NRA and gun nuts

[Die]

So the 2nd amendment is suppose to keep our government in check and prevent it from being all "tyrannical" correct ? So if an NRA activist (most likely white, upper middle class) is walking around an inner city area with an AR-15 "exercising his rights" while a black man is being racially profiled, harassed and even physically assaulted by a few police officers (something that happens quite a bit) how come they don't anything ? The police apparatus can kill somebody (usually a minority) and get a 3 weeks paid suspension and that's also something that happens quite often in the USA, isn't that considered "tyrannical" ? The courts aren't trying police officers fairly because their departments always cover their ass.

Our government has been stealing and privatizing earths resources, invading other countries and killing innocent people. Shouldn't we be using these guns to dethrone our government since it has already reached a tyrannical state ? (It maybe thinly veiled tyranny but still)

[Sheepy]

Because ironically, those said NRA nuts and their high ranking officials are usually tied with said tyrannical government.

[creamsicle]

I don't think the average NRA activists is upper middle class. A lot of conservative populist rhetoric in America appeals to the rural lower class.

Aside from that I'm not quite sure what kinds of responses you expect, I doubt anybody on a left wing forum will defend the NRA.

[Damn Commie]

Negro victim of police brutality? I think you mean "thug".

[Lensky]

Negro victim of police brutality? I think you mean "thug".

As in Thuggee? That wouldn't make sense, because Negro doesn't connotate someone of Indian descent, and certainly I doubt they would be part of a secretive group of Hindi assassins.

[Blake's Baby]

The term 'thug' is used in English to mean 'violent person'. It derives from 'thugee' but is just a term of abuse, often used by right-wing politicians and newspapers to demonise members of the working class who resist arrest, damage property or otherwise go against bourgeois norms.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The term 'thug' is used in English to mean 'violent person'. It derives from 'thugee' but is just a term of abuse, often used by right-wing politicians and newspapers to demonise members of the working class who resist arrest, damage property or otherwise go against bourgeois norms.
White right-wingers in the US also use it as code for what's known as the N-word.

[Blake's Baby]

White right-wingers in the US also use it as code for what's known as the N-word.

That I didn't know. I shall look out for that in future.

[Nakidana]

So if an NRA activist (most likely white, upper middle class) is walking around an inner city area with an AR-15 "exercising his rights" while a black man is being racially profiled, harassed and even physically assaulted by a few police officers (something that happens quite a bit) how come they don't anything ?

Probably because the NRA activist agrees with racial profiling and assault of black people. They don't have a problem with tyrannical governments, only tyrannical governments that harm their interests.


The term 'thug' is used in English to mean 'violent person'. It derives from 'thugee' but is just a term of abuse, often used by right-wing politicians and newspapers to demonise members of the working class who resist arrest, damage property or otherwise go against bourgeois norms.

Excuse me sir, but I've studied, listened and tried to sing along to the collected works of Dr. S. 2pac, Thug 4 life, O.G., and renowned expert in the academic field of "thuggery". He quite clearly defined "Thug" as The Hate You Gave, ie someone who has gone through struggles, is going through the struggles and lives day to day with nothing for him because of the hate you, yes you my good sir, gave him.

Quite simply, a thug is a person who does what he has to do to survive.



thuglife baby, peace :marx:

[Blake's Baby]

...
Excuse me sir, but I've studied, listened and tried to sing along to the collected works of Dr. S. 2pac, Thug 4 life, O.G., and renowned expert in the academic field of "thuggery". He quite clearly defined "Thug" as The Hate You Gave, ie someone who has gone through struggles, is going through the struggles and lives day to day with nothing for him because of the hate you, yes you my good sir, gave him.

Quite simply, a thug is a person who does what he has to do to survive....

Relevance?

The sub-cultural use of a term, especially one that has more than a century of history behind it, doesn't alter its meaning for those outside of that subculture. 2pac is a dead rapper, isn't he? That would be about the limit of my knowledge.

