon. It'd have to get a whole lot worse for that to occur.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No. Murder is still illegal, no matter the method.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

That's not true - just get a badge!

Or, money. OJ didn't have badge.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

That's not true - just get a badge!

Miscarriages of justice notwithstanding

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Miscarriages of justice notwithstanding

Speaking of miscarriages of justice.
Freddie Gray case: Charges dropped against remaining officers - CNN.com



Does anyone honestly believe he broke his own neck?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

**** RL.

Yay!

Let me just test the waters by making a broad argument.

The endgame of using the Second Amendment against the government is the collapse of said government. Qualifying uses are for when the idea of violently overthrowing the government is less extreme than what the government is itself doing.

I would like to draw an analogy to declarations of war. "Qualifying" uses of a standing army are for when war is declared by congress, yet somehow we have outgrown that strict distinction and for the last 75 years we have blurred all manner of boundaries between states of war and peace. The basic structure has proven more flexible than originally intended (and still, arguably, functional).

The declaration of war requirement was explicit. The qualifying functions of the second amendment were not. I don't see why the latter should prove to be more black-and-white than the former (ouch, no pun intended).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It's a matter of scale, Uncle.
...
it would have to be a much larger scale and the political/diplomatic process (which can be painfully slow) must break down.
...
Some domestic terrorist killing 5 cops, and a double digit number of cops killing unarmed black men quite frankly doesn't indicate a total breakdown

I sense that you're suggesting that the second amendment helps enable the populace to counter mass killing by government with our own mass killing by the people. What I was trying to insinuate was this -- why wouldn't it also enable the populace to counter double-digit killing by the government with our own double-digit killing by the people, a response in-kind? Isn't the point of the second amendment to try to keep the playing field even, and to avoid the government having an insurmountable advantage? Doesn't the same principle hold true for two-digit killings as for five-digit ones?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I sense that you're suggesting that the second amendment helps enable the populace to counter mass killing by government with our own mass killing by the people. What I was trying to insinuate was this -- why wouldn't it also enable the populace to counter double-digit killing by the government with our own double-digit killing by the people, a response in-kind? Isn't the point of the second amendment to try to keep the playing field even, and to avoid the government having an insurmountable advantage? Doesn't the same principle hold true for two-digit killings as for five-digit ones?

The Second Amendment does not allow for vigilanteism. What does the Second Amendment have to do with reducing police brutality? Do you think increasing the fear in police officers that black people are armed more often will lead to less deadly confrontations now?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yay!


I would like to draw an analogy to declarations of war. "Qualifying" uses of a standing army are for when war is declared by congress, yet somehow we have outgrown that strict distinction and for the last 75 years we have blurred all manner of boundaries between states of war and peace. The basic structure has proven more flexible than originally intended (and still, arguably, functional).

The declaration of war requirement was explicit. The qualifying functions of the second amendment were not. I don't see why the latter should prove to be more black-and-white than the former (ouch, no pun intended).

I'm not sure I understand.

The situation we're in was created by accident. Decades of competing interests (such as a cop's ability to do their job vs. how much force they are allowed to project) have unintentionally conspired to craft a broken system.

The qualifying function of the Second Amendment isn't explicit, it's rationed. The tool in question is assassination. It's utility is in the dismantling of centralized authority.

Centralized authority isn't the culprit in this instance, therefore the implement of its destruction is not the proper tool.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The Second Amendment does not allow for vigilanteism. What does the Second Amendment have to do with reducing police brutality?

Nothing (by my interpretation of the word "brutality," which is less significant than life-and-death). What it has to do with is to allow someone who believes in whatever they believe more strongly than they believe in their own life to make their cause known. It's like a vote you can only cast once, then it kills you. It's kind of like the monks who set themselves on fire to make a point, except that it was easier to be a dick and ignore the monks.

Do you think increasing the fear in police officers that black people are armed more often will lead to less deadly confrontations now?

No, the fear won't automatically fix the problem. People are being ridiculous if they frame the issue as if there is some outside factor (outside the mind of the individual person who perpetrates a crime) that can fix the situation. The way society keeps people from being reckless with others' lives is well established: punishment. You don't park in a handicap parking spot because of punishment. You don't walk around kicking people's dogs because of punishment. And you don't set your obnoxious neighbor's house on fire because of punishment. Police will find the wherewithal to resist the urge to shoot random people if they are subject to the same thing the rest of us are. Punishment. If police (like all people, everywhere) think their actions have consequences, then they will spend the mental resources that are a requirement to avoid idiocy. If they don't think there are consequences, they're going to withhold those mental resources, and there really is no way to avoid mistakes if people aren't doing the mental legwork to think it through.

