What do Americans think about the redneck revolt

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-15/r ... ms/9303758

Antifa: The hard left's call to arms
Donald Trump's inauguration as US president a year ago reinvigorated many right-wing groups, including white supremacists. Now the militant left is fighting back with some shock tactics of its own.

Foreign Correspondent
By North America correspondent Stephanie March
Updated about 10 hours ago

As the sun sets over rural North Carolina, Dwayne Dixon peers through black-rimmed glasses down the barrel of an AK-47.

Abandoned cars and rusted-out trailers dot the overgrown property; cows graze in a nearby paddock under the gathering shadow of pine-clad hills.

Softly-spoken and slight of build, Mr Dixon is a vegan who spends his days lecturing in anthropology at a local university.

Today he's preparing for the moment he may raise a deadly weapon on the streets of a US city.

"Guns are a tool," he says between bursts of crackling gunfire.

"You'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."

Half a dozen of his friends watch on.

Nearby on the grass lies a small arsenal of assault rifles, handguns and body armour.

Across the range, a paper target with the shape of a human torso printed in black ink is stapled to a makeshift wooden frame. An X marks the bullseye.

His finger settles on the trigger. Shots ring out across the valley.

The rise of Antifa

Dwayne Dixon, a member Redneck Revolt, poses with a gun on a North Carolina property.
PHOTO: Dwayne Dixon, a member Redneck Revolt, says he's not "willing to abdicate" the responsibility for his security to the state. (ABC News: John Mees)
Mr Dixon, 45, is a member of the far-left group Redneck Revolt, whose chapters have multiplied in the past year from just a handful to over 30 across the United States, they claim.

Their ranks are swelling in response to a resurgence of white supremacist groups, in part emboldened by President Donald Trump's election victory.

Redneck Revolt is part of the rapidly-growing "Antifa" movement — short for anti-fascists.

Many are wary about showing their faces in public or talking to the media, for fear of a backlash from the police, the far right and even their own families.

A member of Redneck Revolt aims at a target at a gun range.
A patch saying 'white trash against facism'
A Redneck Revolt badge
After lengthy persuasion, the Silver Valley chapter of Redneck Revolt in North Carolina allowed Foreign Correspondent rare access to their world of guns, resistance and camaraderie.

"We want our story told because it's ordinary people standing up against fascism, facing down fear, and attempting to reshape our small corner of the world into a space of egalitarianism and shared efforts for our needs and desires," Mr Dixon says.

He is articulate, friendly and disarming, even when holding an assault rifle.

Dwayne Dixon carries an assault rifle in Charlottesville.
PHOTO: Mr Dixon says a willingness to use firearms is a wise deterrent against white terrorist violence. (Supplied: Abdul Aziz)
For the past decade he has lived in Durham, an urban, progressive bubble in the conservative south.

He speaks with a sense of urgency, especially when on the subject of white supremacists and the activities of the far right.

These are people with clearly stated intentions to carry out violence against people of colour, against queer folks, against women," he says.
"They're not just speaking — they're marching. They're marching in a way that's intimidating, as we all know is harking back to the torch light rallies of the Nazi era."

While the term "redneck" is often derogatory — a stereotype of poor, uneducated, racist whites — the group wants to reclaim the mantle.

Mr Dixon wants to instil honour in the word as a tribute to America's working class; people who, they say, may not realise they are being hurt by big business and government.

Redneck Revolt members stand at a street corner in Charlottesville.
PHOTO: Redneck Revolt's signature item is a red bandana. (Supplied: Abdul Aziz)
Redneck Revolt's signature item is a red bandana, the same cloth worn by coal miners in West Virginia during an uprising against mining companies and the state in 1921.

Members say the group has a broad agenda: to help communities take care of themselves and reclaim the freedoms they believe are being eroded by the state and corporate America.

They have food-sharing programs and do first aid training, but their most striking feature is their readiness to bear arms.

