It’s also significant that Y’all Qaeda’s weapons were used offensively to capture the building, whereas the weapons of Redneck Revolt, the Deacons of Defence, the Pink Pistols etc are reserved for defence.
5 Likes
Again, I am not supporting their specific cause or actions, as I don’t agree with them. I am commenting my observations on their methods.
I can agree that it wasn’t the ONLY reason. But I think it was a significant reason. Like I said, Waco and Ruby Ridge are two examples where they went in aggressively and it cost lives, and I think they learned from that. Going in commando would cause huge wave, especially under the Obama administration.
Like I said my samples are shit examples that I can’t actually support their actions. But the tactic might still be useful in select instances. Again, per the first post, I am not saying every protest should be an armed protest. It was an observation that authority has to respect armed protestors or risk consequenses.
1 Like
So, what do you think would happen if Black Lives Matter armed themselves?
ETA: Do you believe authorities would respect them as armed protestors?
4 Likes
One word:
Massacre.
5 Likes
Which brings me full circle back to my original comment:
Is the abilty of only certain groups to employ armed resistance against authorities really a good thing? If being armed is an effective method of resistance, but it is only available to a small group, and off-limits to others by way of violence and harsher legal consequences, is it really furthering the greater good? Or are there more equitable ways to resist?
I’m not making an argument that armed protests might never be applied or that they must never happen. I’m asking if a method that is only available to a few is all that good, or if it might be better to push for change that didn’t require and encourage escalation with deadly weapons.
3 Likes
I guess I don’t think that would happen. Singled out in the street, they are easy targets for abuse. An armed group, not so much. I don’t think the cops want to risk it either. They aren’t soldiers. Even the most racist and thuggish cops do what they do when they know they can’t be touched. When it is one sided. A large enough group means some cops would die too. Is it worth esculating the violence? Not for most cops, they want to go home to their wives and kids. And I know it is a bad example because it is a mixed group, but when in a group, minorites have open carried in protest with no harrassment. Alone they are targets and treated like threats.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t they work to change the laws for the Black Panthers in the 60s, not shoot them in groups? And if they couldn’t get away with it back then before the civil rights laws changes, I don’t see it happening now.
That said, I could also see someone on either side start shooting and bad things happen. And I imagine either peaceful or violent, it woudl be spun negatively in the media. This is why my first post didn’t encourge the method to be increased in use. This is probably why we don’t see it used among minorities in protests often, though I have read people suggesting they do so.
I’m guessing that it’s more likely that you don’t want to believe that it could or would, and I understand the sentiment.
Sadly I don’t inhabit that particular reality.
TPTB didn’t just change the laws; they flooded their neighborhoods with drugs and conducted unconstitutional ambushes.
5 Likes
You’re probably right. I freely admit I could be wrong, and the counter argument isn’t out of the realm of likelihood. Like I said if I could predict the future I wouldn’t be here. I’d be in some secluded mountain fortress from my gambling winnings 
Yes, another reason the War on Drugs is a fucking farce; it is obviously a tool against poor minorities. You can see it in conviction rates and sentencing in minorities vs whites. You can see it in the penalties for things like crack being much worse than the more “dignified” cocaine.
3 Likes
No argument there.
4 Likes
I’m not sure trying to delineate just how much it influenced the decision makes any sense whatsoever, though. All too often, that aspect of the second amendment has been ignored.
Social contract, yo! In theory (and like all forms of government we’ve had down through history, the reality is often different, but we’re talking abstractions here), we’ve all signed onto this idea that we allow the state to have a monopoly on violence in exchange for it accepting limitations that were not imposed on a sovereign, who received their blessing to rule directly from god. The monopoly on violence was and is meant to be kept in check with regards to the rule of law - everyone, even the people who enforce our laws (which are created by the people we elect to office, locally, state-wide, and on the federal level). In reality, when you have a situation that’s commonly accepted, like the idea that white people are somehow superior to non-white people, you get a system of laws that reinforces that.
That depends on who is doing the armed protest. If you’re white and the government will think twice about shooting you, because it will look bad, then sure. When you’re black (or antifa or whatever non-conforming type person you want), then you’re going to get a blood bath.
Except of course they have. There is a long history of violence against protestors. And being armed didn’t save Fred Hampton from being assassinated.
3 Likes
Just look at history. Sending in unarmed children to march in the streets of southern cities STILL ended with police violence. And if the marchers had Selma had been packing, I fully believe we wouldn’t have a John Lewis today.
6 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
