What is Reddit's opinion of
This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
55 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
Everyone should go and read the book This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed by Charles E. Cobb.
https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
It's a fantastic book that lays out perfectly the necessity for firearms in self defense of Civil Rights leaders. Let's remember, they were breaking the law. The crazy gun control laws of the south were put in place to ensure that black people could not own guns. Many counties across the south required an affidavit from a white person for a black person to legally purchase a fire own. The white person had to swear that this was a responsible black person, who deserved to own a gun.
Still today, NC requires "purchase permits" to even be able to BUY a handgun. The permit is given through the sheriff's department, and must be picked up in person at the sherrif's office. It is a Jim Crow law to stop black citizens from owning hand guns.
Also, read up on Deacons for Defense and Justice. They have a fascinating history, and provided a life saving service to the people of Louisiana.
Anyway, I'll stop now, I could go on for hours.
For anyone who wants to hear more stories like this I recommend This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed, by Charles E. Cobb Jr.
Rice's father is far from the only black southerner who used firearms to keep the Klan away and his family safe.
When he died, no. But before then almost certainly. You should read "This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How guns made the Civil Rights movement possible," it's a great look at how important armed self defense was to the freedom movement and black communities as a whole in the post-Civil War South.
Nah, fuck that. I would much rather live in the country where civil rights organizers magdumped at KKK members to drive them off.
That nonviolent stuff'll get you killed
Armed minorities are harder to oppress, full stop. If you believe persecution against minorities is a problem, then you need to support in the right of people to bear arms.
Apparently, but it's also important to consider how this data is collected and who funds the research. Makes sense to reason the ruling class would benefit morso from nonviolence then the other way around.
Then you got researchers and people like the guy who wrote This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible who say otherwise.
I saw you mention in another comment one of the ER's heros is MLK, lil fun fact but a lot of people don't know he owed guns, believed people should be aloud to arm themselves, and was denied a concealed carry permit.
Those civil rights activist would ended up largely carrying guns illegally because of the violence directed at them. The book This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible talks about the importance of guns in the Civil Rights movement.
Yep, absolutely agree. If Iowa has a stand your ground law, dude should have been put in the ground for threat to life by his thuggish actions. This dude is a pure thug who's going to do it again at this point unless violently stopped. If he was younger, there would be a chance he could change his ways but not at this point. The rot is too deep with these people.
People forget that it was armed civilians that allowed the non violent protesters to have the success they did during the Civil Rights era. There's a book that goes into it https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
"This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed" is an excellent read on how black people during the civil rights movement used firearms to protect themselves and their communities.
Armed minorities are harder to oppress
Armed gays dont get bashed
Gun rights are trans rights
The government should not have a monopoly on violence. The black panthers, while i dont agree with everything they have done, successfully prevented many cases of racial harassment from the state.
As long as peoples lives and freedoms are at risk from private citizens and the government, it should be a protected right to keep and bear arms.
There is an excellent book on how firearms made the civil rights movement possible. If you want to really learn about this topic, check out this book.
This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible
Book by Charles E. Cobb Jr.
I've personally studied this topic of american arms ownership and grew immensely in my understanding with the help of this book.
Does your girlfriend consider Martin Luther King Jr. to be an example of a good, nonviolent person? Apparently, he was known to have an”arsenal” of guns at home. He was just quiet about it:
https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
No it doesn't, and no it hasn't. Every non violent movement that "succeeded" did so bc there was an armed wing for defense, ie the Civil Rights movement wouldn't gone nowhere without riots and armed black people ready to defend themselves.
https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
I second this. I live in Texas and would consider myself pretty centrist on both economic and social politics, but here if you don't worship the great orange god, you're an outsider and stupid people with guns can get violent quick. I carry for self defense only if needed, and only as a last resort.
On your point about preventing violence for you neighbor, I haven't read much yet but saw <em>This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible</em> recommended that seems to hit that point pretty well if anyone would like to check it out.
