The left is getting armed

[SimpleDon]

Liberals have long been arming themselves. There have been lots of violence in America between labor and business owners, and in some parts of this nation, it had degenerated in the past to almost open warfare between labour and corporation goons and owners.
A personal story. My Grandfather moved as a young man from Tennessee to Lake Charles Louisiana and got work as a brick mason in the refineries there. At the heighth of the depression, many of the oil companies decided they no longer had to treat there workers well. There were strikes and demonstrations. During one of these strikes, a pack of company goons started shooting into the crowd of strickers. My grandfather was hit in the neck and was out of work for 6 months.

During WW2, a lot of young American men spent their youthful years killing Japanese soldiers, Fascists and Nazis. When they came back home, none of them were in the mood to be abused by psychopathic anti-labor goon squads in pay of some corporation. Jobs were available and guns were cheap. And that pretty much put the end to that. And a lot of people have tales of great grand fathers, and grand fathers having faced that sort of violent abuse in their families of that sort.

Progressives and liberals and union members have always had people among them who appreciated the advantages of being armed.

I was in heavy industrial construction. While we usually were a union contractor, we did have an affiliate that did work non-union. We were doing a job in Michigan where the customer had negotiated with his union to allow non-union contractors in the plant for contracts exceeding 10 million dollars. Our only chance to get the contract was as a non-union contractor, so that is what we did for this long-standing customer. This was in the 1980's when work was hard to get because of the Volker/monetarist recession. I am pro-union, I was a member of Local 1 of the IBEW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

This being heavily unionized Michigan we had a union picket line set up almost immediately at the start of the work. This was expected. But one time we saw a rifle being carried by one of the picketers. I contacted the chief of police in the town we were in and told him that we had to do something about this, we couldn't let it escalate beyond what it was now.

His solution for the problem was to give me a concealed carry permit. This wasn't what I had in mind, but I did start carrying my ACP 45 pistol, even though it was hardly concealable. It was hard at the time to get a concealed carry permit in Michigan.

Three other times I carried guns on a regular basis. When I was in Vietnam I wore an ACP 45, which I qualified on. I built a plant in the Philippines on Mindanao Island when the rebels were kidnapping Europeans to raise money for their communist revolution and I wore a Webley .445 revolver which I only fired at pit vipers. I carried a Mossberg 500 JIC pistol grip shotgun when we backpacked in the North Georgia mountains because of all of the marijuana patches in the mountains, which were protected by armed criminals (gun thugs) close to harvest time. The Mossberg shotgun was the only weapon in my house when I got sick and had to surrender my guns.

But I am a moderate, so I don't count for this thread.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So are we entering a new era of left wing political violence like we had in 60s and 70s?

Nope. It's about self defense, protection from the crazies on the right!

Actually, I think it’s a longer con than that. The intention would be for the left to arm itself so as to give even more reason for the white supremacists that are the backbone of the GOP (and most of our police forces) to kill off minorities in particular.

2016 was their death knell and they know it. That’s what all the immigrant/racist shit Trump keeps spewing is about and playing “Happy” hours after visiting the Synogogue and sending the military for no reason to the border and basically every single thing he’s done since 2015.

If the crazy white neo-nazis don’t start killing a shit load of minorities, the GOP will lose their voting power superiority (which has been waning for the past two decades to a current tipping point), because they aren’t having enough babies while the Dems are.

It’s horrific and pathetic, but aside from several more of these massacres heading our way over the next few weeks and more, it won’t ever catch fire enough for any large scale damage. That would have to be on the order of a real civil war and that just won’t happen.

We’ll retake the House at the very least and any momentum that might be mounting now as a result of the rats being pushed into their corners will quickly dissipate, precisely because they know it’s a last ditch desperate act.

And of course Mueller’s next steps, which will likely come soon. There are good indications that he’s already subpoenaed Trump, they’re just working out the logistics. If that gets confirmed next week, that’s the House. Unless of course their cheating overcomes the wellspring of young, college educated voters that are showing every sing of voting this time around.

 

[Politesse]

So are we entering a new era of left wing political violence like we had in 60s and 70s?