If fear was an excuse, then the snipers shooting police wouldn't be punished either (they're afraid of police because every other day a police shoots someone for no other reason than being what they are). And we all know that's not a possibility.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

The qualifying function of the Second Amendment isn't explicit, it's rationed.

I missed it. Come again?

The tool in question is assassination. Its utility is in the dismantling of centralized authority.

Centralized authority isn't the culprit in this instance, therefore the implement of its destruction is not the proper tool.

I think the tool in question has more than one use. Another use is to effect the death of a certain chosen person. Ordinarily it's not the job of random wackos to implement justice. And ordinarily justice has nothing to do with causing someone to die. But this is not an ordinary situation.

Given that individual officers don't consider this issue to be life-and-death importance, and given that their ordinary structure of on-the-job discipline doesn't inform them that it's life-and-death, and given that the general-scope societal structure ALSO doesn't inform them that it's a life-and-death issue, it is a just outcome that, by some means, these parties come to know that this actually is a life-and-death issue. If police die in a one-to-one ratio with those police unjustly and unabashedly kill, then that will deliver the message that this issue is one that might actually be worthwhile to muster the effort to fix (even if the situation evolved unintentionally to start with). If that number of needless deaths is acceptable to them, they'll keep the status quo. If it's not, then they're hypocrites who kill people and I have zero sympathy for them.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Speaking of miscarriages of justice.
Freddie Gray case: Charges dropped against remaining officers - CNN.com



Does anyone honestly believe he broke his own neck?

I assume this is another case where if the blame goes six ways then no one person has enough guilt to be convicted? I mean maybe the judge is pro police but there's nothing pointing to that.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What it has to do with is to allow someone who believes in whatever they believe more strongly than they believe in their own life to make their cause known. It's like a vote you can only cast once, then it kills you.

I don't get what you're trying to say here.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's kind of like the monks who set themselves on fire to make a point, except that it was easier to be a dick and ignore the monks.

The monks who set themselves on fire kill only themselves — and I think this is a legitimate, albeit extreme way of protesting something. Killing or harassing others is not.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, the fear won't automatically fix the problem. People are being ridiculous if they frame the issue as if there is some outside factor (outside the mind of the individual person who perpetrates a crime) that can fix the situation. The way society keeps people from being reckless with others' lives is well established: punishment. You don't park in a handicap parking spot because of punishment. You don't walk around kicking people's dogs because of punishment. And you don't set your obnoxious neighbor's house on fire because of punishment. Police will find the wherewithal to resist the urge to shoot random people if they are subject to the same thing the rest of us are. Punishment. If police (like all people, everywhere) think their actions have consequences, then they will spend the mental resources that are a requirement to avoid idiocy. If they don't think there are consequences, they're going to withhold those mental resources, and there really is no way to avoid mistakes if people aren't doing the mental legwork to think it through.

It's not that I disagree with what you write here, I fail to understand what this has to do with my post. Are you trying to say that since vigilantism* is a form of punishment, the fear of reprisal will put police officers in line?

* On second thought, vigilantism does not exactly fit the bill here, it's not as if certain police officers who had been involved in the death of someone had been selectively killed. Rather the sniper indiscriminately shot anyone who happened to wear a police uniform.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think the tool in question has more than one use. Another use is to effect the death of a certain chosen person. Ordinarily it's not the job of random wackos to implement justice. And ordinarily justice has nothing to do with causing someone to die. But this is not an ordinary situation.

Given that individual officers don't consider this issue to be life-and-death importance, and given that their ordinary structure of on-the-job discipline doesn't inform them that it's life-and-death, and given that the general-scope societal structure ALSO doesn't inform them that it's a life-and-death issue, it is a just outcome that, by some means, these parties come to know that this actually is a life-and-death issue. If police die in a one-to-one ratio with those police unjustly and unabashedly kill, then that will deliver the message that this issue is one that might actually be worthwhile to muster the effort to fix (even if the situation evolved unintentionally to start with). If that number of needless deaths is acceptable to them, they'll keep the status quo. If it's not, then they're hypocrites who kill people and I have zero sympathy for them.

The effectiveness of violence as a problem-solving tool hinges upon the target's ability to retaliate. If they are able to do so, it is virtually guaranteed the result will be more violence and an unsolved problem.

In a sense, this is what defines the qualifying uses for the Second Amendment against the government. The government has an extensive ability to retaliate. What scenario will use against the government actually solve the problem?

The singular answer is when the problem is the government's very existence. A government will retain the ability to retaliate until it is destroyed.

