Forgive me if this concept has been posted in one of the other 3-4 threads orbiting eachother and this subject, but I felt this Dallas scenario provides an interesting opportunity for a discrete thought exercise and to discuss the following:If we can assume that modern day supporters of the 2nd amendment interpret the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", as a guarantee to the free people of this country to protect themselves from the advancement of aggressive, unjust, and unrepresentative rule of a tyrannical government or ruler; was the Dallas shooter not simply acting out his guaranteed right to defend himself against the advancement of what he perceived as an aggressive, unjust, and unrepresentative tyrannical government? Given what we know about the modern state of American Democracy, which is understood, rather unanimously, to operate with less likeliness of a constitutional democracy (or free republic, as originally intended), and more so like a corporate Oligarchy, is this question really that extreme? If we already know the government doesn't represent us, are we really that far away from this question anyway?I'll start with a few other simple questions of my own to supplement discussion;If you condemn his actions because you believe his views were of the minority in the country, what level of concensus do you believe needs to be reached before such actions are acceptable? What level (amongst day to day citizens) do you believe was realistically achieved in the time leading up of the American Revolution? And then what level of transgressions must be committed by the government unto its people before action against the government would be deemed acceptable?Whether or not this garners any discussion (truthfully, I have few answers), I still believe it's worth thinking about. I'm just here for the views anyways ::)
