Dallas Shooting Thread

[Palladin]

back to SKS

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dallas-guman-shooting-micah-johnson-sks-rifle/

 

[Varmint]

These "new tactics" sound more like an escalation and further militarization of the police. It's tough because I don't want cops to be easy targets, they have the right to defend themselves. Body armor sure, but having them walk around armed to the teeth like this is freakin' Fallujah is not ok. That will just make them feel even more justified in shooting first and ask questions later then cover up the results to protect the blue line. That is not the direction we need to go in. That is unfortunately the direction the Kenyan, Hitlery, Soros and the rest of the left want so they get the police state that locks down their power indefinitely.

Yup - to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[Varmint]

back to SKS

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dallas-guman-shooting-micah-johnson-sks-rifle/

The author just hasn't been paying attention. He sure posted a lot of info about the SKS though - maybe he didn't want to throw out all his research.

 

[10thSFFD]

Is there a difference between socialist europe and mass?

It would seem to me that both suck equally

Good question. It is arriving here and it is leaving there (UK, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Republic).

 

[Palladin]

The author just hasn't been paying attention. He sure posted a lot of info about the SKS though - maybe he didn't want to throw out all his research.

http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/gun-used-by-shooter-in-dallas-identified/

the pic of the AK74 could have been hijacked from Syria. !

 

[deces]

 

[P-14]

It is convenient that the firearm allegedly retrieved from the bomb scene is unscathed save for a little dust. Not even a scratch on the frame.

Maybe he shielded it with his body to protect it.....

 

[not new guy]

I bet he lost his zero.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

About as accurate as it gets!

 

[JuergenG]

Evans is going to be on FNC shortly to talk about the Dallas shooting. It looks like a piranha did a number on his nose.

View attachment 171807

He looks like the young Banjo Player in Dueling Banjos

 

[not new guy]

He really does.

I hope it was malignant.

 

[Al-Jim19]

Haven't really found a consensus yet: did this dirtbag use the pictured AK74 or an SKS?

 

[Carl in Ct]

I don't have cable tv and don't spend much time online on weekends/holidays. I was helping my mother-in-law Saturday and saw a scroll on her tv stating that BLM had issued a statement condemning this shooting. While I was glad they finally did that, why did it take a couple of days? Did I miss something or did BLM really have to think about this? Makes their condemnation seem disingenuous and purely a PR move, like they really weren't too broken up about this at all. I hope I am wrong about that.

 

[not new guy]

Is BLM an actual organized group with a leadership structure and some level of control over those running around in their name?

 

[Carl in Ct]

Is BLM an actual organized group with a leadership structure and some level of control over those running around in their name?

Good question. I always took it as more of a movement but I have seen at least two people who claim to be founders of BLM speak on it's behalf and the scroll I saw referred to a BLM press release or something resembling that.

 

[knoxy]

Is BLM an actual organized group with a leadership structure and some level of control over those running around in their name?

I think it was founded by a pedophile and self loathing white folk pretending to be black.

Now they're just run by hashtags.

 

[garandman]

I was listening to Beck this morning and he had an interesting interview with the shooters family and they kind of struck a lot of the media narrative down, bomb making factory in his bedroom, hateful towards white people, etc. I don't think we are ever going to know the real whole story.

Yeah, considering they blew him up.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

 

[10thSFFD]

I think the Police chief was outstanding.

You forgot to answer my question back then. Here is some fresh data for you:

The Dallas police chief said on Monday that Texas state laws allowing civilians to carry firearms openly, as some did during the protest where five officers were fatally shot, present rising challenges to law enforcement, as he stepped into America's fierce debate over gun rights.
...
Conservative Texas is known for its gun culture, and state laws allow gun owners to carry their weapons in public. Some gun rights activists bring firearms to rallies as a political statement. Some did this at Thursday's march in Dallas.
"It is increasingly challenging when people have AR-15's (a type of rifle) slung over, and shootings occur in a crowd. And they begin running, and we don’t know if they are a shooter or not," Brown said. "We don’t know who the 'good guy' versus who the 'bad guy' is, if everybody starts shooting."

 

[wiryone1]

If she is an "expert", I am a blue smurf!

