Would an armed leftist movement finally provoke sensible gun laws in America?

That’s not how to warm up a room.


This is a recent official NRA ad:

If people can’t see the fascism in that, they’re either wilfully blind or fucking stupid.

Or see here for an article from a few years ago, describing some of the longer-term issues with the organisation.

Incidentally, my own position on gun control is somewhat nuanced.

  1. In a civilised society, private gun ownership should be (a) unnecessary, and (b) highly regulated.

  2. The USA is not currently a civilised society. Therefore, it is advisable for non-fascist Americans to seriously consider acquiring arms. Not for overthrowing the government, but for partially deterring smaller scale fascist violence.

  3. As with everything else in US politics, both the pro- and anti- gun control factions are heavily influenced by classism and white supremacy. The gun control faction are afraid of poor/Black people having guns, while the anti gun control faction want to maintain their ability to shoot poor/Black people when desired.


Thank you; I just can’t do this anymore tonight, I think I’ve hit my limit…


Posting under two identities is not something I expected. I honestly thought you were two people who just were similar one to another.

So, in order to understand: Noir is a shill, others may be also, but some black members, spokespeople, and supporters of the NRA, as fatally flawed as the organization is, are doing so for honest, if mistaken reasons? That about sums it up?

In a civilized society gun ownership wouldn’t need to be particularly regulated. But I take your point.

Either way, as you yourself put it, in a society like this, gun ownership is desirable in order to retain the option of shooting at blackshirts.

It will temporarily turn the current two-way split on the Right into a four-way split. That will, in turn become a three-way split not long after the Democrats win an election.

From the end of the article:

“Imagine an armed rally of tens of thousands on the Mall in Washington, through the streets of Palm Beach, or outside Trump Tower in New York City. Can’t imagine it? Me either – and that’s because strict gun control measures would be passed long before the first rally organizer applied for a permit. Want to stop guns? Arm the left. Even just try.”

I can imagine it. I can imagine hundreds of injured people and thousands of dead bodies as the well armed and armored law enforcement agencies mowed them down in the streets.

So if i walk up to as many people as i can today and threaten to punch them in the face, i’m preserving society? Good to know.


I actually agree mostly with your points. I mean that isn’t why EVERYONE who is pro/anti hold their position (I nor anyone I am close to who shoots wants to shoot anyone), but it certainly is for some of them.

Why is it then only one side seems to be framed as “racists”. Is it because of the extra baggage that this is often seen as conservative as “pro” and conservatives usually are tinged with racism?

In the Killer Mike/Colion Noir interview both made the point of “Who do you think is going to see the brunt of harsher gun control laws? It’s us.” (paraphrasing) Killer Mike then made a similar point about how in the 90s you had black preachers and community leaders all calling for harsher drug penalties to combat the rise in street crime (which was nearly 2x higher than today), and that lead to black communities being decimated as young black men were overly targeted, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to have longer sentencing.

Your point? Again, go from the mid 60s, and look at the police. The Panthers or Deacons are going to be an effective bulwark against that. No longer.

This is the police there, not the army:

Even when the amount of force between the Panthers and the LAPD were more equivalent, THE PANTHERS STILL LOST A SHOOT OUT WITH THE COPS.

The problem of the state holding a monopoly on violence isn’t fixed by individuals or small groups having a cache of guns. It’s a deeper, more complex problem that involves social, cultural, and political change the empowers the people through the system. Or a complete overthrow of that system, which would involve a drawn out civil war that would be far more destructive than the first American civil war.


That’s likely true. Again, however, we all know the cops today have overwhelming force compared to most gun owners. This isn’t the 60s and a group like the panthers wouldn’t work as a bulwark in the same way, I’d argue.


They tried that in the 60’s and 70’s with the Black Panther Party. All it did was make it easier to dismiss protest movements and make violence against them easier to do with public approval.


Dr King et al might disagree with that.

Revolution is required, violence is not. And violence might still be mostly avoidable.


I entirely agree and didn’t mean otherwise. I know enough about how many violent revolutions actually ended to know that it can often end in a worse scenario than the one you came from. I’m aware that revolution doesn’t have to equal a violent overthrow of government. I know that a radical change is needed. However, arming literally everyone who opposes US imperialism/the police state/etc. would not help and only lead to a violent civil war, IMO.


As I recall the whole idea of armed resistance by left-wing minorities being a good idea in the U.S. reached its ridiculous and predictable conclusion with the case of the black nationalist nutcases in the MOVE house in Philadelphia. All their pistols and rifles were for naught when the cops just decided to drop a blockbusting bomb from a helicopter onto the compound in 1985.


Fuck no! Gun laws in America are not driven by ideology. They are driven by gun manufacturers, the people the NRA actually represents.

People who actively attack effective law enforcement, promote urban violence by enabling a brisk illegal gun trade, and make nonsensical calls for military style arming of citizenry and police. We don’t need another political wing sending money their way.

BTW “Armed protest” is bullshit. The more appropriate term for that is “armed mob” or “lynch mob”. Weapons have no place in lawful political demonstrations

Racism drives up gun sales. Urban violence excuses racism and drives up gun sales. Mass murder drives up gun sales. Cops so afraid of the public they are shooting unarmed people constantly drive up gun sales.

So would be calls for left wing movements in “self defense”.


There you go. Armed movements giving excuses for militaristic responses by the government. Worse still, despite the overkill, it was probably met with widespread approval by the public.


It freaked people out back then, even though the MOVE people were guano crazy. The bomb killed 5 children and destroyed 65 homes in the middle of a large American city.

If something similar happened today the American right would be cheering it alongside their “president”.


I am pretty sure they were cheering for it back then too. The American right was always a bit big for racism and overkill. They just didn’t say it in public as loudly as today.

The thing I remember from the time is how the national MSM was totally incapable of describing what MOVE stood for and often didn’t mention that it was a black liberation movement or that the leader was crazy or anything. In the stories they’d just talk about “the MOVE house” and leave it at that.

The narrative wasn’t far off from “the Philly PD thwarted an invasion of bodysnatching aliens by destroying an entire city block”, which gave the impression that anyone’s home could be destroyed. As a result a lot of racists (esp. outside Philadelphia) didn’t know there was anything to cheer for in that regard.

1 Like

I was just offering some other examples, since you said the only one you could think of was the Black Panthers.

Even a lot of radical historians think that the paramilitary posturing of a lot of 70’s-era radical groups was a misstep, because as you point out, symmetric warfare with American police and military is a guaranteed losing proposition. I can appreciate that critique.

But Deacons for Defense or the armed black mutual security groups in Mississippi were kind of different. They weren’t waving guns around talking about a military revolution, they were quietly and strategically using firearms as a tool to make sure they didn’t get lynched in the deep south, where authorities could not be counted on to protect them.

I agree completely, but it would be unreasonable to expect any one specific factor to fix a huge, established systemic problem.

I also agree with this. There are many different areas of society (or spheres of life) where power is unbalanced, and to really solve the problem they all must be addressed. We should consider each of them and figure out how power can be re-distributed within that sphere. It would be a mistake to think that changing the balance in one place (e.g. access to physical protection) could resolve all the other imbalances. But it would also be a mistake to think that an imbalance in firepower is completely irrelevant. I think an example like the Deacons illustrates that in practice.