US leftwing militancy and the gun culture

[Robocommie]

Recently the far right in the US has been pulling some really classy moves. Mainly, I'm referring to showing up at healthcare debates with guns, openly declaring themselves to be a right wing terrorist to thunderous applause, and showing hostility and anger towards anyone left of center.

This has gotten me thinking recently. These people are all very clearly behaving like reactionaries and are rabidly anti-Communist, however, they also seem to hold a near monopoly on the gun culture. In the US, people who own guns and join militias are bigger fans of Red Dawn than of Das Kapital, tend to be overwhelmingly hard right-wing, and are very clearly mobilized against what they wrongly percieve to be Marxism - I can only imagine how they would respond to true Marxists.

I have to confess that I am a relative newcomer to Marxist political action, and I have virtually no fieldwork under my belt, so I was hoping my comrades here with much more experience might be able to answer some of my concerns. Just how prepared for self-defense are we on the American Left these days? Have we been too reticent in letting firearms and the gun culture of the US become the sole providence of reactionaries, Neo-Nazis and Republican sportsmen? One of the most inspiring aspects of the Black Panthers was, in my humble opinion, that they knew by heart their gun rights and gun laws, and boldly practiced them with responsibility, restraint, and respect for the killing power of firearms.

It's very much my concern that as things get worse in the US, that when this corrupt economic system finally DOES collapse, we'll find that most of the guns and the people willing to use them are on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

[FreeFocus]

Not prepared at all, which is sad and unfortunate. Leftists might raise arguments about it being too "machismo" and therefore bourgeois, but the reality is that you need to be tough, whether you're male or female; you ought to be training and staying in shape, you shouldn't be a fat slob or an anorexic teenager who can't lift a box.

On a side note, someone will probably try to warn me for this post or something. :rolleyes:

[JimmyJazz]

Not prepared at all, which is sad and unfortunate. Leftists might raise arguments about it being too "machismo" and therefore bourgeois, but the reality is that you need to be tough, whether you're male or female; you ought to be training and staying in shape, you shouldn't be a fat slob or an anorexic teenager who can't lift a box.

On a side note, someone will probably try to warn me for this post or something. :rolleyes:

Well, owning guns is one thing. Carrying them to town hall meetings like a retard is another. I see no reason why the far right should have a monopoly on gun ownership, but I'm happy to let them have a monopoly on looking crazy.

[9]

To be honest, I think rightwing ideas are more widespread and readily accepted in the US, and factoring in the prevalence and power of propaganda, rightwingers with guns are frequently seen as "defending freedom". At this stage, in the US, I think Marxists or other revolutionary leftists would be committing political suicide if they were to embrace the "weapons culture" (as its been put) and walk around in public visibly armed. People are already scared enough of what they perceive to be "socialism". Seeing a bunch of leftists parading around with weapons would scare the shit out of the vast majority of the working class, and as far as I'm concerned, its a terrible idea. We need to be raising consciousness about revolutionary principles not trying to be cool by looking like violence-fetish jackasses.

[FreeFocus]

I'm not necessarily suggesting carrying them openly, that's a strategic type of thing that would only work in certain situations. Nonetheless, you should be training in their usage, you should be familiar with them.

[Abc]

if the right can carry guns to town hall meetings then we sould show up at the "teapartys" carrying guns give the right a taste of its own medicine

[The Douche]

I own 7 guns, including an "assault rifle". I also have thousands of rounds of ammunition. I am also a military veteran, I have taught a number of leftists how to shoot, and I know lots of leftists who own guns, and a number who are/were in the military.

I am even in the works of writing a zine for my organization on radicals owning and training with firearms.

[The Douche]

if the right can carry guns to town hall meetings then we sould show up to at the "teapartys" carrying guns give the right a taste of its own medicine

That wouldn't scare them, because people on the right tend not to have an irrational fear of weapons that liberals have, which has carried over onto the radical left in many cases.

