When you put it that way…
Although it’s slightly more complicated than that, as they only want to sell guns to white people who want to shoot cops. The NRA has been perfectly happy to ignore - or even outright support - anti-gun laws that were written specifically to prevent non-white people from having guns (e.g. the Mulford Act).
When you put it that way…
Aside from a full-scale, nation-wide, multi-agency effort to eradicate white nationalist/racist groups (which I’m all for), any confrontation with racist/nationalist/misogynistic agitators will induce some amount of “backlash” (e.g. the political application of Newton’s 2nd Law). That said, even a passing familiarity with hate crimes statistics would impeach any claim(s) that Waco, Ruby Ridge or other aggressive, militarized confrontation with nationalist/racist scum causes the numbers of scum to increase. In fact, quite the opposite is true. A survey of the SPLC’s hate crime reports indicate that hate groups (neo-Nazis, skin-heads, klan, Christian Identity and other groups) were faltering in terms of membership, income and in the courts). Upon the election of Barak Obama to the Presidency, the SPLC saw a reversal of the declines identified above. However, it wasn’t until the Cliven Bundy incident, or more specifically the Obama/Holder non-response, that right-wing nutters began to more openly communicate and cooperate across what had been closed-boundaries. Emboldened by the increased volume (meaning quantity & loudness) of historically and institutionally approved racist/nationalist/segregationist rhetoric, the right-wing (writ broadly) not only began to coalesce, but it became far more active in the public/political mainstream - which among the many evidentiary points to highlight I’ll spotlight the so-called “Alt-Right” as an example of a “group” that capitalized on the post-Bundy trend.
To my eye, its no accident that Cliven Bundy chose to acts as he did when he did. The Bundy’s so-called “grievances” with the BLM and Federal/state tax laws pre-date the Obama Administration by nearly 2 decades. I have no doubt that among the primary motivators prompting Bundy to act were his deeply held, quasi-public racist views and all the weird baggage that comes with those views. But also, he now had a means to antagonize a powerful black guy (or as you point out 2 black guys).
In the Waco and Ruby RIdge incidents, the Feds, specifically the ATF and FBI were actively seeking ways to neutralize those groups - which in both cases culminated in law enforcement initiating military-style confrontation. We could debate the wisdom of each action - legally, tactically and politically, but I’d prefer to leave that aside for the moment - but in this brief forum I’d simply say that law enforcement and their political captains won the tactical “war” only to be routed in the rhetorical war that followed.
So, the Bundy’s did act because Obama’s black. Yet, instead of crushing what was obviously a self-serving racist political stunt, Obama and Holder allowed the racists to play the race card when the fact is that confronting arresting and prosecuting the Bundy’s was a simple matter of law & order. It would have also sent the nation the very clear message that a) law & order will not be sacrificed and b) racists playing at race-baiting politics will be confronted directly and aggressively.
Fast forward to circa today, the “press” is awash in articles that now show Alt-Right and other photo-fascist groupies to be opportunists who are terrified at the possibility of having to bear personal responsibility (e.g.: jailing, firing, public identifying…) for their actions and ideologies. These awkward opportunists would have been as anonymous and ineffective in aiding Trump’s election (and other far-right electoral victories) as they had been pre-Bundy. And it’s also likely that the (too) slow decline in hate-crimes would have continued rather than have found catalyst to reverse.
So yes, the President and USAG were black. Their decisions had consequences. Better decisions would have produced better consequences.
Still, no matter the course Obama and/or Holder took with regards to the Bundy’s, white-nationalism, christian-identity, xenophobia, racism nor misogyny would have evaporated as dire concerns that must be met and defeated by this nation.
UPDATE: a final word if I may. The bombing of the Murrah bldg in Oklahoma City was perpetrated by 3 principle terrorists - McVeigh, Nichols & McGowan. McVeigh alone claimed that he was moved to action by Ruby Ridge. My larger point is that McVeigh and less to Nichols were essentially right-wing extremist nomads, bouncing from splinter group to splinter group all the while trying to find like-minded men who would commit terrorist acts in service of their beliefs. McVeigh in particular made much hay in his post-conviction interviews that he was continually distraught by the contradictions of rhetorically belligerent racist militants and their unwavering refusal to act (or sacrifice). The point is that what Ruby Ridge, Waco and other military-styled confrontations prosecuted by the government acted as a damper on right-wingers’ willingness to 1) plan or conduct terrorist acts and 2) trust people (meaning white men) who came to their groups proposing violent acts over bellicose rhetoric.
The President of the United States and the United States Attorney General are some random fools; if we cannot criticize two men who were two of most powerful and influential people on Earth as well as the ones directly responsible for the policies and actions of federal law enforcement agencies because of their race then we have a more serious problem than some fools trapped in nowhereville.
