Why the Left Need Guns

Spang

Spang

Foot Fetisher
Joined
May 31, 2012
Reaction score
6,127
Age
47
The author of this piece, Lorenzo Raymond, an anarchist, argues that armed self-defense is crucial in the struggle towards liberation.

Prior to the MFDP’s work, voter suppression of African-Americans was the rule in Mississippi, but after its ascendance in the late 1960s, Blacks had full ballot access and the Klan was in retreat. The Mississippi movement represents the most effective organizing of the post-war Left; Their policy on armed self-defense can teach us a great deal, particularly as the whole country begins to feel more and more like the Jim Crow South.
Click to expand...

I recommend reading all the words.
 
Interesting responses. What parts specifically were ugh-worthy?
 
I read it, but also did not find it convincing (or particularly read-worthy).

IMO it basically starts from the assumption that you need to use force and take the law into your own hands.
That assumption is not questioned in the article, only supported by anecdotal evidence.
 
I'm not saying that people don't have a right to defend themselves from physical harm. They do. I'm not saying that if you see someone being harmed physically you shouldn't intervene; physically, if necessary. I would, and have. (Although it's never become necessary for me to do so with physical force, yet.)

But to advocate for posturing with guns - that's why I said "ugh." It may make the writer of the piece feel more macho, but it's counterproductive. It just starts a shooting war.

The great social movements of recent times have succeeded because they have behaved in such a way as to inspire sympathy, respect, and ultimately support from many, many people not directly affected by the injustices which were being opposed. If anything, the violent wings of those movements slowed that gathering of support.

The opposition to the war in Vietnam grew, not because the radical fringe bombed buildings, but because people ultimately couldn't stomach students shot dead in Ohio and people setting themselves ablaze. Gandhi succeeded because he was willing to sacrifice himself, not others. Enough of white America was horrified by pictures of the beatings, bombings and lynchings of people of color by whites to give momentum to the Civil Rights Act.

Martyrs are powerful for a movement. Killers aren't.
 
Andy_T said:
I read it, but also did not find it convincing (or particularly read-worthy).

IMO it basically starts from the assumption that you need to use force and take the law into your own hands.
That assumption is not questioned in the article, only supported by anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...

Mischief said:
I'm not saying that people don't have a right to defend themselves from physical harm. They do. I'm not saying that if you see someone being harmed physically you shouldn't intervene; physically, if necessary. I would, and have. (Although it's never become necessary for me to do so with physical force, yet.)

But to advocate for posturing with guns - that's why I said "ugh." It may make the writer of the piece feel more macho, but it's counterproductive. It just starts a shooting war.

The great social movements of recent times have succeeded because they have behaved in such a way as to inspire sympathy, respect, and ultimately support from many, many people not directly affected by the injustices which were being opposed. If anything, the violent wings of those movements slowed that gathering of support.

The opposition to the war in Vietnam grew, not because the radical fringe bombed buildings, but because people ultimately couldn't stomach students shot dead in Ohio and people setting themselves ablaze. Gandhi succeeded because he was willing to sacrifice himself, not others. Enough of white America was horrified by pictures of the beatings, bombings and lynchings of people of color by whites to give momentum to the Civil Rights Act.

Martyrs are powerful for a movement. Killers aren't.
Click to expand...

These, exactly.
 

Yeah, but the whole premise of the article is that the left should be visibly armed.

What do you think will happen when a bunch of paranoid right wing freaks are confronted by a bunch of armed people of the types the paranoid right wing freaks are most paranoid about?!
 
Mischief said:
Yeah, but the whole premise of the article is that the left should be visibly armed.
Click to expand...
If you're comfortable being armed, visibly or otherwise. But for the entire Left to be completely disarmed while the State and the Right are not, just doesn't make any sense.
 
I think you're under a misapprehension if you think no one on the left has gun(s).

However, for political purposes, they are silly. ETA: By that, I mean that if it comes down to having to use guns, too many of us have been complacent too long, and it's not going to make a substantive difference whether we're armed, because at that point, it'll come down to a bloodbath, and we as a society will have already lost, no matter who lives and who dies.

And anyone who thinks that a person of color (or any person) is less likely to be shot by police if s/he is armed, is living in an alternate reality.
 
Last edited:
Mischief said:
I think you're under a misapprehension if you think no one on the left has gun(s).
Click to expand...
I'm aware that the Left already has guns. There are liberal gun clubs and more militant leftist organizations, such as Redneck Revolt and Brothas Against Racist Cops, who are armed.
 
The reason for the right to bear arms in the Constitution is to protect we, the people, against the powerful government: military, police, etc.

Not to shoot deer or to shoot someone trying to rob you, but to protect against the government overstepping.
 
ledboots said:
The reason for the right to bear arms in the Constitution is to protect we, the people, against the powerful government: military, police, etc.
Click to expand...

In the context of the period when it was written, the right to bear arms was to protect us against England, not against the U.S. government. Thus the term "militia", as in a standing army that could form quickly to repel the red coats. (or any other foreign invader)

The whole "the guvment's out to get us"/firearm stockpiling/ bunker building/survivalist/off the grid paranoia didn't begin until much much later.
 
Not to mention, I wonder what people imagine would happen if it's gotten to the point that you need to go to war with your country. What's going on in Syria is nothing compared to what the situation would be here.

If it's gotten to that point, people have been sitting twiddling their thumbs way too long.
 
I dont necessarily think that people need to arm, but I do feel that governments need to disarm.

It can be unnerving when they have such an arsenal at their disposal.
 
And speaking of England, its nobility are all around the world, and now make up the elite.

For example most presidents are related to each other, and apparently the Bushes are relatives of the Queen's family.

And these are the people who have most of the worlds money and access to a mindboggling amount of weapons. A sobering thought.
 
Spang said:
I'm aware that the Left already has guns. There are liberal gun clubs and more militant leftist organizations, such as Redneck Revolt and Brothas Against Racist Cops, who are armed.
Click to expand...

There are also just people who have guns, for a variety of purposes.
 
This is another one of those cases where what should be, isn't, because assholes ruin it for everyone else.

However, we're basically slipping into an era that's going to necessitate open revolution, so I'm not going to pretend I actually have anything in the way of an answer to this.
 
Top Bottom