[pierrotlefou]

To be honest, I think rightwing ideas are more widespread and readily accepted in the US, and factoring in the prevalence and power of propaganda, rightwingers with guns are frequently seen as "defending freedom". At this stage, in the US, I think Marxists or other revolutionary leftists would be committing political suicide if they were to embrace the "weapons culture" (as its been put) and walk around in public visibly armed. People are already scared enough of what they perceive to be "socialism". Seeing a bunch of leftists parading around with weapons would scare the shit out of the vast majority of the working class, and as far as I'm concerned, its a terrible idea. We need to be raising consciousness about revolutionary principles not trying to be cool by looking like violence-fetish jackasses.
That's true but we should make sure we're not caught with our guard down.

[9]

if the right can carry guns to town hall meetings then we sould show up at the "teapartys" carrying guns give the right a taste of its own medicine

I thought we were supposed to be engaged in class struggle against the bourgeoisie, not armed struggle against a relatively small faction of radicalized working class rightwingers.

[9]

That's true but we should make sure we're not caught with our guard down.

Well, I don't think its necessarily a bad idea for leftists to train with arms, but I think its hardly the most pressing issue facing the left in the US right now. We aren't going to have much use for weapons if we remain a tiny largely-irrelevant minority within the working class. As far as I see it, a critical mass within the working class will be necessary before there is really any practical use for weapons.

[The Douche]

Well, I don't think its necessarily a bad idea for leftists to train with arms, but I think its hardly the most pressing issue facing the left in the US right now. We aren't going to have much use for weapons if we remain a tiny largely-irrelevant minority within the working class. As far as I see it, a critical mass within the working class will be necessary before there is really any practical use for weapons.

This is 100% true, but I think we need to fight the ideas that a) guns are for crazy right wingers, b) militance equals machismo and is somehow inherently sexist or patriarchial, and c) that we can train with weapons once the "time for weapons has come".

If it is time for us to pick up arms, then it is to late for us to be training with them. We should foster a familiarity and a comfort with firearms within the radical left, it is a necessary part of the movement which has been neglected for a long time.

[StalinFanboy]

I am agreement with most of the people posting here. The Left needs to be comfortable with weaponry in general, But I think we also need to not be afraid to make an armed presence in the style of the Black Panthers (of course depending on the situation.).

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Revy]

Gun-Control & Workers’ Militias: How Socialists Views the Issues



by Gary Bills / May 2007 issue of Socialist Action Newspaper


After a horrific gun crime like the one at Virginia Tech, it is inevitable that many people start calling for gun control. At such times, it is important that socialists weigh in on this debate.

Socialists would love to see a society free of violence—but we live today in a world steeped in violence. We believe that the fountainhead of violence is the ruling class, which must resort to force and violence to maintain its minority rule. They seek a monopoly on that force and violence.

Socialists see “guns” as an important issue but as a secondary one when seeking tools for social change. Throughout U.S. history it has been massive, action-oriented social movements that have served as the real mechanism for the defense of the oppressed—and such movements are generally designed to be peaceful, as a necessity.

In the future, however—as happened in certain periods of extreme social crisis in the past—the oppressed will most likely need access to guns for defense, since the ruling class can be counted on to use all manner of violence to prevent any revolutionary change that would mean their overthrow. Socialists believe in the inalienable right of exploited and oppressed people to self-defense “by any means necessary,” as Malcolm X put it.

Quite understandably, the ruling class really wants “gun controls.” But the overwhelming majority of those who express the desire for gun controls, as reflected in the media, are liberals—including people who hold progressive positions on many other social issues.

Nevertheless, the changes they want to see put them squarely up against the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment was the product of revolutionary times. Because of the fight against British domination that was undertaken by local militias, as well as the popular Revolutionary Army, the issues around guns and who wielded them were keenly honed.

The Second Amendment reads, "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."
We can note two items in this amendment that are compatible with the thinking of socialists. The first is that of an undiluted right of the people to have access to arms and to use them. The second is the principle of the people in arms as a militia.

This second principle is the one the gun controllers always screw up. Being a little legalistic for a moment, we can see that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is supposedly in consequence of the need for a "well regulated militia," necessary for the "security of a free State."