Use of the tool for a lesser problem keeps the government's retaliatory ability intact, and thus serves as a poor use of the tool.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't get what you're trying to say here.

I am trying to say that it's a method of expression that, by its very nature, ensures it will only be used on matters of utmost importance. You would not use this measure on trivial matters, because you wouldn't end your own life over trivial matters.

The monks who set themselves on fire kill only themselves — and I think this is a legitimate, albeit extreme way of protesting something. Killing or harassing others is not.

Not unless it is a matter of utmost importance.

It's not that I disagree with what you write here, I fail to understand what this has to do with my post. Are you trying to say that since vigilantism* is a form of punishment, the fear of reprisal will put police officers in line?

* On second thought, vigilantism does not exactly fit the bill here, it's not as if certain police officers who had been involved in the death of someone had been selectively killed. Rather the sniper indiscriminately shot anyone who happened to wear a police uniform.

Exactly. Indiscriminately shooting anyone who happens to be of Group X is not ok. Just as true when Group X = police as when Group X = blacks. Eye-for-an-eye is what you get when the normal justice system decides to stop pursuing justice as a rule.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

The effectiveness of violence as a problem-solving tool hinges upon the target's ability to retaliate. If they are able to do so, it is virtually guaranteed the result will be more violence and an unsolved problem.

In a sense, this is what defines the qualifying uses for the Second Amendment against the government. The government has an extensive ability to retaliate. What scenario will use against the government actually solve the problem?

The inherent believability of your statement relies on the term "government" and by implication "army." But I think "police" is more accurate than "government", and I also think that would call your conclusion into question. I doubt many police departments would win in open conflict against the municipalities they patrol. They only win in covert conflicts, where plausible deniability prevents most residents from participating.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You would not use this measure on trivial matters, because you wouldn't end your own life over trivial matters.

Try me.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I sense that you're suggesting that the second amendment helps enable the populace to counter mass killing by government with our own mass killing by the people. What I was trying to insinuate was this -- why wouldn't it also enable the populace to counter double-digit killing by the government with our own double-digit killing by the people, a response in-kind? Isn't the point of the second amendment to try to keep the playing field even, and to avoid the government having an insurmountable advantage? Doesn't the same principle hold true for two-digit killings as for five-digit ones?

An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind. It's not so much an "even playing field" as it is "the citizens will always retain ultimate control of the nation, through force if necessary". The government would have 0 chance of winning a civil war. If you want elaboration as to why this is, I'll be happy to delve into it.

I don't believe the government is engaged in mass killing. What we have is a smattering of isolated incidents over a long period of time, precipitated by policy that does not adequately protect police & citizens alike from criminal behavior (up to and including murder). In other words, we're still all on the same team.

In addition, the government is not engaged in any double digit killings. These are incidents perpetrated by individuals disregarding policies in place to prevent these killings. These deaths are not state sponsored, and though the judiciary may not be doing a good enough job bringing them to justice, they are by no means condoning these killings. Acquitting or dropping charges is not the same thing as ordering police to use deadly force without due cause or to deny freedom in spite of the constitution.

The way I see it, the 2A in this capacity is analogous to "the big red button". The one you hope you never have to press. It's mere presence acts as a deterrence for the government seizing power from the hands of the citizens. Until we start seeing wide(r)spread corruption, a breakdown in the election process, a breakdown in rule of law, and/or police administering de-facto martial law, there is no justifiable cause to raise the citizenry in arms. The "big red button" is there to uphold the constitution when the government fails to. It's the ultimate check & balance. The keys to the nation belong to it's citizens, not the government. The 2A ensures that it will stay this way, and the government would have to win a civil war (unlikely) to rest control away. We are nowhere near that point as it is today, as much as the sensationalism of the media would have you believe otherwise.

If it came down to it, I would not have a problem with any citizen defending themselves from rogue police. The problem here, however, is that short of a warantless home invasion there's no way to tell if a police officer has "gone rogue" until it is too late to do anything about it. Here, the police must do a better job of policing their own ranks. Else, the path to violence becomes ever more probabilistic.

EDIT: We could start with getting rid of these extremely dangerous and absurdly stupid no-knock warrants.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

In addition, the government is not engaged in ________. These are incidents perpetrated by individuals
...
The way I see it, the 2A in this capacity is analogous to "the big red button". The one you hope you never have to press. It's mere presence acts as a deterrence for the government seizing power from the hands of the citizens.