Are you claiming that gun ownership is evidence of violent intent?

 

[skepticalbip]

So are we entering a new era of left wing political violence like we had in 60s and 70s?

Are you claiming that gun ownership is evidence of violent intent?

I think he was asking about the purpose of buying guns, not the ownership itself. If someone buys a gun for the purpose of home protection in general that is one thing. If someone buys a gun because they hate a specific political group then that is quite another thing.

 

[southernhybrid]

So are we entering a new era of left wing political violence like we had in 60s and 70s?

Are you claiming that gun ownership is evidence of violent intent?

I think he was asking about the purpose of buying guns, not the ownership itself. If someone buys a gun for the purpose of home protection in general that is one thing. If someone buys a gun because they hate a specific political group then that is quite another thing.

I think he was just being snarky. It's obvious that these liberal gun groups are being formed due to the all of the gun groups on the right. It's that simple. While it's true that there have always been gun toting liberals, these organizations are fairly new. It's also true that when liberals and minorities start forming gun groups, conservative politicians start freaking out and want a little more rational gun control than what we have now.

I see people openly carrying regularly in Georgia, but I never see nearly as many black men openly carrying as I do white men. And, come to think of it, I've yet to see a woman openly carry, although I personally know quite a few that have concealed carry permits. Everyone of them are conservatives. Wait. I take that back. I do know one liberal woman that has a gun but I'm not sure if she has a concealed carry permit.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

We have left and centrist gun-owners here in Travis County, yeah.

I think the big thing is simply the fact that these non-conservative gun-owners are organizing at all. Conservatives know how powerful an organized, donating group can be legislatively; they have their own NRA as an example and are probably afraid of the left erecting an analogue.

 

[fast]

We have left and centrist gun-owners here in Travis County, yeah.

I think the big thing is simply the fact that these non-conservative gun-owners are organizing at all. Conservatives know how powerful an organized, donating group can be legislatively; they have their own NRA as an example and are probably afraid of the left erecting an analogue.

Afraid? I've never quite understood the mindset of evoking fear as underlying motives. The crazies say "bring it on little boys!" The right will toy with the left and laugh and shoot a few hundred rounds for kicks. Only an actual perceived threat will activate a real getting down to business, but fear? To say the right is afraid is just psychological babble.

Don't get me wrong. Even one that is not afraid can fall just the same, but if anyone will be pissing their pants when things get real, I don't think it'll be the right.

Is it the "what else can it be" attitude that evokes the idea of fear? Strange to say the right is afraid. Weird even.

 

[RavenSky]

So are we entering a new era of left wing political violence like we had in 60s and 70s?

Are you claiming that gun ownership is evidence of violent intent?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

We have left and centrist gun-owners here in Travis County, yeah.

I think the big thing is simply the fact that these non-conservative gun-owners are organizing at all. Conservatives know how powerful an organized, donating group can be legislatively; they have their own NRA as an example and are probably afraid of the left erecting an analogue.

God Bless America! I have no problem with people organizing or having their "NRA". BTW, the demonizing of the NRA dates back to the Clinton era. They needed a boogeyman to hate. The fact remains, the NRA doesn't even show up on the list of the top 50 lobbies in DC. Even the Military-Industrial Complex conspiracy theory nutjobs are wrong about who is throwing the most money at Congress.

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobb...ing/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-big

 

[Max Rockatansky]

So are we entering a new era of left wing political violence like we had in 60s and 70s?

Are you claiming that gun ownership is evidence of violent intent?

Seems that way and it's a common meme from the anti-gun left: "If you own a gun, then you must want to kill someone because guns are killing machines".

They're wrong, of course. These guns aren't designed to kill much less designed to harm people:

 

[skepticalbip]

I think he was asking about the purpose of buying guns, not the ownership itself. If someone buys a gun for the purpose of home protection in general that is one thing. If someone buys a gun because they hate a specific political group then that is quite another thing.