I would also like to plug /r/liberalgunowners here on reddit for people who are on the fence on gun ownership. There are always bad actors, but LGO seems to be much more logical and less "ammosexual"/"God, Guns, & Trump" than any other gun forums I see.
Also, thank you for your service.
>Visiting Martin Luther King Jr. during the Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott, journalist William Worthy almost sat on a loaded pistol. "Just for self-defense," King assured him. It was not the only weapon King kept for such a purpose; one of his advisors remembered the reverend’s Montgomery, Alabama, home as "an arsenal." Like King, many ostensibly "nonviolent" civil rights activists embraced their constitutional right to self-protection—yet this crucial dimension of the Afro-American freedom struggle has been long ignored by history. In This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed, Charles E. Cobb Jr. recovers this history, describing the vital role that armed self-defense has played in the survival and liberation of black communities
https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
> Not having guns isn't punishing anyone, it means everyone has a better life.
That depends on where you live. If you live in a fucking paradise like New Zealand or Iceland? Yeah, totally - though I'd still want the ability to own guns for hunting and marksmanship sports.
But America isn't like those places. Just barely three months ago we had a group of fascists attempt a coup to overthrow our democratic election; they failed because they were all a bunch of incompetent morons, but what if they had succeeded? Look at Myanmar; those assholes did succeed, and look at how it's going for those that are objecting to it.
Look at the violence against trans and other LGBTQ folk. Look at the spike in anti-Asian hate crimes. Look at our nearly 150 years of institutionalized racism against Blacks, Latinos, and other minorities. Look at, just last year, police officers deploying tear gas against unarmed mothers and grandmothers just linking arms and singing songs, look at federal police abducting protestors into unmarked vans.
I'm sorry, dude, but not having guns can and absolutely literally has punished people, it's cost them their lives.
https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
Give this book a read. It details how important private gun ownership was to Blacks during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights era, and it still applies today. And that's just one minority.
Thanks! This book was in the podcast bibliography and the author interview was the source for my comment.
They were. Check out this book, it's really fascinating. MLK Jr, Malcolm X, and Robert Williams were all gun owners, the latter two actively advocating for black gun ownership. MLK Jr. was denied a carry permit. More than once black individuals and communities used arms to successfully deter and repel white supremacists in the deep south. But that's all been swept under the rug it seems.
I don't think you know what disarming innocent people means.
Perhaps read up on the subject?
>Have some responsibility
This is hilarious considering the source.
I have responsibility. For my own protection. For my own health care. For my own education debt. For my own retirement planning. For my reproductive system.
Tell me, are the people trying to murder entire racial groups with gun control proposing "responsibility" on ANY of those topics?
Did you THINK AT ALL before you tossed out the word "responsibility?"
I think keeping a dialogue open and abiding their decision for the time being is the best option. Try visiting ranges in when you're free, practicing skills, etc. and eventually ask if they'll join you. Exposing them to the history behind the LA riots might be worth while at some point. It's one thing to be an armchair-philosopher and say "I'd rather die than possibly take the life of another person.", but when things go to hell and the cops fall back to protected areas while the city burns, shit starts getting a lot more real.
If they're readers, maybe this would be worth a dabble. It's not just about their individual life and death. There are far worse fates than individual death, like having to watch those worse fates befall your family.
Fact of the matter is that the NRA does not represent gun owners. The NRA membership accounts for about 7% of gun owners in the United States yet has been positioned as the de facto voice of gun owners.
It isn't.
Unfortunately, there are no non-partisan groups representing gun owners at close to the same scale. There are some smaller groups like the Huey P. Newton Gun Club and Pink Pistols that support, educate, and advocate for gun ownership amongst African Americans and LGBTQ communities (respectively). But the NRA manages to suck all the oxygen out of the room and other groups are rarely acknowledged by the public.
I suspect that some gun control advocates like having the NRA as a foil. By crystallizing the debate across party lines, it allows both sides to ignore complexities like racism -- see the NRA's response to the shooting of Philando Castile, Reagan signing the ban on open carry as governor of California in response to the Black Panthers, or the role of firearms in the Civil Rights Movement (see Deacons for Defense and Justice for one example or a book by Charles E. Cobb Jr., Brown University professor and former field secretary for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, "This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible").