The former is what I'm trying to say about the latter. It's not necessarily one "big red button" that all the citizens press together as a unified group. It's a separate "big red button" for each individual person. After all, if I act alone and I feel that I'm pushed to the breaking point, with no other option, I can press my button and after they kill me in the ensuing man-hunt I'm just as dead as if my nation was nuked into the stone age. From my point of view, it's all over. So I will only take that step if I feel it's a last resort, but I can take that step, because I do have that last resort (and people who live in nations without a second amendment don't have that last resort available; I have it because of the second).

I know that you and subego are both claiming that it is not divisible into individual people's individual red buttons, but so far neither of you seem to have supported that claim with evidence stronger than just your personal decree that it is so.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Eye-for-an-eye is what you get when the normal justice system decides to stop pursuing justice as a rule.

I hadn't even read this post and used the same expression in my response to you below. Great minds think alike

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The former is what I'm trying to say about the latter. It's not necessarily one "big red button" that all the citizens press together as a unified group. It's a separate "big red button" for each individual person.

No, but if one "group" were to push it, and that group were considered just in their cause by enough people, surely many others would follow and floodgates to civil war would be wide open.

After all, if I act alone and I feel that I'm pushed to the breaking point, with no other option, I can press my button and after they kill me in the ensuing man-hunt I'm just as dead as if my nation was nuked into the stone age. From my point of view, it's all over. So I will only take that step if I feel it's a last resort, but I can take that step, because I do have that last resort (and people who live in nations without a second amendment don't have that last resort available; I have it because of the second).

Exactly what the 2A is meant to provide, in this capacity.

I know that you and subego are both claiming that it is not divisible into individual people's individual red buttons, but so far neither of you seem to have supported that claim with evidence stronger than just your personal decree that it is so.

It's well known that psychology (the study of individuals) and sociology (the study of groups of people) are vastly different because you cannot predict group behavior based on individual (or even a group of individuals) behavior. Getting a group of people together is like making a whole new beast all together. As far as human behavior goes, the whole does not equal the sum of it's parts. It's difficult to back that up because neither discipline really has a good explanation as to why this is. What you're trying to do is put a sociological question into the framework of psychology, and not even our best sociologists/psychologists have been able to bridge that gap.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No, but if one "group" were to push it, and that group were considered just in their cause by enough people, surely many others would follow and floodgates to civil war would be wide open.

so..... what? Maybe I'm not catching your inference, but that seems completely irrelevant to me. It doesn't seem likely, and even if it did come about it wouldn't undermine the effectiveness of previous encounters at an individual level; if anything the danger of such an outcome would benefit the individual user.

It's well known that psychology (the study of individuals) and sociology (the study of groups of people) are vastly different
...
What you're trying to do is put a sociological question into the framework of psychology

Are you suggesting that the second amendment has been proven or even measured sociologically? I would be interested to see what papers you might be referencing if the CDC weren't banned from doing those studies by NRA lobbyists, of course, wink wink

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I am trying to say that it's a method of expression that, by its very nature, ensures it will only be used on matters of utmost importance. You would not use this measure on trivial matters, because you wouldn't end your own life over trivial matters.

That's too vague and wishy-washy. Our context is quite specific: you are arguing about a supposed connection of the Second Amendment and indiscriminate killings of cops at worst, vigilantism at best. As I understand your premise, you are trying to argue that in this context the Second Amendment is beneficial in this context.

From my perspective, if you indiscriminately start killing one group, you are committing a crime. The solution is not reprisal, but justice — even if we can understand (≠ agree with) why people would take matters into their own hands. So if legitimately owned guns are used to kill cops, how does that change the situation compared to the populous having less guns. (I see that as an argument for banning guns.)

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Not unless it is a matter of utmost importance.

That's a false equivalence. The US government is not a despotic regime where starting a rebellion is a legitimate form of self-defense.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's a false equivalence. The US government is not a despotic regime where starting a rebellion is a legitimate form of self-defense.

Yet. If you wait until you need guns for a revolution, you've waited far too long. You honestly believe the US gov't will stand forever? That it can't be brought down by corruption? All empires collapse, it's inevitable.

Besides, who said it's always the Feds you would need to defend against?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
The Battle of Athens

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's too vague and wishy-washy. Our context is quite specific: you are arguing about a supposed connection of the Second Amendment and indiscriminate killings of cops at worst, vigilantism at best. As I understand your premise, you are trying to argue that in this context the Second Amendment is beneficial in this context.

From my perspective, if you indiscriminately start killing one group, you are committing a crime. The solution is not reprisal, but justice

The powers that be have had their chance to deliver justice. We're not idiots. At this point, it's obvious that no justice is forthcoming. Justice is simply not on the menu. Now what is better, reprisal or nothing? Would you rather have nothing? I wouldn't.