[Aleister Granger]

So about the NRA- I respect their stance on wanting to stock up some guns to protect against a tyrannical government, but everything else about them is a gaggle of wtfs with lols thrown in.
I am absolutely sure I am not using those terms correctly but forgive me for I am not of the generation.
The mindset behind them is "Take their guns, but don't tread on me." When the thugs/n00000s do something criminal, they use it as proof that Africans have inferior brains and thus don't deserve their guns, but they, the glorious white man, do, for they are the masters of the universe.

[Red Commissar]

OP was a troll but I think it bears mentioning that the original NRA started off as more of a sporty outfit, focused on ensuring access to hunting ranges and the related weaponry to be used there. At some point in the 70s there was an internal coup of sorts when a minor wing of their group forced themselves into control in response to the leadership of the NRA then agreeing to some gun control measures at the time. They took advantage of the rank-and-file members who had begun to develop dissatisfaction with the leadership they viewed as distant and unresponsive and molded the organization into one about broadly gun rights.

It's important to fix NRA's rise in US's political terrain, coming at a time when the right was on the upswing and there was a reaction against various Liberal political points ranging from welfare to civil rights to feminism, what ever. With the crime wave in the late 70s and 80s this really helped them get recruits and tied the group alongside the "victim's rights" movement and later tried to give it political footing by trying to act like liberty-concerned citizens who'd act against tyranny at any notice.

Most of the people on the NRA come off as nutters anyways. For all their talk about being against oppression and guns as key to independence from state tyranny, I don't doubt that many of them would be fine with state brutality as long as it is acted against minorities and other people they think "deserve" it, while they can remain in their cushy suburbs or faux-rural communities acting like they are scions of liberty. Honestly even though some of the lolbertarian nuts go on about oppression and tyranny, most of its members seem to be fixated on preventing crime and have a very black and white view on crime (maybe not incoincidental objectivism has an appeal because of that).

Here is an article about the history and development of the NRA from its hobby/sport origins into the more political oriented group we are familiar with today. It has a liberal slant but it charts its evolution quite well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-nras-true-believers-converted-a-marksmanship-group-into-a-mighty-gun-lobby/2013/01/12/51c62288-59b9-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html

All-in-all though I'd say the NRA is among the most successful (if not the most...) lobby/interest group in the US at the present. While there are some business interests tied to it (from obvious sources like the arms industry), it has claim to a lot of spontaneous support that it can call upon. The group has a combination of both sheer membership numbers and political ties and lawyers which make an interest group successful.

[Blake's Baby]

Why do you think the OP was a troll?

I find it sickening personally when I hear the argument that guns are necessary to defend the citizen's rights against the government. The only right Americans have that most Europeans don't is the right to bear arms. So you need guns, to stop the government taking your guns. Meanwhile your cops are armed, and Americans are 40 times more likely to be shot dead than (say) Brits. And yet, magically, this has nothing to do with the availability of hand-guns. And, hardly ever are these gun deaths anything to do with people defending themselves from the government, either it's some store-owner, or someone going to rob the store, or some kid who was picked on by a total piece of shit like Zimmerman.

Is it worth it? You'd have to kill a lot of bourgeoisie to make up for the hecatomb of American proletarians who are dead as a result of your national fetishism for guns.

[tachosomoza]

The white American obsession with guns comes as a result of the fact that the nation was founded and expanded through European oppression and dominance of people of color...with guns. Guns in America have been tools and natives and Africans have been problems that were to be solved with guns. Many still think and act as such, the Trayvon Martin case is a prime example of that, as are the numerous cases of summary police execution of black and latino youth by agents of bourgeois and racist law enforcement. What they can't lock up, they kill.

[DasFapital]

I don't have a problem with guns. I used to do a lot of target and trap shooting in high school for fun. However, the gun culture in the US is full of all sorts of reactionary idiots. I wish there was some sort of leftist shooting club but that is probably just a pipe dream:unsure:

[MarxSchmarx]

Negro victim of police brutality? I think you mean "thug".
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic but this is a verbal warning for prejudicial language.