Liberals pounce on this interpretation to say, "See, citizens do not have a right to keep and bear arms unless they are part of a "well regulated militia!" Socialists reply, "Fine! Let’s take a real look at what constituted a militia, well regulated or not, in the revolutionary times that shaped the Second Amendment!"

As you read the Second Amendment, you may be struck by the clumsy wording of it. It’s clumsy because it is the product of many committees. There was an intense debate over this Amendment —as there was over the Constitution as a whole. This debate reflected a terrific clash of competing class interests involving the wealthy merchants, large landowners and slaveholders, small farmers, urban craftspeople, and others in the early republic.

The class structure of the United States in the late 1700s was much different than it is today. Only about 5 percent of the population consisted of wage labor, whereas today it is upwards of 90 percent. The colonial ideal was to be your own boss and have your own farm.

Among small property owners, farmers in their huge mass, there was a rough equality, which led to a measure of democracy. It followed, therefore, if an armed force needed to be mustered to meet a threat, the armed force would have a democratic character. This was the character of a true citizens’ militia.

However, those with more means and ambitions, the emerging ruling elite, kept pushing for the formation of a coercive force to further their interests. They wanted to collect taxes for the repayment of the public debt incurred during the Revolutionary War, debt which they held, and for "public works"; they wanted to protect their property; they wanted to mediate all manner of commercial conflicts. In short, they wanted governmental power and coercive power that they controlled!

Howard Zinn, in his "Peoples' History of the United States," has a great section that talks about how the urban interests, through tax courts, would form armed bodies to go into the countryside to shake down the small farmers. The small farmers weren't too happy about this and mustered to form militias to confront the tax courts’ armed bands. Shays’s Rebellion took place when one of these ad hoc militias even went into Boston.

Shays’s Rebellion

Daniel P. Shays had been a captain in the Revolutionary Army. He was motivated to form a rebellious militia when he and other local leaders were angered by the tax courts’ seizure of small farms and the throwing of small debtors into prison.

Taxes were supposed to be paid in money, but the economy of central and western Massachusetts at the time was a barter economy. If a farm was seized, the farmer lost his right to vote, leaving him no political way to fight back. Many small farmers like Shays knew the injustices done to them were coming from urban, eastern, rich speculators led by Massachusetts Gov. James Bowdoin.

Shays’s Rebellion shut down the tax courts in a number of towns and the movement spread throughout the state. Militias called up by Bowdoin and his backers refused to fight Shays’s forces or failed even to muster.

Meanwhile, anti-Shays forces throughout the colonies misrepresented the grievances and aims of the rebels, claiming they were radicals, inflationists, levelers who were out to cheat their creditors and redistribute property. Shays’s forces, which were popular, volunteer forces, were finally defeated when Governor Bowdoin and Boston-area bankers paid 4400 thugs to attack them with weapons of war, such as artillery.

Guerrilla warfare against the rich went on for a while as Shays and other leaders of the rebellion sought sanctuary in other states. But the rebels had the last laugh as supporters of the rebellion were later elected to office, such as John Hancock as governor, and they were given amnesty.

Popular rebellions like this deeply terrified the rich elites, and they started to demand federal armed forces that could suppress small farmers or any other group of citizens that challenged their growing power and wealth. George Washington was especially alarmed, and he and others used their influence to push for a new Constitution to supercede the Articles of Confederation.

But there was no way that the Constitution—which had its advantages for uniting and streamlining a growing new nation, at least commercially—would be accepted by the population without a Bill of Rights attached to it that spelled out protections for citizens against their government.

High on the list of rights the public wanted to protect was the right to keep and bear arms, a right they already believed they possessed by common law and by some state constitutions. The best the privileged interests could do was to try to moderate that right with the phrase in the Second Amendment about a "well regulated militia."

The common understanding about the character of a militia at the time was that it was composed of ordinary citizens who voted on their "mission," to use a current term, and was "officered by men chosen from among themselves," as James Madison noted. It had nothing in common with the National Guard and the standing armed forces of today.

"Well regulated" did not mean that the democratic character of a citizens’ militia could be regulated right out of it for the class purposes of the rich!