Gun ownership isn't a White, Christian, Conservative thing. I am a gun owner and none of those things.
Gun owners are also not against gun control. I support increased gun control and even the NRA's Wayne LePierre testified before Congress in favor of universal background checks in 1999.
Gun ownership and regulation is not a simple issue and it cannot be boiled down to pure partisanship without silencing communities that are already routinely deprived of a voice.
The notion of the NRA representing gun owners-at-large needs to be taken out back and shot.
You should really learn more about the history of protests for civil rights in the USA.
After that, you probably want to brush up on how labor rights were achieved.
First off, what a ridiculous argument. Would you rather be dead or deal with some harassment?
Why would the solution be to remove everyone's right to self defense if a sub group is still legally struggling with it? They're essentially saying the solution to the problem is to make everyone have it rather than fix it.
Additional reading:
Never forget Hayes Pond, Blair Mountain, Athens Tennessee
Groups:
https://hueypnewtongunclub.org/
http://coalitionofarmedlabor.org/
Books:
https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
There's a book you can read if you are interested:
https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
Never forget Hayes Pond, Blair Mountain, Athens Tennessee
​
Groups:
https://hueypnewtongunclub.org/
http://coalitionofarmedlabor.org/
​
Books:
https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
You are getting civil discourse.
I am just saying things you don't like I guess.
https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
>guys, I found the nazi sympathizer
Man, you just like being totally and utterly wrong, don't you?
If you can look at the events of the last couple years and still believe that there's no reason for normal, peaceful Americans to own a firearm for self-defense purposes, you're even more delusional than the idiots that showed up in DC on Jan 6.
The largest demographics of American buying firearms in the last few years, according to NICS, are women and BIPOC.
But then again, some of us understand the history of how previous movements actually happened, rather than just the revisionist propaganda about "peaceful, nonviolent protesting". Even MLK kept firearms for defensive purposes and, famously, was denied a carry permit by the state of Alabama. It's well-established in the Congressional debate records that one of the biggest motivating factors of the Gun Control Act of 1968 was due to the Black Panthers' open support of armed blacks and their "invasion" of the California state Capitol building.
But sure. You just keep pretending like being knowledgeable about the laws governing self-defense is an indicator of a Nazi.
The fact is, firearms are a pretty good way to send the message to those Nazi fucks that their big, scary marches down the street don't intimidate you.
It is the responsibility of every American to ensure that they can help support and defend their community, should the need arise. And, if Nazis marching in your city or state isn't the right time to review your stance on personal defense, you might as well just load yourself into a cattle car now to beat the rush.
Time to dust off the old links:
https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
I recommend reading This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed. Even Martin Luther King Jr had a gun.
>Not only do they not care about minorities in any other scenario (like when voter ID laws and poll closures intentionally disenfranchise minorities), but their point is also bullshit because minorities legally owning firearms is actually a liability and doesn't protect them from getting unjustly murdered by cops, like Philando Castile. Even cops thinking someone might be legally armed is used as justification for extra-judicial execution.
https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
You aren't wrong, but neither are you right. Shit, dude, just look at all the 2A protests in the past couple years. Tons of armed people walking around, many of whom weren't white. Cops were super polite and not aggressive in the least.
Yes, in individual instances, it may not be effective. But you're missing the forest for the trees. Being armed as a group, as a community, IS effective. We have numerous cases where homeowners or groups of people being armed deterred violence against them, throughout the Jim Crow era and beyond. Shit, dude, Ronald Reagan implemented the Mulford Act in response to Black Panthers implementing armed neighborhood patrols to keep an eye on the cops.
>There should be insurance requirements like we require for other devices that can easily harm or kill people like cars.
It is incredibly unconstitutional to put a price barrier on an inalienable right. You can disagree that the right to own a gun is a right, and that's fair, but unless the Constitution is amended, it is a right to own a gun. You are more than welcome to disagree with that, but until such time as that changes, your opinion isn't a valid one.
