Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:

Asterios wrote:
wrong as a sniper in the military I was not issued a Semi-Auto rifle, but then again my sniper rifle was a M24 a bolt action rifle, unless I needed better distance, then I brought out my Archangel.

I'm familiar with the M24, but what is an Archangel?

RAI model 500 its like a messenger from God in my books.

 Ouze wrote:

Asterios wrote:
wrong as a sniper in the military I was not issued a Semi-Auto rifle, but then again my sniper rifle was a M24 a bolt action rifle, unless I needed better distance, then I brought out my Archangel.

I'm familiar with the M24, but what is an Archangel?

It is a company that makes stocks and magazines afaik. Unless he is referring to this bad boy http://www.ign.com/wikis/just-cause-3/CS110_Archangel

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Asterios wrote:
wrong as a sniper in the military I was not issued a Semi-Auto rifle, but then again my sniper rifle was a M24 a bolt action rifle, unless I needed better distance, then I brought out my Archangel.

I'm familiar with the M24, but what is an Archangel?

It is a company that makes stocks and magazines afaik. Unless he is referring to this bad boy http://www.ign.com/wikis/just-cause-3/CS110_Archangel

nah its just a RAI model 500 I called the Archangel because it is a nasty piece of work and is like the hand of god.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I agree.

An organised ISIL attack would have indiscriminately sprayed the crowd of protestors, aiming to cause maximum loss of life, and it is unlikely the shooters would have let themselves be captured.

At this early stage I would guess it could be black guerillas taking revenge for the shooting of black people, or white supremacists angry at the police abetting a black protest march.

Either way it is very bad news indeed.

I agree if it was ISIL they would have been more indiscriminate, but on the other hand if it was part of the BLM group, that is not good either and will do more harm to their cause then anything.

but i'm part of the all lives matter not just one color.

Having had friends and been around the communities that call for this....
They want violence because they see it as a war. a War of police that are being waged against black america.
Its kinda disturbing to be honest.

 whembly wrote:
Appears to be domestic terrorism...

I don't think so. I don't think terrorizing society or even terrorizing the police is their goal. I believe they are trying to wage war against the police and "make them pay" for perceived injustices.

A few years back we had an "angry black male" kill four police officers in Lakewood, WA. so I sympathize greatly with those living in the Dallas area.

I hope this exposes BLM for what they are, a group of agitators who want to neuter police all across the country. They are NOT a civil rights group in any way. IMO, they bear much responsibility for radicalizing these snipers.

 Breotan wrote:

I hope this exposes BLM for what they are, a group of agitators who want to neuter police all across the country. They are NOT a civil rights group in any way. IMO, they bear much responsibility for radicalizing these snipers.

Yes, and white Christian military veterans are the reason there is a memorial 2 miles from my job and they are responsible for the radicalization of someone who thought that dead children in the daycare will send the right message.

Or we can stop this weird association of one group with the action of violent idiots that may fit into that larger group. Which makes much more sense than generalizing.

I was a sniper also. We used the M40. And we had semi auto sniper rifles. Hell the .50 cal was a semi auto.

I always knew something like this was going to happen eventually. The nightmare scenario is if this inspires similar attacks across the country. You'll have open warfare on the streets.

 Breotan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Appears to be domestic terrorism...

I don't think so. I don't think terrorizing society or even terrorizing the police is their goal. I believe they are trying to wage war against the police and "make them pay" for perceived injustices.

A few years back we had an "angry black male" kill four police officers in Lakewood, WA. so I sympathize greatly with those living in the Dallas area.

I hope this exposes BLM for what they are, a group of agitators who want to neuter police all across the country. They are NOT a civil rights group in any way. IMO, they bear much responsibility for radicalizing these snipers.

Who are you to define civil rights groups?