Armed force against workers

A question for the liberal gun controllers of today is this: why don’t you want guns? Sure you don’t want guns in the hands of individuals who might threaten you, but why do you feel you have nothing to fear from the armed powers of the state?

Randi Rhodes, a prominent talk-show host on the liberal radio network Air America, has stated that she believes guns belong in the hands of the police powers of the state. She says that the National Guard is the militia that the Second Amendment speaks of.

Rhodes evidently does not recognize in those armed powers the ultimate class power of the ruling rich, which has often used force to defeat strikes and other struggles of the labor movement. Many workers have died at the hands of the police, the National Guard, the Army and privately hired goons.

Sometimes this use of violence by the state and employers has backfired badly; the result has been like pouring gasoline on a fire. Workers come to the defense of other workers instinctively, and under certain conditions they see the necessity of taking up arms for their self-protection, unlike Rhodes.

The ruling class has made a quiet determination to allow workers to have small arms and to accept the ugliness of gun crime if the working class will refrain from asking for democratic militias for defense—instead of the National Guard and standing armies, set up to maintain the capitalist state and to fight its wars abroad.

Meanwhile, liberal gun controllers continue to whine about gun violence on a small scale while refusing to demand democratic control of the huge forces of force and violence that carry out U.S. foreign policy and that can be used against us domestically at any time if the ruling class only dares.

[Killfacer]

It's very much my concern that as things get worse in the US, that when this corrupt economic system finally DOES collapse, we'll find that most of the guns and the people willing to use them are on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

I don't think the main concern of the left should be to have loads of guns in case the end of days occurs so we can blow up everyone else.

Firstly i seriously doubt there is likely to be one final day when the economy collapses and everything goes to shit. Like you say, the vast majority of people in America are against communism, then no matter how many guns and hard asses we have, we ain't gonna be able to win. We need to be able to win people over to our side, not be able to blow them to smitherines.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I don't think the main concern of the left should be to have loads of guns in case the end of days occurs so we can blow up everyone else.

Firstly i seriously doubt there is likely to be one final day when the economy collapses and everything goes to shit. Like you say, the vast majority of people in America are against communism, then no matter how many guns and hard asses we have, we ain't gonna be able to win. We need to be able to win people over to our side, not be able to blow them to smitherines.

Having guns isn't necessarily tantamount to blasting the fuck out of everything. As we are (mostly) rational people, restraint is something we extoll. The same reason you don't run with scissors. I'd like to stress that (not the scissor thing) to the comrade who said something about turning up to tea parties armed to the teeth.

Communists have a ridiculously twisted PR image in the USA, think about the media portrayal that would surround it as well as the multiplying effect it would have on police presence.

Yes, we need to win people over to our side, nobody is suggesting to recruit members for the RCP-USA at gunpoint. But in a time where insurrection is viable, it requires not only the access to guns but to know how to use them as well. Half bricks will only get you so far.

[respectful87]

Recently the far right in the US has been pulling some really classy moves. Mainly, I'm referring to showing up at healthcare debates with guns, openly declaring themselves to be a right wing terrorist to thunderous applause, and showing hostility and anger towards anyone left of center.

This has gotten me thinking recently. These people are all very clearly behaving like reactionaries and are rabidly anti-Communist, however, they also seem to hold a near monopoly on the gun culture. In the US, people who own guns and join militias are bigger fans of Red Dawn than of Das Kapital, tend to be overwhelmingly hard right-wing, and are very clearly mobilized against what they wrongly percieve to be Marxism - I can only imagine how they would respond to true Marxists.

I have to confess that I am a relative newcomer to Marxist political action, and I have virtually no fieldwork under my belt, so I was hoping my comrades here with much more experience might be able to answer some of my concerns. Just how prepared for self-defense are we on the American Left these days? Have we been too reticent in letting firearms and the gun culture of the US become the sole providence of reactionaries, Neo-Nazis and Republican sportsmen? One of the most inspiring aspects of the Black Panthers was, in my humble opinion, that they knew by heart their gun rights and gun laws, and boldly practiced them with responsibility, restraint, and respect for the killing power of firearms.