Would you feel okay with a price barrier of this sort to exercise your right to free speech and right to freedom of religion? What if you had to pay an insurance company a premium to benefit from your right against unlawful search and seizure, or if you had to pay the court every time you wanted to benefit from your right to not self-indemnify?
Owning and driving a car isn't a right. It's a privilege, and you don't actually need a license or insurance to own a car, and you don't need them to operate a vehicle on private property. So it's not even a good comparison point in the first place.
> Their perspective only works if guns are the only means of protecting oneself and their family and the mass number of available guns is used to justify more guns despite higher guns rates not just anecdotally failing to make society more polite but statistically correlating to higher rates of murder and suicide.
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between
Gun ownership has little to no correlation with those factors. Obviously, more guns means more gun homicides and suicides, but not overall homicide and suicide rates. People will just use something else.
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN24R025
https://naaga.co/black-tradition-of-arms/
https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
Sorry for mobile links. To answer your question, the strain is Sour Diesel.
Thats not true at all. Suggest you read this: https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
Is endangering the safety & lives of marginalized people worth the price of a firearms prohibition? I sincerely do not think it is. Firearms are the greatest equalizer that have ever been made.
Don't try and label me with that conservative, alt-right trash, you're dealing with a dirty rat-bastard socialist here. It's said that if you go far enough left you get your guns back.
If you want an effective approach to reducing violence in general and not just gun violence, you have to look at gun control the same way as drug & alcohol prohibition as well as voting restrictions such as IQ tests and guessing how many jellybeans are in this jar, in that they are inherently racist/classicist and have never been about public safety, but rather the security & control of capital.
As for gangs & the drug trade as well as human trafficking, they have formed because there is a demand for something that is restricted, any slimey businessman worth their grime will tell you that it is immensely profitable to become a supplier for a in demand product, especially a product that is prohibited in some form or another. That's economics 101 why did I waste my time writing that. Anyway, it's natural that there is a great desire to become the sole supplier for illicit products & services and any means necessary will be used to achieve that, as a monopoly can set whatever price they want and still generate profit no matter what. This is where the majority of violence is coming from and it will keep going as long as it's profitable to sell contraband.
The only way to tackle this effective is to legalize ALL drugs & other illicit products and provide a safe supply that is free from contamination & other dangers. But you can't stop there, this is an entrenched market that we are tackling here and we can't just copy/paste what we did with marijuana as the drug trade for pot is still thriving despite dispensaries being in every city, you have to provide a better product as well as provide it cheaper than what the black market can achieve. It is only then we will see true positive change.
Here is a archived discussion from earlier this year if you would like to read more into it. https://old.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/comments/lq9gbj/if_drugs_are_more_dangerous_when_theyre_illegal/
As for firearms, without them crucial landmarks like the Civil Rights Movement & union formation would have not been possible. Here is a video of Charles E. Cobb Jr. talking about his book https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTgdrll6xWg, as well as this https://www.dukeupress.edu/this-nonviolent-stuffll-get-you-killed. His book is on Amazon https://www.amazon.ca/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X . The battle of Blair Mountain and Ludlow massacre are also worth looking into as to why firearms are important from a unionist perspective. Union members taking shots at the mansions of company owners were a major factor in the solidifying of unions.
If we allow a complete firearms ban to happen, a huge regression to worker's & civil/minority's rights will not be an if, but when it happens and it will be horrible.
What a disgusting whitewash of history.
The historical reality is that 2a rights have been systemically denied to people of color and that the gun control institutions we have today have in large part been explicitly designed to disarm PoC and the poor.
You actually think that black people are being used as a scapegoat to expand gun rights when those laws you pretend have been repealed are actively used to disproportionately target them
The fuck do you mean you cant take guns from DV offenders? Those laws have vastly expanded over the last 50 years and are used against minority communities at a grossly higher level than the rest of the country.