[synthesis]

So the 2nd amendment is suppose to keep our government in check and prevent it from being all "tyrannical" correct ? So if an NRA activist (most likely white, upper middle class) is walking around an inner city area with an AR-15 "exercising his rights" while a black man is being racially profiled, harassed and even physically assaulted by a few police officers (something that happens quite a bit) how come they don't anything ? The police apparatus can kill somebody (usually a minority) and get a 3 weeks paid suspension and that's also something that happens quite often in the USA, isn't that considered "tyrannical" ? The courts aren't trying police officers fairly because their departments always cover their ass.

Our government has been stealing and privatizing earths resources, invading other countries and killing innocent people. Shouldn't we be using these guns to dethrone our government since it has already reached a tyrannical state ? (It maybe thinly veiled tyranny but still)

Actually, there was an incident awhile back where some Internet libertarians started a legal defense fund for a guy (in Texas, I think) who was black and shot a cop that mistakenly busted down his door while not identifying himself as a cop - i.e., the guy justifiably thought that the cop was a home invader. It didn't amount to anything - the guy's still either doing life without parole or on death row - and it seemed like a pretty obvious stunt specifically designed for some libertarians to prove they aren't racist, but at the time I had to give those individual right-wingers a little credit for being consistent.

edit: Also, there was the incident where Tupac came across a couple guys harassing a black motorist and shot them both in the legs with an AK-47. They turned out to be offduty cops and he still got off scot-free. That's an exception to the rule, obviously, but still a fucking awesome story.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I feel so much more free now that I can cock this M4A4 around town!

Lovely country, where there are laws permitting people to carry and start unloading killing machines whenever a violent argument erupts.

[argeiphontes]

I don't have a problem with guns. I used to do a lot of target and trap shooting in high school for fun. However, the gun culture in the US is full of all sorts of reactionary idiots. I wish there was some sort of leftist shooting club but that is probably just a pipe dream:unsure:

I'm not completely anti-gun either. I haven't shot one in years (and I suck) but they can be fun. Lately I've been thinking that instead of outlawing certain weapons outright, they could restrict them to clubs where the members pass background checks and the weapons aren't kept in a private home but in a safe on club property. Then you could justify more firepower than just a hunting rifle.

What I don't like are disingenuous arguments about personal and public safety from people carrying around guns. I've been robbed at gunpoint. There's no way I could have done anything with a concealed weapon except get myself killed trying to draw it.

[Hexen]

So about the NRA- I respect their stance on wanting to stock up some guns to protect against a tyrannical government, but everything else about them is a gaggle of wtfs with lols thrown in.

It's because when they talk about the "Government" they mean they don't like anything public related like schools, water, libraries, food stamps, social security, etc and plus it has everything to do with the USian ideology of the "Self-Made Man" without any interference of any kind and not only that, it's also a veiled attack on the proletariat as well who actually need those things to survive. So the "tyrannical government" is simply a falsehood since we leftists identify the problem being capitalism instead.

[Red Commissar]

Why do you think the OP was a troll?

He was banned as such (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2677403&postcount=490).



I find it sickening personally when I hear the argument that guns are necessary to defend the citizen's rights against the government. The only right Americans have that most Europeans don't is the right to bear arms. So you need guns, to stop the government taking your guns. Meanwhile your cops are armed, and Americans are 40 times more likely to be shot dead than (say) Brits. And yet, magically, this has nothing to do with the availability of hand-guns. And, hardly ever are these gun deaths anything to do with people defending themselves from the government, either it's some store-owner, or someone going to rob the store, or some kid who was picked on by a total piece of shit like Zimmerman.

Is it worth it? You'd have to kill a lot of bourgeoisie to make up for the hecatomb of American proletarians who are dead as a result of your national fetishism for guns.Well, to be honest I don't have a "fetish" for guns. There are people in this country who've definitely tried to intertwine gun ownership with the national culture, but there are many people, particularly of a more liberal persuasion, who want nothing to do with that. I don't think it's really embraced by enough people here to be 'national' in any sense, though it is definitely reinforced through popular culture.

