(CNN)Shooters killed five officers at a protest over police violence in downtown Dallas, sending screaming crowds scrambling for shelter and spurring an investigation into who was behind the ambush.
The deadly gunfire erupted in Dallas on Thursday night as videos showing two African-American men shot by police in Louisiana and Minnesota spurred protests and debate over police use of force across the country.Authorities say three people are in custody and one suspect is dead in Dallas. They haven’t revealed details about the shooters or their motives.Twelve officers were shot, and some of the injured officers are undergoing surgery, authorities said. The shooting was the deadliest single incident for U.S. law enforcement since September 11, 2001.Two civilians were also wounded, according to Scott Goldstein, chief of policy and communications for the mayor.
Let us pray that the other wounded officers pull through.
What I don’t get is: Why don’t these black racists care at all about the out of control black on black crime problem?
One police agency puts Romans 13:4 on back of squad and liberals freak out….vs. caring about the rampant crime victims who end up being African American disproportionately.
Encouraginging more crime by rebeling against good, honest, police officers, is the most racist thing someone can do.
This incident is actually an interesting lesson in the application of the Second Amendment.
In this case, a citizen (Micah Johnson) who was a veteran (an “oath keeper”), had a perfectly legal right to own a military style rifle.
He had a personal grievance against an ‘oppressive’ government (white cops are shooting black men).
He used that weapon to “throw off such a government” (by killing white cops).
Is this not the very reaction that the Second Amendment seems to justify?
Or in Owens own words from his July 4 column:
“The reason that our right to keep and bear arms is preserved in our Bill of Rights is precisely to preserve our ability to “throw off such Government.” An armed citizenry can never be subjugated except by its own consent.”
This incident should be cautionary tale about being careful what you wish for. The revolution you arm and enable with a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment might not be the one you had in mind.
Interesting discussion about who’s entitled to commit armed sedition against the government and who isn’t.
Bystander…
“He had a personal grievance against an ‘oppressive’ government (white cops are shooting black men).”
Let’s not twist things, please. Anyone who can think critically will understand that he had an issue with a select portion of government and a very select race of government employees. It’s not hard to see the fallacy there.
Bystander:
“He had a personal grievance against an ‘oppressive’ government (white cops are shooting black men).”
More white guys are shot and killed by police every year than black guys. The usual reaction to a criminal resisting white guy getting shot by police is: One less criminal to worrry about.
Why aren’t these black racists worried about all the African American innocent kids that die from black on black crime and how that problem increases the more we disrespect law enforcement?
I think it’s important to note that the groups most likely to use firearms to “throw off” what they perceive as an oppressive government are not a bunch of middle class white guys in the suburbs who believe a bunch of fairy tales about the “Founding Fathers”. More likely it will be by an underclass that accumulates and uses the weapons Second Amendment advocates have made available to them. They don’t need to ask their oppressors for permission to revolt, or to justify their resort to violence.
I think that someday history will judge that the unrestrained Second Amendment advocates have, to paraphrase V. Lenin’s famous rope quote, “You sold them the guns that they used to overthrow you.”
Bystander
Thoughtful analysis
Lenin referance spot on
By:
Great comments.
As a gun owner, hunter and competitive clay bird shooter I feel it is the radical crazies on both sides of this issue that will be the ones that do something really stupid resulting in the loss of a hobby I enjoy. In my opinion the NRA is has been moving farther and farther to the crazy side, rejecting any sort of common sense approach to the issue, and supporting candidates that are even crazier. That’s is why I cancelled my membership after 35 years.