It seems a bit unlikely that BLM radicalised these snipers considering that one of BLM's core principles is "Loving engagement" meaning non-violence.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I always knew something like this was going to happen eventually. The nightmare scenario is if this inspires similar attacks across the country. You'll have open warfare on the streets.

if that happens nobody wins

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Having had friends and been around the communities that call for this....
They want violence because they see it as a war. a War of police that are being waged against black america.
Its kinda disturbing to be honest.

it is a war where everyone will lose:

yellowfever wrote:
I was a sniper also. We used the M40. And we had semi auto sniper rifles. Hell the .50 cal was a semi auto.

my 50 cal was not a semi-auto and then there was that damn tank gun which was a breech loader, Marines I take it?

Yes I was in the marines. Which 50 did you guys use

yellowfever wrote:
Yes I was in the marines. Which 50 did you guys use

I had the RAI 500 (M500 Bolt Action) more of a personal choice but main assigned weapon was the M24

Our main issued weapon was the M40.

 d-usa wrote:
Yes, and white Christian military veterans are the reason there is a memorial 2 miles from my job and they are responsible for the radicalization of someone who thought that dead children in the daycare will send the right message.

Or we can stop this weird association of one group with the action of violent idiots that may fit into that larger group. Which makes much more sense than generalizing.

Acts of violence by lunatics shouldn't ever de-legitimise a larger, non-violent cause, but at the same time, causes should be aware of how their message is often heard, and how incendiary language can lead to violence. This applies to every group, and this could be a moment for every political group to make sure their rhetoric isn't feeding in to a heightened environment of fear and violence that could be the call to action for a disturbed person.

I've long been critical of the language used by many right wings groups that play to survivalist and violent fantasies, which sometimes lead to obscene tragedies. And I've seen some similarly extreme rhetoric from some within BLM.

Let's make sure we stay on topic. Multiple posts on which rifle you used in the armed forces is much better suited to PMs than to the thread. Thanks

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Yes, and white Christian military veterans are the reason there is a memorial 2 miles from my job and they are responsible for the radicalization of someone who thought that dead children in the daycare will send the right message.

Or we can stop this weird association of one group with the action of violent idiots that may fit into that larger group. Which makes much more sense than generalizing.

Acts of violence by lunatics shouldn't ever de-legitimise a larger, non-violent cause, but at the same time, causes should be aware of how their message is often heard, and how incendiary language can lead to violence. This applies to every group, and this could be a moment for every political group to make sure their rhetoric isn't feeding in to a heightened environment of fear and violence that could be the call to action for a disturbed person.

I've long been critical of the language used by many right wings groups that play to survivalist and violent fantasies, which sometimes lead to obscene tragedies. And I've seen some similarly extreme rhetoric from some within BLM.

thats why I said if they were with the BLM crowd they did not help their cause any. every group out there whether religious, or whatever always have its extreme members who feel violence is their only course, even peace groups had such extreme members.

 motyak wrote:
Let's make sure we stay on topic. Multiple posts on which rifle you used in the armed forces is much better suited to PMs than to the thread. Thanks

sorry my bad.

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Yes, and white Christian military veterans are the reason there is a memorial 2 miles from my job and they are responsible for the radicalization of someone who thought that dead children in the daycare will send the right message.

Or we can stop this weird association of one group with the action of violent idiots that may fit into that larger group. Which makes much more sense than generalizing.

Acts of violence by lunatics shouldn't ever de-legitimise a larger, non-violent cause, but at the same time, causes should be aware of how their message is often heard, and how incendiary language can lead to violence. This applies to every group, and this could be a moment for every political group to make sure their rhetoric isn't feeding in to a heightened environment of fear and violence that could be the call to action for a disturbed person.

I've long been critical of the language used by many right wings groups that play to survivalist and violent fantasies, which sometimes lead to obscene tragedies. And I've seen some similarly extreme rhetoric from some within BLM.

I agree with that.

I just wanted to make sure everyone realizes that there is a difference between an argument like "BLM needs to make sure they distance themselves from violent rhetoric and actios like this" or "some folks in the BLM movement are extremists" and "this is the fault of BLM" and "this is what BLM really believes".