It's very much my concern that as things get worse in the US, that when this corrupt economic system finally DOES collapse, we'll find that most of the guns and the people willing to use them are on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

You seem to have unfounded fears. First the majority of the people you are talking about (as long as the system is in place) don't want to risk their lives for their "cause". Yes you get your Randy Weavers and Tim McVaughs but that are the exception not the rule. Look back at the 90s. Besides a few events like OK City they didn't do shit. If the system did fail then you might have abit more to worry about but still most of them would be thinking they are Jerimiah Johnson and playing in the woods.

As a leftist I can also tell you yes the gun culture is controled by the right, however, they don't control the guns. The left for some reason seems to have an instinctual fear of guns (or is this liberals) when in fact they should be using them. Whats funny is the same people we are talking about are the ones who I buy my guns from and also taught me how to use them (of course they did this thinking I was concerned about my right to defend myself).

My advice to all fellow leftists: Learn how to use guns
how to fix them
how to reload
get educated


And finally don't show off like the anti-healthcare pricks but have them in place incase you ever need them.

That all I have to say.

[Robocommie]

I'm not promoting firearms and training out of fear of a coming Right-wing Apocalypse (although as revolutionaries, we must be prepared for insurrection) but rather out of concern for self-defense. Because as you said, we are in a minority, and if a civil war were to break out tomorrow we'd be slaughtered. That to me underscores the importance for the left-wing community to be prepared to act assertively, because I'd rather we at least have the option for an armed resistance to reactionaries.

I recall watching a documentary on the history of the KKK, in particular, a bit about a 1970s Vietnam protest that had been attacked by armed Klansmen. They just rode up and started shooting before getting back in their trucks and peeling off. Several Marxist protestors were killed. At the time, I could only reflect that as Marxists, they should've been prepared to shoot back.

The main focus of the revolutionary left must of course always be about getting our message out peacefully, but at the same time, I think it's very prudent if we make preparations to at least give us an option of armed self-defence. Furthermore, if the day comes that our primary mission is accomplished, and Marxist groups are a major power in the US body politic, it will be very beneficial if we already have a gun culture prepared to protect the interests of the workers.

However, I think it's important that we don't let this be about killing and bloodshed. Personally, I feel that a Marxist gun culture must be one that recognizes the value of human life, all human life, but which is prepared to solemnly protect the working class by any means necessary. Violence and armed conflict must be a last resort, a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. I say this because far too often I've met conservatives who seem totally and cluelessly apathetic to the horrors of killing, people who have never served in the armed forces or seen combat and have no clue of what they're talking about. I don't want Marxism to be tainted by that same macho cult of violence.

[absurd_planet]

What about Fred Hampton?

The charismatic leader of the Black Panther Party in Chicago that was gunned down by the police in his apartment. He wasn't naive about his situation, but the reason this is relevant is precisely because he understood what he was getting himself into.
More power to to the one that is willing to shout on the street corner with his people against ''the man'', develop breakfast programs, etc.

He was assassinated by the government using the excuse that a small minority of the population was now armed with militant intentions. The inherent instability that many people see in this gives the government justification is their destruction of such radical organizations. They have an unlimited amount of resources to disrupt the actions of these groups, cia infiltration, asset freezes, surveillance etc.

The romantic ideals of the revolution need to bee suppressed in order for pragmatic solutions to take shape. In the late 60's through 70's marxist ideology was readily accepted as a critique from the universities and worker movements. Many people were frustrated later when groups like the Black Panthers, SLA, Weather Underground, subsequently became jailed altogether, or murdered. The government sent a message to the younger wanna-be leaders of the era, and they listened. Frankly, they didn't want to risk their own life.

[Robocommie]

So you're saying what, we shouldn't foster militancy because the state might take offense to it?

[KurtFF8]

I think what's being said is instead that: that kind of militancy has historically failed in recent time in the US. And especially given the current makeup of "gun culture" it doesn't seem like the best path to follow.