That's a false equivalence.

That's an interesting point. Please let me expound on that for a moment, by putting a question towards you directly. I have noticed today, OreoCookie, that you have repeatedly hinted that you are narrowing your concern to only the cop side of this debate, and ignoring the (more numerous) murders of black men by cops. Do you consider that a false equivalence too? I worry that it's distinctly racist to act like the (fewer) indiscriminate cop killings matter more than the (more numerous) indiscriminate black man killings that clearly induced them. And of course I'm not the first person to notice that it might need to actually be argued that black lives matter too, not just cop lives. OreoCookie, please be honest with yourself and with me: have you been focusing on the cops to the exclusion of the rest because you have trouble agreeing that black lives matter? Are you being racist?

If you're not, if you're honestly not being so, then please I ask you to stop drawing your "quite specific focus" on "killing of cops" to the exclusion of the killing of blacks. The two are inseparable.

The US government is not a despotic regime where starting a rebellion is a legitimate form of self-defense.

A 100% despotic regime would beget 100% rebellion (so goes the premise of the second amendment, at any rate), and a 0.1% despotic regime begets a 0.1% rebellion. To the extent the police of the US are tyrannizing black men, black men are rebelling. The the same extent. Like for like. Apples to apples. The plague of indiscriminate killing has begotten a smattering of very-much-alike indiscriminate killing.

edit: props to similar points made above; I should read to the end before replying

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The government would have 0 chance of winning a civil war.

I'd love to hear how this would go. One side has tanks, plans, access to and control of all communication on both sides, ****ing killer robot planes, satellites to see and tracking anyone anywhere at anytime...

Unless you assume some substantial percentage of the armed forces would switch sides and fight for the citizens, or if you assume a couple pockets of people hiding underground counts as "civil war not yet over," it would be over quickly.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I have noticed today, OreoCookie, that you have repeatedly hinted that you are narrowing your concern to only the cop side of this debate, and ignoring the (more numerous) murders of black men by cops.

I'm thoroughly confused now, and before I start replying to the rest of your post, let me just try and figure out whether we are massively talking past one another: Black lives matter has nothing to do with indiscriminate and senseless killings of cops for which I have as little understanding as senseless killings of black people. If, say, the shooter in Dallas had targeted select cops who had been implicated personally in some wrongdoing, I would have more sympathy for the shooter than I do now. When you indiscriminately target another group, you're no better than the people you're supposedly fighting against — even if I have a little more sympathy by understanding how you got there.

The solution to me has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, just have a look at other political movements (e. g. the Civil Rights Movement): it's peaceful protests, creating political pressure until there is critical mass and then involving yourself in the political process. That can take decades. Taking a gun into your hand, pop a few people and get shot at the end accomplishes nothing at best, and delegitimizes other groups at worst (as BLM might be associated with the Dallas shooter by some). Put succinctly:

The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The inherent believability of your statement relies on the term "government" and by implication "army." But I think "police" is more accurate than "government", and I also think that would call your conclusion into question. I doubt many police departments would win in open conflict against the municipalities they patrol. They only win in covert conflicts, where plausible deniability prevents most residents from participating.

Not only would the police have no chance, I argue the entire government would have a problem winning in open conflict... if this wasn't the case, there'd be no point to paying the price in murders and suicides for having a Second Amendment.

The deciding factor is going to be whether the goal is the total destruction of the opponent in question.

If the police are to be destroyed, then the Second Amendment is a good tool. However, and maybe I'm mistaken, total destruction is not being proposed.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I'm thoroughly confused now, and before I start replying to the rest of your post, let me just try and figure out whether we are massively talking past one another:

Ok, fair enough. I'm going to list the true/false statements that I believe lead me to my suspicion, and you can tell me if you think any of them are false.
1. A pattern is emerging of police killing black men for no good reason.
2. It is more than just chance.
3. The justice system is doing nothing about it.
4. Later, a pattern of black men killing police for no good reason has followed it.
5. Item (1) has come in far higher numbers than item (4)
6. Item (4) is directly caused by item (3)
7. Not all racists realize they are being racist.
8. If a person feels that item (4) is more serious or a worse offense than item (3), then they are racist whether they realize it or not.
9. You seem to be following the pattern of item (8), considering that repeatedly you have emphasized that you want us both to ignore the connection (item 6), and talk about item (4) before/absent item (3).

I respect you as a person, and I am surprised to find myself making such an claim about you. But I think it benefits everyone to clear the air and not beat around the bush. I hope I have missed my guess. So please tell me which step was in error.