 

[Bob P]

****face Biden was just on talking about exec order to ban "armor piercing bullets" like the ones used by the "Dallas shooter"

 

[fencer]

I'd like to see politicians smarten up balance the budget, reduce the debt, stay out of other country's business, stay out of foreign wars, protect our shores and borders, reduce military spending, reduce regulations so US businesses can be profitable and provide manufacturing jobs here, eliminate the social safety net, eliminate social security, eliminate the ACA, end the war on drugs and repeal most laws.

That's a short inconclusive wish list, all of which is unlikely to happen because of the majority of Americans willing to vote into office politicians who support the opposite of what I would like. In other words, my wish list is unicorns and rainbows. To a statist I'm a snowflake.

I don't want a civil war, but I do have guns, ammo. and food stores because I think civil war is inevitable.

The only way civil war is not inevitable is if everyone gives up their guns, stops resisting and accepts all that progressive government would like for us.

Sounds like we all want the same things. And most of us have guns and ammo and I could easily get by for three months or more before I had to eat the pets, but I think of civil war as one of the least likely reasons I will need to use my preps.

But let's say for a minute that it were to happen. What is the objective? Is the goal to take over the entire country ? Just topple the government and install a whole new system? Or is that really more of a coupe, not a civil war? Or would the intention be to annex a few states and start a new country, gain recognition as a sovereign nation and elect a new old fashioned government ?

In the war against the states, individual states voted to leave the Union. There was an alternate government, defined territory, currency etc. The Confederacy, had they won, would be a country. With your inevitable civil war, the only way to " win" is essentially to kill enough of the current government and it's supporters , to rule... nation wide.

 

[Jason Flare]

I disagree, I don't see any of this sparking a civil war, nor should it. It takes just one person to unite the populace and see who the real enemy is, and it's not the person of another color

I think that sitting on the stove is a pot of "mini revolution" ...it's on low simmer and both, the people and the government, can turn the up the gas

Oops. Sorry Joe T. I marked your post for a response.

I have no well reasoned response.

They sound like the kids that were in the honor society in high school.

 

[Jason Flare]

Sounds like we all want the same things. And most of us have guns and ammo and I could easily get by for three months or more before I had to eat the pets, but I think of civil war as one of the least likely reasons I will need to use my preps.

But let's say for a minute that it were to happen. What is the objective? Is the goal to take over the entire country ? Just topple the government and install a whole new system? Or is that really more of a coupe, not a civil war? Or would the intention be to annex a few states and start a new country, gain recognition as a sovereign nation and elect a new old fashioned government ?

In the war against the states, individual states voted to leave the Union. There was an alternate government, defined territory, currency etc. The Confederacy, had they won, would be a country. With your inevitable civil war, the only way to " win" is essentially to kill enough of the current government and it's supporters , to rule... nation wide.

I have absolutely no idea what happens in my inevitable civil war.

 

[stacarter]

I have absolutely no idea what happens in my inevitable civil war.

I think the fundamental wish of many folks who understand the Constitution, how it came about and the writings of its authors would be to more permanently affix to it changes that remove the ambiguity that the politicians have been playing with for years.

Remove "A well regulated militia" from the 2nd Amendment and make it read more plainly that we have a right to keep and bear arms with some limits, but not many. Though, I am not sure that is even necessary, it isn't like I am going to be able to afford a Los Angeles class fast attack submarine right?

More clearly set boundaries for the 1st Amendment (not many, the old fire in a theater) as well as establish clear limits on the government's curtailing of the 1st Amendment (free speech zones? eff those).

More clearly define protections for the 4th and 5th Amendments with language that speaks to future possible "effects". We pretty easily made the jump from papers to email being protected by the 4th Amendment, but they have already found cracks in that language.

More clearly define the LIMITS on the Federal government and end this State's Rights bullshit completely. The Federal government does these things. Period. All else, is left to the States.

I'd argue for more clearly defining freedom. If something errs to freedom, that is the direction we want to go.

 

[1919FAN]

Word on the street is the Mayor has the same sores on his ass....Hmmmmm

He looks like the young Banjo Player in Dueling Banjos

 

[mikem317]

I think the fundamental wish of many folks who understand the Constitution, how it came about and the writings of its authors would be to more permanently affix to it changes that remove the ambiguity that the politicians have been playing with for years.