 Breotan wrote:
I hope this exposes BLM for what they are, a group of agitators who want to neuter police all across the country.

To be fair, neutering the police across the country is a pretty praiseworthy goal.

Asterios wrote:


if that happens nobody wins

The NRA wins. It's the endgame of 150 years of "guns make society safe" propaganda. Americans value one amendment above all others.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems a bit unlikely that BLM radicalised these snipers considering that one of BLM's core principles is "Loving engagement" meaning non-violence.

That loving engagement also calls for, "No justice, no peace." at their protests, protests which have a history of violence. I never said that BLM put the rifles in the hands of these snipers, but BLM does bear at least some level of responsibility for helping to radicalize them to the point they felt confident enough to proceed.

A fifth officer was confirmed killed, six wounded. Four suspects were involved, with three in custody. The fourth is currently in a shootout in the parking garage.

It's strange to think this went down within three blocks of where Kennedy was assassinated.

 MarsNZ wrote:

Asterios wrote:


if that happens nobody wins

The NRA wins. It's the endgame of 150 years of "guns make society safe" propaganda. Americans value one amendment above all others.

no if anything the NRA loses and law abiding citizens lose. and our rights might get trampled on even more.

 Breotan wrote:

That loving engagement also calls for, "No justice, no peace." at their protests, protests which have a history of violence.

http://bigthink.com/praxis/what-does-no-justice-no-peace-really-mean

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
A fifth officer was confirmed killed, six wounded. Four suspects were involved, with three in custody. The fourth is currently in a shootout in the parking garage.

Thank God these guys weren't able to disappear into the burbs. Tears and prayers for the families of these officers. Hopefully the last guy can be taken without more officers losing their lives.

 d-usa wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

That loving engagement also calls for, "No justice, no peace." at their protests, protests which have a history of violence.

http://bigthink.com/praxis/what-does-no-justice-no-peace-really-mean

That's an opinion piece, otherwise known as "spin". A call to arms is exactly that and saying you didn't mean it that way doesn't change things once bullets start flying.

Let's not head down that path page 2. Leave it at least a bit longer.

 Breotan wrote:

That's an opinion piece, otherwise known as "spin". A call to arms is exactly that and saying you didn't mean it that way doesn't change things once bullets start flying.

It's an amazing testament to your critical thinking skills that you'd deride an article for being "an opinion piece" and in the very next breath voice a personal interpretation of your own, "a call to arms" as the gospel.

"Violence" is not the only anti-thesis of "peace". "Unrest" is also. Absolutely nothing about the statement "no justice- no peace" is an explicit call for violence.

EDIT- Didn't see this post.

 motyak wrote:
Let's not head down that path page 2. Leave it at least a bit longer.

I'm not 100% sure what you're referring too here, but if you're referring to the statement I'm replying to, then I apologize.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Let's not head down that path page 2. Leave it at least a bit longer.

I'm not 100% sure what you're referring too here, but if you're referring to the statement I'm replying to, then I apologize.

Basically, whenever gun control is mentioned in Dakka OT, there is a high probability that the corresponding thread will end up getting locked because of heated debate.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Let's not head down that path page 2. Leave it at least a bit longer.

I'm not 100% sure what you're referring too here, but if you're referring to the statement I'm replying to, then I apologize.

Nah, he is talking about the gun control debate I think.



This event is really shocking. I hope it does not lead to further escalation. Civil war is something that is a whole lot closer than people often like to think. Snipers targeting police officers was the beginning of the end in Ukraine too.

 motyak wrote:
Let's not head down that path page 2. Leave it at least a bit longer.

I take it you deleted my post? Should I have rather offered some thoughts and prayers? What page would you think appropriate to bring it up?

"SUSPECT CORNERED BY DALLAS POLICE IN PARKING STRUCTURE REPORTEDLY DIES FROM SELF-INFLICTED GUNSHOT WOUND"

Not sure if this is the last guy or not.