Yeah, but that’s like saying the Democrats are the party of slavery and the KKK. The NRA of the late 60s is different from the one after the leadership coup of the 70s, just like the Democrats of the 60s are different than the Democrats after the political shift via the Southern Strategy.
And side note: while the Mumford Act was definitely racially motivated, few people calling for more gun control actually disagree with what it outlawed.
So you think a more aggressive response would have cowed that movement? You’re either too young to remember or have forgotten that whole Militia movement that gained steam under the Clinton administration. And now they had actual evidence of “jack booted thugs” instead of just paranoia. Only - you haven’t forgotten - you mention McVeigh. Somehow you connected the dots that the problem was the government wasn’t violent enough.
The reality is: the rational ones will toe the line and not cross it whether the government is mild or aggressive. The irrational ones who are prone to act are more likely to do so when there is active aggression to act against.
With your Logic, Trump SHOULD have retaliated against Iran because otherwise we look soft and it will just further embolden them.
That alt-right was a parallel movement not directly involved with or created by the Bundy standoffs. Especially since their primary reasons for their disputes don’t directly align with what the alt-right is all about (though I am sure there is overlap on a Venn diagram among supporters). I think you’re putting way too much weight on these two events and their effect on today. Trump’s stoking of the flame and inflammatory language has done more to embolden the alt-right and the increase in hate crimes more than any other source.
I’ll say again, waiting out any standoff is the best option all around. If you want to normalize government force against its citizens, even the despicable ones, be prepared for that violence one day to be visited upon others. Imagine someone like Trump who has joked about shooting people at the border, among other things, living in a world where violent, heavy handed government actions were the norm. ETA - it already is for some people, and we need that to get better, not worse.
White supremacy is bipartisan.
To quote from an old thread:
I’ll concede that is the case for some people. I have trouble with blanket statements like that in general. I agree there is a systemic issue with racism in America and it isn’t limited to any one party, class, or creed.
the situation, in the minds of the oregon republicans, is much worse than that. the problem which the absent legislators and their terrorist partners are dealing with is that democrats think that getting a majority of the seats in the legislature gives them the right to govern and had started to do just that.
So why not just put the issue on the ballot to let the people of Oregon vote on it?
I don’t think listing the publicly available names and publicly available email/ contact information of public servants really counts as doxing.
It’s not their family information, or the even the names and email of your III% folks.
“Doxing” is a neologism that has evolved over its brief history. It comes from a spelling alteration of the abbreviation “docs” (for “documents”) and refers to “compiling and releasing a dossier of personal information on someone”. Essentially, doxing is revealing and publicizing records of an individual, which were previously private or difficult to obtain.
They all live in the same neighborhood:
The solution here is obvious: the state police go and get them and bring them back, as allowed by law.
If the 3%-ers shoot at the cops then the cops shoot back, as allowed by law (for once, a situation where I approve the police using lethal force.)
And then we all sit back and watch how Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, etc. try to square the circle by defending militants and cops at the same time.
Agreed, except it would be even more delicious if for once the cops could diffuse the situation (and bring them back) without shooting back.
There should be a work provision to block pay for representatives/senators who break with the general conduct, letter, and spirit of the job, no matter how much autonomy they are permitted. Using armed white supremacists and threats against LEOs sounds like sincere misconduct to me.
Yep, tho come to think of it, many LEOs are white supremacists too (and also, thus may be less likely to shoot back in this situation @_@ ).
The question I have is how serious these militants are, if faced with an actual shooting situation. Probably most know it wont end well for anyone, either they get killed or they go to jail. Only the seriously lost-in-propaganda are going to believe “this is it, the civil war we’ve been waiting for!” It’s also not clear to me if this talk of protecting the GOP Senators is based at all in fact-- from what I’ve heard the two groups haven’t even met, and this is just idle boasting.
Dead end street in a shitty neighborhood.
Hmmm…best places to stake out? Liquor stores/package stores? Golf courses? Strip clubs?
I know how this sounds…but, I dunno. Maybe don’t act like living stereotypes?
So now if the Republican senators return to work, the police (or the FBI, since they crossed state lines and made threats) take them in for questioning about the threats and likely arrest a few of them.
If the Republican senators don’t return to work, the governor goes to the state Supreme Court seeking an opinion whether the senators have effectively resigned due to dereliction of their duties, at which point Oregon has either a special election or the governor appoints senators to serve out the rest of those senators’ terms? Or the governor just declares them as having resigned through executive order, and if the senators want to contest that they have to come before the state Supreme Court and at that point the police or FBI get a chance to have a little chat with them.