[apawllo]

Perhaps leftists couldn't get away with carrying AK's around on their backs at rallies preaching anti-capitalist sentiments while covered head to toe in camo garb without feeling threatened. I wouldn't expect otherwise in a capitalist society really. Threats to the status quo aren't taken lightly. However, keeping firearms and/or having the knowledge to use them while being a leftist doesn't require radical militancy.

[Robocommie]

Perhaps leftists couldn't get away with carrying AK's around on their backs at rallies preaching anti-capitalist sentiments while covered head to toe in camo garb without feeling threatened. I wouldn't expect otherwise in a capitalist society really. Threats to the status quo aren't taken lightly. However, keeping firearms and/or having the knowledge to use them while being a leftist doesn't require radical militancy.

Yeah, this is pretty much the essence of what I'm supporting. I agree with everyone who's said it's probably a very very bad idea to show up at the G8 summit with an AK slung on your shoulder, and we definitely shouldn't go to gun shows or other right wing gun festivals and expect to do any kind of recruitment.

Instead, more what I mean is keeping a rifle or shotgun, familiarize yourself with it's use, how to maintain it and how to shoot it, and keep it locked up (like a responsible person) in a case under a bed or in the back of a closet or something. It's like a condom, better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.

[GregoryAButler]

To be honest, I think rightwing ideas are more widespread and readily accepted in the US, and factoring in the prevalence and power of propaganda, rightwingers with guns are frequently seen as "defending freedom". At this stage, in the US, I think Marxists or other revolutionary leftists would be committing political suicide if they were to embrace the "weapons culture" (as its been put) and walk around in public visibly armed. People are already scared enough of what they perceive to be "socialism". Seeing a bunch of leftists parading around with weapons would scare the shit out of the vast majority of the working class, and as far as I'm concerned, its a terrible idea. We need to be raising consciousness about revolutionary principles not trying to be cool by looking like violence-fetish jackasses.

America is an extremely racist country - and that is what fuels a whole lot of this White Men With Guns spectacle - these guys really think of themselves as the last line of defense of White American manhood and if they don't stand out there with rifles African Americans will raid their homes, rape their wives, castrate their sons and burn their churches.

And hes, these folks take those fears deadly serious!

[Bloody Armalite]

well i think every marxist should legally buy a few rifles, because this patriot resistence stuff that is going all round America is worrying, if they do overthrow the Government you American Marxists will be facing a right wing militia consisting of millions of brainwashed christians.

[Robocommie]

I don't really think it's a religious issue, there will be millions of Christians who stay out of or even object to such violence. In the end as with all things in history, it comes down to economics. I could theorize for hours on why so many members of the American working class have been seduced by the lies of capitalism, but that's for a great many other threads. Suffice to say, I feel we have far more to worry about from right-wing national cultist goons than from Christians as a generality.

[9]

well i think every marxist should legally buy a few rifles, because this patriot resistence stuff that is going all round America is worrying, if they do overthrow the Government you American Marxists will be facing a right wing militia consisting of millions of brainwashed christians.

This is an example of why I take issue with the idea that there is a pressing need in the US for leftists to go out and heavily arm themselves. I think, as seems to be implicit in this example, there is an acknowledgment that we do not have the manpower, large numbers, and popular support to effectively utilize violence against the capitalist class. Yet, because of a tendency amongst some revolutionary leftists to fetishize violence, some prefer to concoct completely irrational, quixotic end-times scenarios in order to justify their stance that the left in the US needs to begin stockpiling arms and preparing for some imminent armed war. If this does not qualify as machismo, I'm afraid the word no longer carries any meaning.

We (revolutionary leftists in the US) are a very small minority. This is not defeatism or pessimism, it is merely realism. While I absolutely oppose gun control (I'd be shocked if anyone on this forum favored it) and I have no objection to leftists familiarizing themselves with weaponry, the idea that we need to make it a high priority to train with guns because we are at a stage where revolutionary consciousness among workers is widespread or commonplace just strikes me as absurd and completely removed from reality. Any scenario in which revolutionary leftists actually use guns against a common enemy in the US can only be detrimental to the cause so long as our principles and politics remain misunderstood by such a vast majority of the working class. As far as I'm concerned, widespread revolutionary consciousness must necessarily precede the utilization of violence if we are thinking on a tactical level rather than an emotional level. If tiny isolated factions within the revolutionary left see fit to prioritize "urban guerrilla"-style training and involve themselves in violent activity during a time when so many workers so thoroughly misunderstand the principles of the revolutionary left that they confuse socialism with fascism, we'd be just as well to put a bullet in each of our feet.