How disgusting you are for defending the states that summarily deny concealed carry rights against the poor and people of color. You do realize that in the majority of the country the government cannot deny them on arbitrary basis right? That people have equality under the law and the basis to deny permits is rooted in actual reality? Like felonies and the aforementioned domestic abuse? Instead of a sheriff looking at your picture and deciding he doesn't like your face?
This case wouldn't remove permits, it would make discrimination illegal.
You sit here and pretend to stand up for black people while literally advocating that they recieve unequal treatment under the law in may-issue states. Its astonishing really.
Even more disgusting is that you think that 1) lawful black gun owners dont exist, that 2) they would be slaughtered for posessing guns when thats literally not the case in any shall-issue state, 3) that they are killed already while unarmed in a systematic sense, and that 4) because they are already being killed they should be denied the right to fight back against it, relegating them to permanent victim status.
There were multiple armed black rallies last year where thousands of black militia members marched while open carrying, not concealed, open, and not a single instance of this mass slaughter of black gun owners ever occured.
Please understand, I am not calling you stupid. I dont think youre stupid. I also dont think you are racist. I think you are woefully under-educated on this matter, and that is driving your misunderstanding.
You might feel like you're helping, but in your concern you are advocating the denial of rights to tens of millions of people on arbitrary basis and saying that you know better than them when it comes to their self defense needs. People have a right to choose what they feel comfortable doing, you don't get to choose for them because you are more concerned they will be harmed than they are. You are actively denying a swath of the population not just their rights, but even the opportunity to choose to exercise them or not. Do you really think a black man does not have the agency to decide if exercising their lawful right to lawfully carry is in their best interest or not? To assess their own risks?
Theres a name for this, its called the bigotry of low expectations.
https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
If you're interested in maybe looking outside of your worldview. If not that's fine. But please don't pretend there's zero precedent for people who are oppressed arming themselves and effectively at that. As an aside, do you believe that our law enforcement is going to stop carrying guns? Or that when racist gun groups show up and stand side by side with said police trading high fives to "back the blue" that there should be no one standing on the other side with firearms openly displayed as a deterrence to being teargassed and otherwise driven back? Seriously, think about these things, don't just attack my argument because you disagree. Find facts and make coherent rebuttals if you'd like. Downvotes aren't real lol
If you don't want that might I suggest
This nonviolent stuff will get you killed,, We will shoot back and Negroes with guns
Each of them cover gun use anong minorities in US history. It's somewhat cathartic to hear about all the times the klan got it's ass kicked by gun-toting africans.
The mistake being made is that you're taking it as new violence instead of removing the government and its far-right paramilitary militias' monopoly on violence. Consider MLK's moral logic in the Letter From a Birmingham Jail:
>I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
>I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
>In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
Now he's known most for non-violent direct action, but MLK's civility was both ignored by the population with a boot on his throat and only effective in its results because like Gandhi the alternative was a radical movement. <em>This Nonviolence Stuff'll Get You Killed</em> is a good picture of that dynamic.
Every time you pay rent, that's violence being done to you because a third or more of your sweat and blood is stolen by a landlord in the unjust relationship which demands violence toward the working class. Every time the majority of the value you generate goes to your boss and their shareholders who enforce the conditions of your employment, that is violence you're statistically not escaping. Every time a child goes hungry so that a millionaire can buy more food than they can eat, that is violence with lifelong consequences being done to that child. Every time a cop stops you, they have full structural authority to do whatever violence they want without restriction. Every soldier in every war that secures you comforts at home is perpetuating a campaign of global terrorism to ensure the supremacy of the empire which finds a dozen ways to fuck you for the benefit of its elites. When those elites leave you to starve in the climate crisis they created, that is nothing short of indiscriminate genocide and the most extreme direct violence that will ever be done to your family.