"I think for us having access to weapons and having the skill and competency with them … allows us to at least consider that among a diversity of possible tactics," Mr Dixon says.

"It doesn't mean that they're going to be used all the time, but recognising the moment we're in, when real white terrorist violence is a fact of American life.

I wish we didn't have them, didn't need them, but I think a wise deterrent is not something to scorn.
"None of us think about firearms in a cavalier way," Mr Dixon insists, before heading back to the firing line to help his friends reload their guns.

We asked you to leave your thoughts on the "Antifa" movement and the rise of hardline groups in the comments below.

A watershed moment

A man directs a lighted spray can at a white nationalist demonstator.
PHOTO: A counter-demonstrator uses a lighted spray can against a white nationalist demonstrator at the entrance to Lee Park in Charlottesville, Virginia. (AP: Steve Helber)
It was the violence at a white nationalist Unite the Right event in Charlottesville, Virginia, last August that galvanised many anti-fascist groups, including Redneck Revolt.

Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.
VIDEO: Car ploughs into protesters in Charlottesville (ABC News)
After hours of clashes, a car ploughed into a group of leftist protesters, killing one woman and injuring scores. The alleged driver was an avowed white nationalist.

Police failed to intervene to stop the clashes and were later pilloried for their inaction.

In the days that followed, the "alt-left" was thrust into the global spotlight by Mr Trump's denunciation of "both sides" in the Charlottesville tragedy.

Among the Antifa ranks were "bad dudes", the President said, who used violence in the same fashion as those promoting neo-Nazi and white nationalist ideologies.

US President Donald Trump addresses a press conference.
US President Donald Trump addresses a press conference.
US President Donald Trump addresses a press conference
Redneck Revolt had their guns in Charlottesville but never fired them.

Even so, their weapons drew shock and in some cases, disgust, from many on their own side.

"We knew we were being intensely scrutinised," Mr Dixon says.

"My personal rejoinder would be like, well, who's worrying about optics when people might actually be killed? What really is our priority here?"

Mr Dixon describes his feelings in the hours after the killing as akin to leaving a battlefield, shocked and distraught.

Clearly, no-one could have predicted what it had turned into, this really striking, watershed moment in contemporary US history," he says.
"I think it's made people have a much higher degree of vigilance, to recognise that dangers might be much closer to home than they imagined."

Within days, the violence in Charlottesville began to take effect on activists like Mr Dixon.

Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.
VIDEO: Dwayne Dixon confronted by other activists at a rally after Charlottesville (ABC News)
Rumours swirled around his hometown that a Ku Klux Klan rally was coming to their streets.

Mr Dixon claims police were nowhere to be seen. So, fearful of a repeat of Charlottesville, he joined counter-protesters on the street with his assault rifle slung over his shoulder.

The KKK never came, but police charged Mr Dixon with multiple offences.

"I insist upon my rights as a citizen to have the means for my own self-defence when the state is absent or unwilling to actually intervene," he says.

Along with the charges, there are calls from some who want Mr Dixon sacked from his job as a lecturer at the University of North Carolina. Yet he says he has no regrets.

"I would definitely do it again," he says.

Members of Redneck Revolt sit in Charlottesville.
PHOTO: Redneck Revolt had their guns at the Charlottesville clashes, but did not fire them. (Supplied: Daniel Hosterman)
A growing division

Like many groups in the wider Antifa movement, Redneck Revolt suffers from an image problem.

Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.
VIDEO: Far-right activist Richard Spencer punched on camera (ABC News)
Mr Trump's inauguration drew black-clad Antifa activists who smashed store windows and set a limousine on fire in Washington, DC.

One protester punched white nationalist Richard Spencer on live television while he was being interviewed by the ABC.

"We don't need the Antifa to come and make a spectacle out of it," says Richard Cohen of the Southern Poverty Law Centre, a group that tracks hate crimes in the US.