[Robocommie]

I certainly see the reason in what you're saying Apikoros. My post was originally inspired by my observations that in all likelihood, if continuing economic collapse led to severe political instability and unrest, then most likely we'll find a lot more militias that identify as right wing, rather than left wing, because the culture that tends to sponsor gun ownership and promotes armed resistance tends to be overwhelmingly anti-federalist ultra-conservatives and white nationalist groups.

I don't really know how to correct this imbalance, unless we begin to foster a Left-wing gun culture of our own, not with the intention of using it in the foreseeable future but in the interest of laying the groundwork for future action.

[The Douche]

America is an extremely racist country - and that is what fuels a whole lot of this White Men With Guns spectacle - these guys really think of themselves as the last line of defense of White American manhood and if they don't stand out there with rifles African Americans will raid their homes, rape their wives, castrate their sons and burn their churches.

And hes, these folks take those fears deadly serious!

You know the guy who brought the AR15 to the town hall meeting was black, right?




There seems to be a lot of people equating "owning a gun" to "thinking the revolution is here" or something like that. I have a gun on my hip right now, within arms reach there is an AR15 with a loaded 30 round magazine in it, 5 steps away is a rack of rifles, in the next room is a shotgun with a shell in the tube, on safe.

I don't think any of these weapons will ever be used in any sort of revolution. They might fire shots in defense of myself or my family in my house, but I think it is most likely that they will spend their time shooting at paper...

[RadioRaheem84]

In the end as with all things in history, it comes down to economics. I could theorize for hours on why so many members of the American working class have been seduced by the lies of capitalism, but that's for a great many other threads. Suffice to say, I feel we have far more to worry about from right-wing national cultist goons than from Christians as a generality.

Agreed. I think that if more communication is not established to subdue the lies that that this entire mess is the "lefts" fault then we will probably be looking at a situation similar to Weimer Germany. I could really see a Freikorps type of movement in the US if things get worse. The Freikorps were former soldiers turned right wing militia that blamed all of the troubles of Germany on the left when in reality they were the ideals of liberal reformers.

[Robocommie]

Agreed. I think that if more communication is not established to subdue the lies that that this entire mess is the "lefts" fault then we will probably be looking at a situation similar to Weimer Germany. I could really see a Freikorps type of movement in the US if things get worse. The Freikorps were former soldiers turned right wing militia that blamed all of the troubles of Germany on the left when in reality they were the ideals of liberal reformers.

I absolutely agree with you, and as stated in the other thread, I like what you were saying about common populist threads.

The possibility of Freikorps forming is WHY I think keeping guns might be a very good idea. Mind you, right now for me this is a bit theoretical, I don't own a gun as I can't really afford one right now.

[RadioRaheem84]

You know the guy who brought the AR15 to the town hall meeting was black, right?




There seems to be a lot of people equating "owning a gun" to "thinking the revolution is here" or something like that. I have a gun on my hip right now, within arms reach there is an AR15 with a loaded 30 round magazine in it, 5 steps away is a rack of rifles, in the next room is a shotgun with a shell in the tube, on safe.

I don't think any of these weapons will ever be used in any sort of revolution. They might fire shots in defense of myself or my family in my house, but I think it is most likely that they will spend their time shooting at paper...

I agree that any sort of armed uprising is not likely in the next coming years but you never know and I wouldn't rule it out as an option for a lot of these movements out there. The thing that I am really afraid of is that most of the armed groups out there are very much right wing and think liberal = left , meaning anyone with left leaning views will be feel the brunt of their anger. Even though most of the problems can be blamed on liberalism.

[Bloody Armalite]

i think we have to worry far more about right wing fanatics more than christians.


They are one and the same:(