I think he was just being snarky. It's obvious that these liberal gun groups are being formed due to the all of the gun groups on the right. It's that simple. While it's true that there have always been gun toting liberals, these organizations are fairly new. It's also true that when liberals and minorities start forming gun groups, conservative politicians start freaking out and want a little more rational gun control than what we have now.

The people you are around are quite different than those I know. I can't imagine any politician that supports second amendment rights not being happy to see more of his constituents that also want their right to own firearms protected. That means more votes for him and less for an opponent that advocates more control.

I see people openly carrying regularly in Georgia, but I never see nearly as many black men openly carrying as I do white men. And, come to think of it, I've yet to see a woman openly carry,

I don't know where you live in Georgia. I lived in Atlanta (actually the suburbs near Tucker) for thirty years and now live on the coast south of Savannah. I also have relatives south of Macon I visit often. I don't see anyone open carry other than police or someone putting their rifle or shotgun in their vehicle to go hunting.

although I personally know quite a few that have concealed carry permits. Everyone of them are conservatives. Wait. I take that back. I do know one liberal woman that has a gun but I'm not sure if she has a concealed carry permit.

I do know several people who do have concealed carry permits Democrats, Republicans, men, women, black, and white. but I don't know whether or not they carry weapons other than a couple people I go camping with.

 

[skepticalbip]

We have left and centrist gun-owners here in Travis County, yeah.

I think the big thing is simply the fact that these non-conservative gun-owners are organizing at all. Conservatives know how powerful an organized, donating group can be legislatively; they have their own NRA as an example and are probably afraid of the left erecting an analogue.

I don't understand that at all. Why would non-conservative gun owners organizing be seen as a threat to conservative gun owners? That would seem to be welcomed common interest with the same goals.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

We have left and centrist gun-owners here in Travis County, yeah.

I think the big thing is simply the fact that these non-conservative gun-owners are organizing at all. Conservatives know how powerful an organized, donating group can be legislatively; they have their own NRA as an example and are probably afraid of the left erecting an analogue.

I don't understand that at all. Why would non-conservative gun owners organizing be seen as a threat to conservative gun owners? That would seem to be welcomed common interest with the same goals.

I certainly agree all gun owners should be welcomed with open arms....no pun intended.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

We have left and centrist gun-owners here in Travis County, yeah.

I think the big thing is simply the fact that these non-conservative gun-owners are organizing at all. Conservatives know how powerful an organized, donating group can be legislatively; they have their own NRA as an example and are probably afraid of the left erecting an analogue.

Afraid? I've never quite understood the mindset of evoking fear as underlying motives. The crazies say "bring it on little boys!" The right will toy with the left and laugh and shoot a few hundred rounds for kicks. Only an actual perceived threat will activate a real getting down to business, but fear? To say the right is afraid is just psychological babble.

Don't get me wrong. Even one that is not afraid can fall just the same, but if anyone will be pissing their pants when things get real, I don't think it'll be the right.

Is it the "what else can it be" attitude that evokes the idea of fear? Strange to say the right is afraid. Weird even.

I disagree. The right-wing gun-owners know the power they wield with the NRA, and seeing something similar grow with an antithetical outlook worries them. It's not "psychobabble"; it's knowing that the weapon you've heretofore used may now be used against you. This is only in the news precisely because non-conservative gun-owners are teaming up in the same manner as the NRA, and using their own reasoning -- self-defense. At this point, the NRA must either accept a leftist gun lobby, or disavow their previous rhetoric. Doing either is not a win for the NRA, because they're going to be pinned against their own talking-points one way or the other.

As far as the right being afraid, I'm pretty sure that's all they have to sell: fear. Fear of outsiders. Fear of internal collapse. Fear of the overweening government that they (oddly enough) vote for on a regular basis. The essence of American conservatism is fear: fear of change.

I'd be interested in how you define "when things get real", too. Care to add depth to that?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

The right-wing gun-owners know the power they wield with the NRA, and seeing something similar grow with an antithetical outlook worries them. It's not "psychobabble"; it's knowing that the weapon you've heretofore used may now be used against you.....

Sorry, but disagreed for two reasons:
1) The power of the NRA is myth. They aren't even in the top 50 of most powerful lobbies in DC.