It emboldens [far-right activists]. They love it. That's why they came with helmets on and shields. They want to portray themselves as martyrs; portray the white race as being embattled.
Mr Cohen believes that kind of behaviour plays into the hands of the far right.

But there is evidence the hate speech and spread of racist propaganda is starting to bear ugly fruit.

Hate crimes mainly targeting African-Americans, Muslims and immigrants have increased two years in a row across the country and they're on track to rise for a third.

White supremacists clash with counter protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia
PHOTO: White supremacists clash with counter-protesters in Charlottesville. (Reuters: Joshua Roberts)
Antifa groups like Redneck Revolt believe Americans are foolish if they dismiss the rise of white supremacist groups.

"Back 10 years ago there were a handful — today there are many more," says Mark Bray, a left-wing scholar and author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.

"You organise against these small groups as if they could be the starting points of future murderous movements or regimes, and you stand up to them by any means necessary."

In the wake of the Charlottesville tragedy, police have had a bigger presence at confrontations between right and left protesters, and have mostly managed to keep the two sides apart during the official rallies — but there has been some violence once police left.

The hard left looks for new allies

A Redneck Revolt member takes aim at the gun range.
PHOTO: Redneck Revolt say they have never fired at a protest, but they are prepared to. (ABC News: John Mees)
Back at the range in rural North Carolina, Mr Dixon is chatting to an unlikely ally in Chance Allen.

Mr Allen is a member of the American Pit Vipers constitutional militia, an armed group that is committed to aiding law enforcement and defending free speech — including by the far right.

Chance Allen, a member of the American Pit Vipers constitutional militia.
PHOTO: Chance Allen, a member of the American Pit Vipers constitutional militia. (ABC News: John Mees)
He first encountered Redneck Revolt at a pro-Trump rally when one of his members tried to assault one of theirs.

Back then he felt "complete, utter hatred" towards the leftists.

"At one time I was solid 'unite the right'," Mr Allen says.

"I thought originally that they was just 100 per cent anti-Americans."

He attributes that to misinformation in the media.

"Once I started seeing the bullshit out there and wanting to know the facts and get to learn, that's when I started realising 'we the people' means 'we the people'. We're all the people," Mr Allen says.

Part of Redneck Revolt's mission is to win over rural, working-class Americans like Mr Allen, who may be susceptible to the ideologies of the far right.

"I really don't imagine this to be some kind of conversion crusade. But it really is trying to establish lines of affiliation, lines of affection, even," Mr Dixon says.

I'm trying to get them to point their guns in the right direction.
Mr Dixon's friend is having problems with the sight on their AR-15. He walks over and helps fix it.

"Alright, fire when ready," he says.

Swastikas on the streets

Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.
VIDEO: Dwayne Dixon explains why the left is willing to use violence. (ABC News)
Despite criticism, Redneck Revolt members like Mr Dixon remain defiant about their right to bring weapons to rallies.

"We know that this is a real danger and we're not willing to abdicate our own security to the state," he says.

"So having access to guns and the willingness to discipline ourselves around it I think are crucial features of our contemporary existence.

"I'm not going to be passive or a spectator or fall back behind some kind of centrist line that outsources resistance to fascism, say, to the state, imagining the police will, quote, 'do their job'.

"Because I would argue they have a stake in the far-right ideology — incarceration rates, deportation rates, endless war against people abroad."

Mr Dixon says it is a false moral equivalence to say those on the left who are prepared to use violence are just as bad as those on the right.

workshop cartriges.JPG
workshop AK47.JPG
workshop AK guide.JPG
When the left uses violence, in the rare cases that it happens, it's resistance," Mr Dixon says.
"When those actions are taken, it's because some other kind of threat has already materialised and therefore, that danger coming from far-right action justifies or necessitates some kind of intervention with force.

"Has any left person fired in a protest? No. Has anyone from the left killed anyone?" he asks rhetorically.

