the heart of the heart of the matter in 7 words. proving once again my admiration for you is completely justified.
5 Likes
8 Likes
3 Likes
11 Likes
Yes and no. Let’s not forget America was a frontier society, with ample hunting, as well as people at their frontier who weren’t too happy about the new political state of affairs (the end of British colonial rule and the beginning of a new American state).
A fear of slave revolts played into it, as the second amendment was ratified the same year that the Haitian revolution began, but I’m not sure that was the only reason for it’s adoption.
13 Likes
Read what I wrote below (or, er, right above!). The second amendment was indeed ratified the same year that the Haitian revolution began. And southern legislatures were pretty powerful in shaping the new constitution, because they gave up so much by scrapping the Articles. it was a reason for the second amendment, but not the only one.
5 Likes
I agree it probably was listed in the “pro” column when they were listing out reasons to included it. But I think the actions of the British rulers, the ideal that one has a right to protect themselves (from whomever), and their model for a militia based military where the predominate reasons. I am fine with its inclusion when listing out reasons for it, but the post I replied to implied it was the primary reason.
2 Likes
I’m not a colonial or Early republic historian so I don’t know all the sources and historiography, but the late 18th century was a period when whiteness was being built as an identity through colonialism, and the Haitian revolution, which employed the language of the french and American revolutions, was seen as a direct threat to growing European imperialism. The Haitian revolution is just as central to the way the modern world looks today as the other 2 revolutions, because it helped to call into question the enlightenment language of brotherhood and equality. Keep in mind that the entire reason for the bill of rights was to get the southern politicians, all or almost all of whom were landowners and slave owners, on board. Same with the 3/5ths compromise. It’s not the primary, but an important and often overlooked reason for the second amendment.
4 Likes
Sure, I agree it was a part of the reason for it. Though I am not sure how much. 10%? More? I’ve seen a few references to it for those reasons, but many more for the other reasons I have already outlined.
Though on the flip side, many gun control laws, had their roots in keeping them out of the hands of minorities, especially during the Jim Crow era. i.e. getting the Sheriff to sign off on a pistol purchase.
So really, even though the application of the 2nd Amendment has been inconsistent and lops sided at times, I think one wouldn’t have a strong argument that its bad because some people used it for white supremacy. ETA (which was insinuated)
I guess I will comment further (not directly to you), that while I don’t agree with pointing guns at other people as a general rule, why is the government allowed to do so with impunity? Why should a citizen not be allowed the same ability? If this person was guilty of something, how many cops and government agents are guilty of the same?
One last comment, and while I wish to urge the point that I am not a big fan of armed protest in general, its limited use DOES show one something. Armed protests do a bang up job at standing up to authoritarianism. Who are not getting tear gassed, maced, or corralled and beaten? Armed protestors. Cops want to go home at the end of the day. Not only are they not going to shoot civilians unprovoked, they aren’t going to do the other shit they can get away with when they are the only ones with force. They can’t because unlike most other times, there is the potential for consequences.
I clearly acknowledge that minorities get way more push back when they attempt to do the same thing.
Also to be clear the people protecting the Bundys were on the wrong side of the protest. Looking into it, it seemed pretty clear that Bundy was over stepping his legal bounds. So I am not defending their stance on the issue.
3 Likes
Only if they have the ‘complexion for the protection.’
When Black folks do it, at best, TPTB change the existing laws.
At it’s worst, it’s a ‘license’ to shoot the Black protesters on sight.
12 Likes
I know in recent years I’ve seen some minorities in armed protests, though it is usually while mixed in or with whites. I don’t know how prevalent it has been since the civil right era with the Black Panthers and the like.
But yes, I acknowledge that authority gets all “crack-downy” when it is armed minorities in the past.
But that right SHOULD be afforded by all. Though they tend to be crucified in the media and public opinion when it happens, and labeled as thugs or what have you. It’s bullshit, but illustrates the systemic racism issues.
My overarching point though is that armed protest changes “fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me” to “fuck you, you can’t make me”.
1 Like
Fixed that for ya.
I wish it was only in the past, but I’ve been observing POC get needlessly killed in confrontations with the police since I was 17 years old; that was when I started actually paying attention because it was the first time it happened to someone I knew personally.
8 Likes
Honestly, the disparity in the way violent white protesters are treated versus the way peaceful POC protesters are treated casts a dark shadow for me over the idea that armed protests are a good way to stand up to authortarianism. If only one group can use armed protest against government forces, isn’t that worse?
It seems to me that the answer is to reform policing practices instead of insisting that civilians should use guns during protests.