As for the gun debate issue here, it's a mess anyways. It all comes down to how stats are used and to what way you want to present them. Those who want to present stats in favor of gun control might point to the difference in murder rates and such between the US and other countries, while those against it might present murder rates in cities like Chicago and Washington D.C. which have restrictive gun laws but still have lots of violence (to put it lightly). For the record I don't really care much for gun control but at the same time the debate is framed in such a way to embolden right-wing nuts and benefit their views.

I never really bought the logic of the second amendment being being a right against tyranny, because I don't think a state would grant such a privilege, despite what ever rosy stuff Thomas Jefferson wrote with his lolbertarian admirers being unable to reconcile the fact that he was a slave owner. These people have a lot of unwarranted self importance and for one reason or another has some how become a part of their "identity" to differentiate themselves from cushy ivory tower academics or snooty liberals, or pesky Eurosocialists talking down on godfearing Americans.

What gets me going more is when more right-wing types pushing back against gun control start talking about the importance of "mental health funding", when in fact it's highly doubtful any of those would support increased funding to those areas (much less spending anywhere else). The NRA's almost trollish logic that the only way to completely avoid crime by arming everyone to the teeth never made sense to me, but conservatives have been embracing that with proposals to train and arm teachers in the class room, which I've seen in some small towns here in Texas.

That being said gun laws in of themselves aren't the only solution. There is a case to be made that a lot of this stems from socioeconomic conditions, though of course for NRA members who are by and large well-off- as well the opinion that those who are poor are that way because they don't work hard enough- this doesn't get any traction among them much less the US political scene. It's a safe bet to say a lot of NRA members come from insecure middle-class types, and have vigilante fantasies while trying to present themselves as the quintessential American patriot while they compare their cred with other fellow members and gun owners. What's even more frightening is that with the NRA as it is, there are some members who still found it didn't go far enough and made their own organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Owners_of_America).

I don't recall if the NRA ever made a statement on the case of the Black Panthers since that occurred before they became vocal on gun control. It does say a lot though that they've taken cases like the Waco Siege as a cause celibre in the fight against "tyranny", but ignore instances of state violence against groups like MOVE, AIM, Puerto Rican nationalists, or pretty much any case that did not involve a case conservatives like. Of course they are also vocal on instances where they've perceived gun rights or "self-defense" was threatened, especially more racial ones like the Zimmerman trial or the numerous 'honorary' awards they give to citizens who defend themselves against a burglar, while ignoring (as far as I know) actual cases of police brutality where their tyranny/liberty dichotomy would be more relevant.

[Bostana]

I hate it when arguments like this come up and I mention my opinion and people try to put me on the side of liberal and conservative. "No fuck you conservatives and fuck you liberals. You're both a bunch of ignorant jackasses"

That was my hatred shared for the day

[Klaatu]

"...if an NRA activist (most likely white, upper middle class) is walking around an inner city area with an AR-15 "exercising his rights"...

In the converse, what if a black man were walking around a suburban white neighborhood "exercising his rights" to carry a gun, what would be the outcome? Better yet, if someone in Muslim clothing did this? Are the pro-gun people going to accept this? I mean, they have to, because everyone has the right (not just white NRA members)

[RedSunrise]

So if an NRA activist (most likely white, upper middle class) is walking around an inner city area with an AR-15 "exercising his rights"


Here is the problem as has been stated by above posters...

The NRA activist has the right to carry a gun, but he in no was has a right to shoot police officers or threaten them without serving life in jail. Does that make him a coward? Yes, but nevertheless he doesn't and refuses to serve life for some black guy getting beat up by cops.

There is no longer a point to carrying a gun against tyrannical governments, because the government has made it illegal to shoot at them. Those gun loving fools still think that without using their gun they are invisible :laugh:

Armed rebels are worth something. Armed cowards are for show.