2) While I readily agree there are those who fear many things, including those armed with equal abilities, it's also not psychobabble to recognize that once people walk in your same shoes, they will develop the same attitudes and positions as yourself.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Back 15 or so years ago, when concealed carry laws were being passed in many states, we had the formation of the Pink Pistols. Gays tired of being targeted by white trash boys driving to a city's gay areas to bash queers. Gays organized to go buy guns, go to pistol ranges, get trained, and got their concealed carry license. In many areas, this cut down on the old American ritual of queer rolling on a boring Saturday night.

Apparently, Pink Pistols is enjoying a resurgence after the Orlando shooting.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Back 15 or so years ago, when concealed carry laws were being passed in many states, we had the formation of the Pink Pistols. Gays tired of being targeted by white trash boys driving to a city's gay areas to bash queers. Gays organized to go buy guns, go to pistol ranges, get trained, and got their concealed carry license. In many areas, this cut down on the old American ritual of queer rolling on a boring Saturday night.

Apparently, Pink Pistols is enjoying a resurgence after the Orlando shooting.

Good. This is an excellent example of what I'm writing about. The more people who understand how important it is to protect their right of self-defense, the better.

 

[bilby]

"Well regulated militia". Why is a well regulated militia so abhorrent to the far right?

It isn't. You are thinking "well regulated militia" as many think of the term today. Those who support gun rights are thinking of the term "well regulated militia" (militia defined as the male population between given ages) as it applied when the Constitution was written. The private militia was intended to be a check on the government's standing army so as to prevent a military coup or as a remedy in case the government became oppressive. The militia is the private citizens as opposed to the Army which is the government military personnel.

That's horseshit.

The militia was intended to be a cheaper alternative to a standing army, so that the government could weild military power without the expense of paying soldiers during peacetime.

The idea that a militia was able to go toe-to-toe against a professional army was understood to be nonsense as early as the Thirty Years War; American governments tried to do defence 'on the cheap', and the Second Amendment was intended to facilitate that - regardless of the revisionism of modern gun rights advocates.

The second amendment gives americans the right to join up and defend their nation or government from foreign or rebellious forces, as part of a 'bring your own weapons' armed force. The burning of the Whitehouse by British/Canadian forces in the war of 1812 demonstrated once and for all that this was ineffective, and that the cost of a standing army was unavoidable if your nation was to protect herself.

A well regulated militia is an historical oddity whose value was already becoming overshadowed by professional standing armies at the time of the Bill of Rights. Only in a backwater such as the colonial region that became the USA was this idea still considered viable - European nations already knew that such militias were a last resort, least viable option for defence.

No serious military or political strategist in history has ever credibly suggested that a militia might be an effective bulwark against a government led standing army - because militias ARE government led armies. They are just the cheap and nasty version of that concept.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

"Well regulated militia". Why is a well regulated militia so abhorrent to the far right?

It isn't. You are thinking "well regulated militia" as many think of the term today. Those who support gun rights are thinking of the term "well regulated militia" (militia defined as the male population between given ages) as it applied when the Constitution was written. The private militia was intended to be a check on the government's standing army so as to prevent a military coup or as a remedy in case the government became oppressive. The militia is the private citizens as opposed to the Army which is the government military personnel.

That's horseshit.

The militia was intended to be a cheaper alternative to a standing army, so that the government could weild military power without the expense of paying soldiers during peacetime.

That and many of the founding fathers had a fear of a permanent standing army and wanted instead the ability to form an army as the need arose, rather than keep one permanently formed. That was the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment language regarding a militia; to form an army only as the need arose. There was no standing army in existence at the time of the 2nd Amendment, so the notion it was written to protect against an existing standing army is conclusively false.

Plus, there's this always overlooked fact:

The Founding Fathers were very concerned about who should, or should not, be armed.

These restrictions on militia membership are critically important to understand. Because despite the words of the Second Amendment, 18th-century laws did infringe on Americans’ right to bear arms.