Remove "A well regulated militia" from the 2nd Amendment and make it read more plainly that we have a right to keep and bear arms with some limits, but not many. Though, I am not sure that is even necessary, it isn't like I am going to be able to afford a Los Angeles class fast attack submarine right?

More clearly set boundaries for the 1st Amendment (not many, the old fire in a theater) as well as establish clear limits on the government's curtailing of the 1st Amendment (free speech zones? eff those).

More clearly define protections for the 4th and 5th Amendments with language that speaks to future possible "effects". We pretty easily made the jump from papers to email being protected by the 4th Amendment, but they have already found cracks in that language.

More clearly define the LIMITS on the Federal government and end this State's Rights bullshit completely. The Federal government does these things. Period. All else, is left to the States.

I'd argue for more clearly defining freedom. If something errs to freedom, that is the direction we want to go.

The Second Amendment has no restrictions. If you chose to attack somebody, convicted through legit due process, you've forfeited that right temporarily. Once you're sentence is over, and you're walking out of the jailhouse steps, you should have all your rights fully restored.

If you're still a danger to society, you should still in the clink.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

The Second Amendment has no restrictions. If you chose to attack somebody, convicted through legit due process, you've forfeited that right temporarily. Once you're sentence is over, and you're walking out of the jailhouse steps, you should have all your rights fully restored.

If you're still a danger to society, you should still in the clink.

And that's called due process.

 

[crazymjb]

The Second Amendment has no restrictions. If you chose to attack somebody, convicted through legit due process, you've forfeited that right temporarily. Once you're sentence is over, and you're walking out of the jailhouse steps, you should have all your rights fully restored.

If you're still a danger to society, you should still in the clink.

Unfortunately that's not exactly how it works in practice. SCOTUS has read the 2nd amendment to be much weaker than I think it was intended to be. That said, fundamental rights can be limited in certain circumstances. At least according to SCOTUS.

While nice in theory, unfortunately the way our CJ system works is we A. Don't have enough room in large part because we put the wrong people in jail and B. everything is basically just ****ed up. What that means is we have people we know are dangerous and likely to re-offend we let out of prison.

Mike

 

[fencer]

I think the fundamental wish of many folks who understand the Constitution, how it came about and the writings of its authors would be to more permanently affix to it changes that remove the ambiguity that the politicians have been playing with for years.

Remove "A well regulated militia" from the 2nd Amendment and make it read more plainly that we have a right to keep and bear arms with some limits, but not many. Though, I am not sure that is even necessary, it isn't like I am going to be able to afford a Los Angeles class fast attack submarine right?

More clearly set boundaries for the 1st Amendment (not many, the old fire in a theater) as well as establish clear limits on the government's curtailing of the 1st Amendment (free speech zones? eff those).

More clearly define protections for the 4th and 5th Amendments with language that speaks to future possible "effects". We pretty easily made the jump from papers to email being protected by the 4th Amendment, but they have already found cracks in that language.

More clearly define the LIMITS on the Federal government and end this State's Rights bullshit completely. The Federal government does these things. Period. All else, is left to the States.

I'd argue for more clearly defining freedom. If something errs to freedom, that is the direction we want to go.

I get all of that, and I agree 100%. I would actually be in favor of almost no 2a restrictions. I hate the idea of a government dictating who can defend their life and who can not. What I am talking about is structure. Resistance by individuals, while noble, isn't going to accomplish real change.

There is no Confederacy. There is no state that people can relocate to and mount a defense. I am seriously not trying to be a smart ass. I just don't understand how people think this "civil war " is going to go down. Lets say a new .gov is put in place. Then what? Who will be the dictator? And it has to be a dictator, because if you allow elections, the left will just vote out the new .gov.

So what's the endgame? Start a new country? In our lifetime? Resisting when they come for your guns is one thing. This hypothetical civil war is another. Without the support and resources of a huge chunk of the military it would be nearly impossible. When the North and South fought, they had similar weaponry. I know some folks with decent collections, but none with Apaches or Bradleys.