“The Bundy acquittal illustrates the distance still to be traveled to achieve racial equality in both our criminal justice system and the larger society. The fact that white anti-government protesters railing against federal overreach scarcely realize their privileged treatment at the hands of law enforcement and the criminal justice system is one side of this story. The images of Native American activists in North Dakota and black activists in Ferguson staring down military-style police presence while fighting for racial justice is the other.”
8 Likes
You’re preachin’ to the choir, there.
8 Likes
Was it a protest situation or through police interaction? Yes I’m aware the police are disproportionately shooting minorities, and shooting people in general too often.
Again, I am not saying it is necessarily a good way. It might be necessary in some cases in the future, but I am definitely not in anyway insisting. I just pointed out how armed civilians CAN “push back” with out violence, but also with out having violence affected to them.
At the same time, should people who are able to resist authoritarianism NOT do so because others aren’t treated the same? That doesn’t seem like good logic, to me. Even if whites aren’t affected the same way, shouldn’t they also confront authority when it is being abused in the ways they can? Isn’t limiting authority’s power going to also have positive effects on minorities in the long run?
I guess one example I can think of was in Ferguson there was a group of libertarian types who were there and said they just wanted to make sure that the protestors could be heard and weren’t assaulted by the cops. Now, I recall the one short news clip when it happened, so if someone points out these people were shit in other ways, then mea culpa.
1 Like
My point is that when the original BBP lawfully demonstrated while carrying firearms openly, the folks in CA who were so ‘pro-open carry’ suddenly decided to change the state law in an awful big hurry.
7 Likes
Do you believe the Bundys were resisting authoritarianism?
If we agree that being armed is not the only reason that the Bundys and other white protestors are not killed, tear gassed maced, or coralled and beaten, then are we actually witnessing resistance?
Isn’t the ability of one group to further it’s own causes while others are repressed a textbook demonstration of a racist society? Isn’t more just to limit authority in ways that benefit all groups in ways like police reform, rather than ways which are dictated by only certain groups?
8 Likes
They were resisting authority, though like I said, I don’t think they had legal standing. But the Government did show up in force with ATF, FBI, BLM, and local police, full gear, helmets, vests, rifles, etc. It was quite a show.
If no one was armed, I think we would have seen similar actions that we saw at Standing Rock.
Is this resistance? I suppose it is a type of resistance. It’s hard for me to back it, though, as while the government overstepping its authority has many examples, I don’t feel this was one of those times.
I think we are getting off the path here. There are various protest against the government. Some of them are about racial inequality, in both laws and application of laws. Some of it is about other things such as property rights, constitutional rights, and other civil liberties. In this case the Bundys were protesting fees for use of land they felt entitled to. You’re right that it doesn’t help others who are repressed in other ways - but not every fight is going to counter every possible grievance.
For example, should a Legalize Weed protest branch out to other issues such as police reform? In fact I think that was part of the problem with the Occupy Wallstreet protests. Originally it has a focused voice and goal, but by then end of it every fringe faction has globbed on to it and it became disorganized and easily dismantled and lost a lot of mainstream support. But I digress.
And again, my point was that it illustrated despite them being in the wrong, despite tensions, despite the fully kitted ATF and FBI, and despite that many of the militia later turned out to be loons who raided that Oregon Wildlife center, it kept the government at bay. Hell the Oregon Wildlife center required the government to wait them out, vs use force. Although maybe this because they learned from the failings of things like Waco and Ruby Ridge. Unlike say Standing Rock where they were sweeped up the last hold outs, pointing rifles as they cleared the camp.
Of course all of these are kind of shit examples used primarily by more fringe elements. But if the government gets more heavy handed than they already are, we might see more moderate groups employing the tactic. Maybe not. I dunno. If I had that kind of power of time and space I wouldn’t be here.
1 Like
Come on, we want simple answers to complex questions. Is that too much to ask for?
I’m not convinced that is true.
There was nothing noble or humanitarian in their cause. I see them as emboldened thieves, yet they were allowed to occupy and damage government property for a decent amount of time unmolested, with one exception, only to be aquitted.
Is the reinforcement of a privaleged groups’ exemption from police brutality and the legal system actually resistance? I don’t think so.
Of course individual protests aren’t meant to address all issues. But when one group is freerer to further it’s own causes, systemic racism continues to be reinforced and normalized.
And here is the crux of our disagreement. You’re attributing the restraint of authorities to the militia’s guns. I don’t believe the guns were soley responsible, or that things would have played out this way with different protestors.
6 Likes