It sucks that the response to that has to be radical. I'd rather homestead in peace than have to risk my life for the basic idea that people deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness regardless of the circumstances of their birth. But that is in no way new violence. It is self-defense to restore a basic sense of ecological harmony in society and in our relationship to nature. There is no voting for radical reform because the enemy controls the ballots. There is no debating it into being because the enemy controls the channels for debate and rules by which they will debate. You can march all you want and be ignored by those who aren't threatened by cheeky signs, you can block off a road like Extinction Rebellion and hope there isn't a detour, you can spend your entire life being loyal to everyone fucking you and they'll never lose the incentive to fuck you harder for their own benefit.
What does get their attention is standing up for yourself in solidarity with everyone else being fucked. That isn't pretty and it isn't fun and in a moral vacuum it would be fresh violence, but how many punches are you willing to take before you punch back until it stops? When the violence against you is so all-encompassing that the people committing it don't think you even deserve adequate healthcare for the wounds they cause, how much are you willing to tolerate that and how many generations of your family will you sacrifice to ignore that violence?
I appreciate your points, but can you source your statement about a mini 14 and a m1 garand not fitting within Biden’s assault weapon ban?
I totally respect your other counter points but fundamentally, the point is do those laws actually do any good? I’m not convinced they do. It’s not that I don’t want laws in place, it’s the classic question of freedom card safety. If a law steps too far on limiting ones freedom AND statistically offers little public safety benefit, I need more data to be convinced we should allow it.
Lastly it’s not about owning a gun making you safer or not. It’s about who will end up having them vs who won’t. If stamps allow me to have my AR and not the guy who makes $35,000 a year, then it is essentially a class war. It offers little benefit to the issues of gun violence we see as a country and gives more room for us to prosecute those on the margins.
https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
Hi there. You make some good points which I am going to try my best to respond to. You seem to want to engage in dialogue, and I think I've been mischaracterized a little, so I am going to try to clarify where I can. I do not wish to participate in an extended debate though. You may absolutely have the last word if you desire.
And I know you don't agree with me, which I think is totally fine, but you were also rather insulting, which I don't think is reasonable or fair. At the moment we're internet strangers, but it needn't be that way forever. We can have a drink at Three Notch'd when the pandemic calms down.
​
>You really might want to come up with a better example...
I chose MLK because he's specifically famous for non-violent resistance against a ruling class by a minority group. And because taking away rights by definition impacts the least powerful in society. Guns were vital in the civil rights movement, I don't think that movement is over, and I think new fronts for civil rights have opened in recent years and will continue to open in the future.
I'm also not actually putting forth an argument that any specific person, average or not, should carry a gun. But I do believe in strict equality under the law, rights for all, and the principle of self-reliance. If it's reasonable for anyone to be able to carry, such as Black and LGBTQ leaders who are at greater risk for violence, sometimes even (or especially) violence from police, then I believe we need to defend that right for everyone.
For other examples, I know several men and women from my personal life who shoot or carry or both. They run the gamut: peaceful as can be astrology-reading hippie, radical left antifa-aligned protestor, wife of former police officer, army reservist, retired marine, retired law enforcement. Four of those six examples are women.
​
>no one is saying what you've invented in your second quotation ...
This ordinance specifically disarms people in protests and gatherings in the public sphere, and this thread is full of people saying that's fine "if the police do their jobs." No one has been phrasing it in the way that I phrased it, and that was a choice on my part to express what I think the actual effect is — of both this and much gun control in general. Seeing exemptions in gun control legislation for law enforcement does make me uncomfortable bordering on angry. I believe law enforcement should be servants of the people, and I think that creating force disparities is antithetical to that. It seems obvious to me (not saying it is obvious to all; just to me) that making sure they're the only party armed with deadly weapons is concentrating their power. I'm not trying to fear-monger, I'm only trying to speak very plainly and straightforwardly about how I see it.
​
>How many times has a citizen pulling a gun on a cop ever done anything other than get that citizen shot?...