Laws rarely allowed free blacks to have weapons. It was even rarer for African Americans living in slavery to be allowed them. In slave states, militias inspected slave quarters and confiscated weapons they found. (There were also laws against selling firearms to Native Americans, although these were more ambiguous.)

These restrictions were no mere footnote to the gun politics of 18th-century America. White Americans were armed so that they could maintain control over nonwhites. Nonwhites were disarmed so that they would not pose a threat to white control of American society.

The restrictions underscore a key point about militias: They were more effective as domestic police forces than they were on the battlefield against enemy nations; and they were most effective when they were policing the African American population.
...
America’s standing army is now the most powerful fighting force in world history. The National Guard still exists as a citizens’ militia, but participation is a far cry from the Founders’ vision of participation by all citizens. Meanwhile, the Army and the militia have diversified in ways which no one in the 18th century could have imagined.

What remains, though, is the pattern of what Americans will and will not tolerate. In the centuries since the Bill of Rights became law, the strictest gun-control laws have been aimed — sometimes explicitly, sometimes not — at keeping African Americans from arming themselves. Americans have been eager to disarm blacks, but hesitant to disarm whites.

California’s gun-control laws, for instance, began as a reaction to the Black Panthers’ armed patrols and open carry. Yet, when self-proclaimed militiamen engaged in armed resistance to law enforcement at the Bundy ranch in 2014, there was no similar call for new gun laws, and a significant portion of the American political establishment initially expressed support for their actions.

So, as with most everything else to do with American "rights," it wasn't to ensure everyone had the right to be armed, just white people.

 

[skepticalbip]

"Well regulated militia". Why is a well regulated militia so abhorrent to the far right?

It isn't. You are thinking "well regulated militia" as many think of the term today. Those who support gun rights are thinking of the term "well regulated militia" (militia defined as the male population between given ages) as it applied when the Constitution was written. The private militia was intended to be a check on the government's standing army so as to prevent a military coup or as a remedy in case the government became oppressive. The militia is the private citizens as opposed to the Army which is the government military personnel.

That's horseshit.

The militia was intended to be a cheaper alternative to a standing army, so that the government could weild military power without the expense of paying soldiers during peacetime.

The idea that a militia was able to go toe-to-toe against a professional army was understood to be nonsense as early as the Thirty Years War; American governments tried to do defence 'on the cheap', and the Second Amendment was intended to facilitate that - regardless of the revisionism of modern gun rights advocates.

The second amendment gives americans the right to join up and defend their nation or government from foreign or rebellious forces, as part of a 'bring your own weapons' armed force. The burning of the Whitehouse by British/Canadian forces in the war of 1812 demonstrated once and for all that this was ineffective, and that the cost of a standing army was unavoidable if your nation was to protect herself.

A well regulated militia is an historical oddity whose value was already becoming overshadowed by professional standing armies at the time of the Bill of Rights. Only in a backwater such as the colonial region that became the USA was this idea still considered viable - European nations already knew that such militias were a last resort, least viable option for defence.

No serious military or political strategist in history has ever credibly suggested that a militia might be an effective bulwark against a government led standing army - because militias ARE government led armies. They are just the cheap and nasty version of that concept.

You apparently haven't read the Federalist Papers. The founders had several concerns they addressed and, as usual, there was no easy answers for one concern that did not exacerbate greater problems for another concern.

. They feared maintaining a standing army because of military coups, the tendency of governments to get involved in foreign conflicts, and the use of standing armies to support governments that become oppressive and use the army to control the citizenry. Their "solution" was to allow for the raising and maintaining an army but only for a two year period to repel invasion and to put down uprisings. - This seems to have worked fairly well until the Spanish-American war. Since then, the government has been expanding its authority and now we have our Armies involved in conflicts around the world.

. They feared expanding power of the central government. - Their "solution" was an armed citizenry that was better able to able to overthrow a government in the event it becomes too oppressive. History shows that popular uprisings against oppression have been successful in many cases and fail in many cases but more successful when the citizenry has access to arms. As Thomas Jefferson said, "...what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure." Governments should understand this so the existence of an armed citizenry should serve as a deterrent to the government assuming authoritarian control.