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

I didn’t cherry pick the worst part of the U.S., I just picked the state with the highest firearm death rate. There are many individual localities within the U.S. that are far worse.

So let’s apply the same test to see if your theory is true:

The U.S. State with the lowest firearm death rate is Massachusetts with 3.4 firearm deaths per 100,000 annually. That’s still significantly higher than Canada (2.05 firearm deaths per 100,000) and almost 15 times as high as the UK (0.23 firearm deaths per 100,000).

Nope. Any way you run the numbers, the U.S. is a huge outlier on the world stage in terms of gun deaths.


There was a joke last year after one of the School Shooting.
9:00Am The Head of Black Life Matter announces that from this day forward, all Black Life Matter marches will end at local gun stores where they were exercise their right to purchase Guns and Ammo.

12:00 noon, the Republican head of the US Senate announce that they will look at serious Gun Control Laws.

I am curious. Does that mean that there are no American black supporters of gun ownership rights, at all? I mean honest ones, not ones doing it for the attention or filthy lucre.

“Supporting gun rights” is not the problem with Noir. “Willingly acting as a paid spokesman for a blatantly white supremacist organisation” is.

For decent Black gun owners, check out the Huey P. Newton Gun Club or the Black Women’s Defence League.


Is it possible he disagrees with you, on balance, about the nature and effect of the NRA? I’m not trolling in support of the NRA. To register my bias: I’m for the private ownership of guns because I’m a nutty commie and think people ought to have firearms for purposes of genocide discouragement and keeping the owning class honest marginally less dishonest. But I don’t care for the NRA one bit. I’d certainly prefer either of the organizations you list were my circumstances like Nori’s.

But Noir may disagree with me. Plenty of Americans do, on either of my positions listed above. Perhaps he thinks the NRA isn’t a white supremacist organization. Or that its tendencies in this wise are counterbalanced by its vital protection of rights which are, as this thread shows, quite unpopular among a certain segment of the population. Or he may have other reasoning I’m not privy to.

Either way, it does strike me as just a touch dehumanizing and uncivilized not to do the man the courtesy of assuming he comes by his ideological position and any mistakes that follow honestly. Plenty of Americans are mistaken about the NRA (I think). Why not him, too?

1 Like

Question is leading at best, disingenuous at worst; there are no absolutes in human nature and Black folks are not monolithic.

Many Black people in the US own firearms, legally and otherwise; that has no bearing on whether the David Clarke’s and Omarosa’s are shunned by the Black community in general, (which they are.)

You go first; feel free get on the front lines.

We’ll have your back… WAY back.


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.