The Black Panthers supervising traffic stops is the best and most well understood example in recent history of providing effective armed counterforce against police. You may feel that such action is not necessary today, and that times have changed since 1966. I personally think they have changed in some ways and haven't changed in others. I don't think that specific example is very likely to play out again soon. But I am in fact concerned about times changing again and taking a turn for the worse. Again, I'm not trying to fear-monger. I'm merely trying to say that giving power to the state reduces the relative power of the people, that disenfranchised people in the past and present have been at power disadvantages detrimental to their wellbeing, and that the future is unpredictable but that state-violence is a pattern in the history of states.
​
>Second, you seem to be predicating this entire portion of your argument on some kind of struggle between citizens and the police...
Let me state unequivocally that I wish the world were peaceful enough that guns were not useful in any circumstance. I'll also say that the government is only part of the puzzle with gun rights; the other is defense against violent crime (estimates of defensive gun use are tricky statistics, but it's worth investigating the various sources). The police cannot be everywhere, nor am I a fan of state surveillance which would come next closest.
I do think think there is a constant struggle between citizens and government, of which the police are an arm of force. That struggle is evident throughout the entirety of human history, and I don't think we're yet so enlightened that the struggle has ceased.
I do want the police defunded. I think that they're a poor first choice for mental health care especially, and that we need to invest more in community building. I think that the militarization of police is an abomination of justice. At the same time, I don't think the police should be fully and entirely disarmed of all weapons. I think it's reasonable for society to ask specific people to train for and be prepared to use force when society deems it reasonable. This sounds perhaps contradictory, but it's no different than my saying that the people and government struggle against each other, but we should still have a government.
I don't think the police should be cuffing people having mental breakdowns, but that we should send trained social workers instead. I don't think that the police should have brand new cruisers when we haven't solved affordable housing. I don't think MRAPs are reasonable; I think firearms for defense are reasonable — they are citizens, too, and they are at greater risk of violence after all.
So they're armed, both in the present because it's the present, and in my future because I think that some limited community-approved use of force is important in society. But the tendency of abuse of power when an imbalance exists is historically documented. The disproportionate rates of police violence against minorities (and lack of effective prosecution) show statistically that it's not just a historical problem. It's a real problem today as well.
So, yes. I do want to defund the police and I want every citizen of sound mind to be legally able to arm themselves if they so choose. I want this both for defense of the person against bodily harm, as well as protection of rights against encroachment of the government. I don't think these viewpoints are contradictory or inconsistent.
I'm glad that MLK was able to carry to defend his person, and I hope that the next MLK has the same right. I also want all the protestors fighting for social justice and equality for all to have the same right and ability to defend themselves from those who would do them harm — and there are clearly many.
This is overlong and I apologize for that. I don't expect to change your mind, but I wanted to take your points and give them the attention they deserve. If you reply I will read it carefully and think on it as it warrants, although I don't think I'll reply. If however you'd like to get a drink sometime, reach out in PMs and I'd be happy to.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is about keeping power in the hands of the populace. It is specific to weapons of war (see Writs of Marque).
Never forget Hayes Pond, Blair Mountain, Athens Tennessee
Groups:
https://hueypnewtongunclub.org/
http://coalitionofarmedlabor.org/
Books:
https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
I don't believe people should own assault weapons at all. Only simple shotguns (20 gauge, 12 gauge, etc), non automatic pistols and non automatic single shot rifles like muzzle loaders and old school rifles (have a friend who owns a bolt action single shot Soviet/ mosin nagant rifle) should be allowed with full background checks, a safety course, and a cool off period. As someone who also hunts occasionally, I took a hunter gun safety course and went through a background check in NY state to get my 2 shotguns (20 gauge and 12 gauge). I know about 15-20 hunters who have done the same. Not a single one of us has hurt someone with a gun so we should not lose our rights to our hobby.
A lot of people who want guns banned by simply citing countries that have stricter regulations are not being disciplined in their argument, as they are not controlling for other variables. America's lack of a social safety net and structural racism and sexism going back centuries causes issues here that countries with good social safety nets and a more homogenous population don't have.