Black lives matter has nothing to do with indiscriminate and senseless killings of cops

I don't presume to connect the group to the killers, but they most certainly do have a relationship in that they are both the result of the same need for justice. If the justice system fails and leaves a vacuum, that vacuum will be filled one way or another. The crime is too egregious to pass un-answered.

When you indiscriminately target another group, you're no better than the people you're supposedly fighting against — even if I have a little more sympathy by understanding how you got there.

I would agree if the number of incidents were more than 2. But something did (hopefully) or does (hopefully not) need to wake police up to the fact that they're not going to get away with this outrage even if the courts are coddling them. They had more than enough time to come to the realization in a blood-less fashion. If as few black men were indiscriminately killed as the number of police who were, this wouldn't still be on any of our radars. Police have the power(!) to end this, and the rest of us have no choice other than to react to their decisions.

just have a look at other political movements (e. g. the Civil Rights Movement): it's peaceful protests, creating political pressure until there is critical mass and then involving yourself in the political process.

I was wondering if I would get an excuse to bring that up. Do you think MLK would have been as successful as he was if Malcolm X were not there as a cautionary alternative? It's hard to draw conclusions but I suspect that the carrot and stick are far more effective in tandem than either one solo.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

The deciding factor is going to be whether the goal is the total destruction of the opponent in question.

If the police are to be destroyed, then the Second Amendment is a good tool.

Cap'n tightpants' most recent post seems to be a perfect counterexample. I am not familiar enough with it to know whether you can poke holes in it, but on the surface it seems like it proves that incremental (armed) pushback against government overreach does work as a means to stifle said overreach, in the same manner as the total pushback and total destruction that you are implying.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Cap'n tightpants' most recent post seems to be a perfect counterexample. I am not familiar enough with it to know whether you can poke holes in it, but on the surface it seems like it proves that incremental (armed) pushback against government overreach does work as a means to stifle said overreach, in the same manner as the total pushback and total destruction that you are implying.

I would argue this example also involves total destruction, the only difference between it and the scenario I'm discussing is the size of the government entity.

I'll admit, my reading was cursory.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

so..... what? Maybe I'm not catching your inference, but that seems completely irrelevant to me. It doesn't seem likely, and even if it did come about it wouldn't undermine the effectiveness of previous encounters at an individual level; if anything the danger of such an outcome would benefit the individual user.

I'm saying individuals considering pushing the "big red button" do not exist in a vaccuum.

Are you suggesting that the second amendment has been proven or even measured sociologically? I would be interested to see what papers you might be referencing if the CDC weren't banned from doing those studies by NRA lobbyists, of course, wink wink

No, I'm merely stating that you cannot apply psychological principles to sociological behavior, and vice versa. The comparison of a lone gunman pushed to the edge vs a group of people taking up arms against centralized government is apples and oranges. We've not seen the latter for quite some time now, given my original point that the US and it's government are not currently in a state that would precipitate such actions. We have seen the former, however, and I maintain that the causes of such incidents have little to do with the 2A and law-abiding gun ownership.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I'd love to hear how this would go. One side has tanks, plans, access to and control of all communication on both sides, ****ing killer robot planes, satellites to see and tracking anyone anywhere at anytime...

Unless you assume some substantial percentage of the armed forces would switch sides and fight for the citizens, or if you assume a couple pockets of people hiding underground counts as "civil war not yet over," it would be over quickly.

Not everyone is like you, apparently not really caring that you're shooting your own countrymen, just as long as you're following your leader's orders. Even drones need to be piloted, robots have to be controlled, missiles need to be fired, etc.. You're assuming that the military would just obey, assuming that a resistance would just forget about CB and shortwave radios, assuming that satellites will even be helpful at all. (How long did it take to find Bin-Laden?) "It would be over quickly." I'm sure that's what Russia thought about Afghanistan.

[Laminar]

Yes, so the first potential counterpoint I made.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Care to try that in English-speak?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I'd love to hear how this would go. One side has tanks, plans, access to and control of all communication on both sides, ****ing killer robot planes, satellites to see and tracking anyone anywhere at anytime...

Those tanks, planes(?), plans, and comms would be nothing more than useless piles of junk within mere weeks of an armed civil conflict. They take a truly massive amount of support & maintenance hours from private industry to maintain even a semblance of combat effectiveness. In a civil conflict setting, the US economy would tank and the supply chains necessary to support such equipment would collapse in short order. To run an M1a1's gas turbine engine, you need highly refined jet fuel which isn't easy to come by - and you'd be astonished at how quickly it guzzles that fuel. The only reason the US military is so effective and has the tools it does is it has the backing of the economy - i.e. the citizens.

Surely, in such a situation, factions of the military and national guard would splinter - as disorganized as the citizenry would be the military would be even more so. Provided the military did not splinter, the main difference would be that ~100 million American citizens vs the million or so military members would not be a contest. Simply through the attrition the citizenry would win - easily, even with extremely high body counts.

In addition:
-America's massive geographical landscape would be impossible to control with the relatively few military members as compared to the citizens.
-The vast majority of combat ready units are deployed overseas - they would have to be brought home along with their equipment (no small task) to be brought to bear.
-The best trained troops would be a non-replenish-able commodity.
-The citizens by default would control most supply routes throughout the country. In order for the military to move equipment and supplies, they'd either need to devote protection resources to move equipment or use extremely costly methods such as the c-5 galaxy.
-The military would be easily identifiable - citizens rising up against them would not.
-Oil pipelines, refineries, etc would be almost trivial to disrupt from the point of view of the citizens.
-The military would quickly be disrupted by widespread cyber attacks. The citizens conducting cyber warfare would have a distinct advantage as they would have greater numbers, more talent, be widely distributed and hard to identify, and would be on the offensive (it's much harder to defend networks than it is to attack them).

Unless you assume some substantial percentage of the armed forces would switch sides and fight for the citizens, or if you assume a couple pockets of people hiding underground counts as "civil war not yet over," it would be over quickly.

Some percentage surely would, but even assuming they wouldn't the US military wouldn't stand a chance.


There's a difference between winning tactical battles and winning strategic wars. The us military has no equal on the former, but struggles mightily with the latter even where we have a massive tactical advantage. To equate the two is to fundamentally misunderstand how wars are fought. See Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan for examples - those wars were fought with US supply chains fully intact, and against a far smaller and horribly equipped force, yet the US Military was still unable to achieve it's strategic objectives despite being at nearly full strength and backed by the full might of the US economy.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I would argue this example also involves total destruction, the only difference between it and the scenario I'm discussing is the size of the government entity.

What government entity was totally destroyed?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm saying individuals considering pushing the "big red button" do not exist in a vacuum.

So what? We could just say "and then something else might happen" to every post. You have to support the logic of the connection. We can't live our lives in fear of the butterfly effect.

No, I'm merely stating that you cannot apply psychological principles to sociological behavior, and vice versa.

You never established that it is a sociological behavior. It's not. It's merely a hypothesis. It has never been put to practice.

The comparison of a lone gunman pushed to the edge vs a group of people taking up arms against centralized government is apples and oranges. We've not seen the latter for quite some time now,

We've not seen the latter ever (not one under the auspices of the second amendment). I'll remind you that there was no second amendment during the American Revolution. The second amendment was an idealistic experiment devised by the founding fathers as a potential way to prevent the repeat of what they perceived as a dangerous scenario from their past. Their idea has persisted for centuries since its creation, but has never actually been tested. It is not a sociological principle being adapted to another science, because it hasn't been established to be true under any science. I could just as well argue that it ONLY works under psychology and NOT sociology (basically argue that the founding fathers erred to assume their logic would translate to a population at large, and no one has discovered this because it hasn't come up yet). We have no historical basis to judge either one. Under all contexts, its merits are pure assumptions and nothing more.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What government entity was totally destroyed?

The Sheriff's department, as run by Mansfield.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

The Sheriff's department, as run by Mansfield.

So after the conflict there was no sheriff's department?

I disagree that one person being removed from office, to be replaced by a new person (a better person) in the same office is a fair use of the term "total destruction," or even the term "destruction" at all (Mansfield himself wasn't even killed!). If that's what you meant all along by "total destruction" then I have no problem with it. I won't lose a wink of sleep if that is the most dire consequence.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So what? We could just say "and then something else might happen" to every post. You have to support the logic of the connection. We can't live our lives in fear of the butterfly effect.

I mean it in terms of the difference between an individuals actions and a group's actions. Mostly all "lone gunmen" told others of their plans before carrying out the attacks. In different circumstances, those "others" might be more ready to "join the cause". I am simply illustrating the difference between a lone attacker and a group armed conflict.

You never established that it is a sociological behavior. It's not. It's merely a hypothesis. It has never been put to practice.

I am not arguing that the "lone gunman" situation is sociological. I believe it to be psychological. The "sociological" would only apply to a civil war type setting. I'm not sure we're on the same page here, and I apologize if I'm not being clear in which situation I am referring to.