I know the reality is guns have helped people I know. Also, I have known common criminals who have broken into people's homes out of desperation who said they would not enter people's homes if they knew the owner would shoot them dead. My friend who used to sell drugs and break into places before he got straightened out (came from the ghetto) said he would not have done what he did here in NY in Texas as he could be shot for stepping foot on someone's property in Texas. The issue driving people like him to do such acts is poverty and structural racism and guns simply are used to mitigate what social safety nets should be eliminating. My friend getting a good job that pays $20 an hour, and an education and good life advice broke him out of doing such criminal acts. Many others don't get the opportunity.
There is also this good scholarly work that shows gun ownership helped make certain aspects of the Civil rights movement possible
>Never forget Hayes Pond, Blair Mountain, Athens Tennessee
>
>Groups:
>
>https://naaga.co/
>
>https://psjbgc.org/
>
>http://www.pinkpistols.org/
>
>https://hueypnewtongunclub.org/
>
>http://coalitionofarmedlabor.org/
>
>https://socialistra.org/
>
>Books:
>
>https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviolent-Stuffll-Get-Killed/dp/082236123X
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We\_Will\_Shoot\_Back
Is the missus a reader? You might could have this lying around:
This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible
They can keep you from getting raped and murdered, for one. This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed
Here's a good book on the topic if anyone wants to read more
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/082236123X/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I2MAA0IG1SCN7G&colid=3P5RUIABF67J8
I don't think you're reading my comment charitably. He's one example, but it's not evidence per se. My full view would be closer to Cone's here.
That nonviolent movements work better is ahistorical and anti-intellectual. See <em>This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed</em> or Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth, for example.
Nonviolence does not equal the Gospel. Nor does solidarity with the oppressed, per se. If you read above in Cone, the liberation of the oppressed is a sine qua non of the Gospel. And, as I said in the quoted comment, when nonviolent rhetoric works against those ends, it therefore works against the Gospel.
Ugh, I hate these kinds of questions but I'll bite.
I'm sort of picking my way through the book This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed, about how a lot of the players in the Civil Rights movement armed themselves for self-defense against racists. This article argues that the Black Panthers were the forerunners of the modern pro-gun view of gun rights in the US.
There are several books, and many other articles, on similar topics. I think it would be good to include articles like these because it combats the "guns are for old, angry white men" narrative. A lot of people who talk about gun rights do so in pretty abstract terms, and providing concrete examples of people who were actually oppressed arming themselves and defending themselves successfully is more persuasive IMO.
I used to be pretty anti-second amendment until I studied this stuff (links below!) and now...it's really hard for me to be anything but aggressively pro.
In their own words, firearms were an essential part of the nonviolent civil right's movement's success. And as far as regulating their accessibility, well, I doubt the white Mississippi lawmakers of the 60s would have cooked up any licensing scheme that would have made gun ownership legal for the communities who registered to vote and then fought off Klan attacks with their guns. I mean, that's what all the grandfather clauses, poll taxes, etc. were for anyhow, right? Using the fears of voter fraud as a stalking horse to make sure that only some people could exercise a right fundamental to all people (in that case, voting).
Any licensing scheme will always curiously end up afflicting the afflicted and comforting the comfortable (ex: Black Panthers are why California has such aggressive anti-gun laws)...just like every other fundamental right in practice.
I'd make two objections:
1. Objection on general normative grounds. We do not repeal the second amendment because it guarantees a fundamental right, and by definition we don't give up fundamental rights even when they're inconvenient or damaging to society. I don't need to see statistics on why communities would be safer if we repealed the fourth amendment either, because it doesn't matter.
- The right to bear arms means a whole hell of a lot to people shut out from halls of power in society.
Ah, Oregon has too many "liberals" (sheepish Dem voters who don't think through what they're supporting) who think Gun Control means disarming the people. Idiots. This, THIS is exactly why This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible.
You're right. I got nothing! https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5
A https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/08/income-inequality-murder-homicide-rates
Fuckin https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/
Thing https://www.amazon.com/dp/082236123X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_TGzWAbT97R1RG
In short: get dunked, you gaslit tool.
Popular alternatives to This Nonviolent Stuff'll Ge...