We've not seen the latter ever (not one under the auspices of the second amendment). I'll remind you that there was no second amendment during the American Revolution. The second amendment was an idealistic experiment devised by the founding fathers as a potential way to prevent the repeat of what they perceived as a dangerous scenario from their past. Their idea has persisted for centuries since its creation, but has never actually been tested.

I believe it to be tested everyday. It's main effect is that of deterrence. The fact that we're still a united country with only one civil war under our belts (that we survived) is evidence (circumstantial as it may be) that the 2A has worked in this capacity. It certainly hasn't led to the collapse of US society, as evidenced by it still being here .

It is not a sociological principle being adapted to another science, because it hasn't been established to be true under any science. I could just as well argue that it ONLY works under psychology and NOT sociology (basically argue that the founding fathers erred to assume their logic would translate to a population at large, and no one has discovered this because it hasn't come up yet). We have no historical basis to judge either one. Under all contexts, its merits are pure assumptions and nothing more.

As are freedom of speech, the 4A, and most other American ideals. The thing about sociological hypotheses is that they're largely untestable - you just have to sit back, wait for the data to pour in, and try to draw conclusions from that. You would be free to argue that, and I would understandably dissent with some of your conclusions.

That being said, I do believe many of the incidents on the news today related to OT fall squarely in the psychological domain (the psychology of the cops & victims). Of course they are bound within a sociological context (especially in how we react to them), however I believe the underlying causes of the vast majority of cops killing unarmed black men are due to split second decisions that turn out to be wrong. Would you agree here?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I am simply illustrating the difference between a lone attacker and a group armed conflict.

I'm pretty sure you started this train by claiming they were the same (or blurred). Now you're claiming to argue they're different. I don't even know why you think it matters.

I am not arguing that _____ situation is sociological. I believe it to be psychological. The "sociological" would only _____. The thing about sociological hypotheses is that they're largely untestable

None of that matters. Not unless one of us is relying on evidence from one domain and applying to a different (wrong) one. Neither of us is doing that.

I believe it to be tested everyday.

Well then it is on the individual level too, but three hundred million times as much.
(again, this doesn't matter to the thread)

It's main effect is that of deterrence.
...
I believe the underlying causes of the vast majority of cops killing unarmed black men are due to split second decisions that turn out to be wrong.

It's possible to deter killing (most of us do it every day for our entire lives. But it does take some effort. When disproportionate power is granted to certain individuals (like police), that power has the potential to corrupt the person's personality. Power corrupts (would you agree? ). The corruption can be brought back down under control by the innate deterrence that comes from the knowledge that actions still have consequences. One category of consequences is the justice system. Another is vigilanteism. The former is preferable to the latter. But the latter is preferable to nothing. And lately we don't have the former. But thanks to the second amendment, we do still have the latter.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Part of the rise in crime is from increasing poverty in the black community. During the Obama presidency blacks have been worse off, much worse, especially during his 2nd term.

[Uncle Skeleton]

begging the question? non sequitur? wrong thread? Otherwise, you think that just because Obama IS black, that you expected him to give hand-outs to blacks (so much so that it makes your face hurt when he didn't)? Well I have heard it said by blacks in the media that Obama has avoided that very stereotype so intently that he has erred in the opposite direction during his tenure. I'm sure that, had Obama's years resulted in a net skew of wealth towards blacks, you wouldn't find some thin excuse to be in here raising an eyebrow about that, would you?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So after the conflict there was no sheriff's department?

I disagree that one person being removed from office, to be replaced by a new person (a better person) in the same office is a fair use of the term "total destruction," or even the term "destruction" at all (Mansfield himself wasn't even killed!). If that's what you meant all along by "total destruction" then I have no problem with it. I won't lose a wink of sleep if that is the most dire consequence.

I used the term "total destruction" to denote the potential for any given opponent not to surrender. It likewise serves to imply the hazardous nature of the tool.

If an opponent does not surrender, the only option is to totally destroy them. If this outcome is unacceptable, the opponent should not be engaged. Furthermore, with rare exception, the swiftest path to victory will be achieved by proceeding as if the opponent will not surrender.

To put it another way, "total destruction" is a statement of intent.


I would argue this is what occurred. The tool was used with the intent of total destruction. They laid siege upon a jailhouse and blew all the doors off with dynamite. The outcome wasn't total destruction by virtue of the opponent surrendering, not because the tool was used with lesser intent.

The opponent surrendered because the only alternative was to face total destruction.

[Waragainstsleep]

So this was interesting:

Police in Britain fired their guns just seven times in the last year | UK Politics | News | The Independent