Mr Dixon grew up in a military family. His father was a career army officer and his grandfather was a bomber pilot in WWII.

He says his grandfather would be appalled at the rise of fascism and racism in America today and he has vowed to carry on the fight that began generations ago.

"I'm not going to let people fly swastikas freely on the streets of the United States," he says.

"I'm never going to stand by and let people get hurt."

Never heard of the redneck revolt until now. What do Americans think?

[Civil War Man]

Never heard of the redneck revolt until now. What do Americans think?

There's no real answer to that. Ask 10 Americans, you'll probably get 11 opinions.

For my stance, I think they are necessary. There is some merit to the idea that fighting the far right emboldens them by giving them martyrs, but the same can be said by refusing to engage them in that way. For white supremacists, silence or inaction in response to them is a tacit endorsement, and anyone who tells you that you can stop white supremacy without bloodshed is selling you a fairy tale. That much becomes obvious when you consider that there was no prominent antifa movement these past few decades, but the white supremacists were still nonetheless emboldened.

It is unlikely that such hateful ideologies will ever be truly eradicated, but in order to stop it from spreading it must be confronted on every front. It must be challenged intellectually, rhetorically, and yes, sometimes violently. And when the government is unable or unwilling to do that, groups like Redneck Revolt are part of the US's anti-fascist immune system.

Southern antifa groups like Redneck Revolt are also symbolically important, since they challenge the idea that the southern states are a monolithic hotbed of racism.

[Simon_Jester]

My head says there is a grave danger of them causing more problems than they solve.

My heart says turnabout is fair play.

[Elheru Aran]

A liberal movement in normally conservative strongholds can only be a good thing.

That said, don't be surprised to see degrees of nuance in it. For example, 'Progressive Christianity' is IMO almost certainly a part of this movement to a greater or lesser degree-- churches where you can show up in jeans and a T-shirt, the theology is fairly mainline, songs are peppy and there's a band, but they aren't going to strong-arm you into tithing or visiting their Bible studies if you don't want to. But at the same time they won't budge on some basic issues-- no gay marriage, no abortion are the main things in my church. Progressive Christian churches are getting pretty popular-- I'd say that in my neck of suburban Atlanta, probably at least a quarter, if not a third, of the churchgoing population attends a church that operates along these lines. Notably, the majority tend to be Millennials, Gen-X'ers, and their kids. One downside is that demographically the majority are white, most ethnic groups tend to prefer attending their own churches/denominations, but they do make an effort to integrate any minorities that attend.

The reason I feel like this is probably a part of the 'Redneck Revolt' is because unlike conventional churches where, if they discuss politics at all, it's generally conservative, Prog Christianity tends to stand on certain generally liberal principles-- human rights, gender equality, social welfare, that kind of thing. Their record isn't perfect-- sexual harassment/abuse still gets covered up, a few pastor types have been busted for it recently-- but they're more outspoken about it, and more vitally, they're more willing to practice what they preach. Recently a number of members from my church weren't shy about stating on social media that they had participated in a protest against the local Confederate memorial. It absolutely wasn't a church thing-- my own church rarely discusses politics in an official capacity-- but it does indicate a certain common mindset that goes against the typical conservative churchgoer attitude.

I won't claim that Prog Christianity is responsible for the 'Redneck Revolt', or even a major part of it, but I do think that its popularity does play a part, and that a general liberalization of organized religion in America can only be a good thing.

[Lonestar]

Never heard of the redneck revolt until now. What do Americans think?

Pretty common in my circles, I've seen people claiming to belong to the movement since right after Trump got elected. I don't really believe that they are though; the same individuals who talk about "revolution" also make a pitch for civilian disarmament whenever there's a shooting.

A lot of gun culture in the US is rightwing, and as a result they seem to jumping at the prospect of a shootout eventually happening between Antifa/RR and some alt-reich types. Smaller gun companies like Spikes have embraced this and now the new, nebulous enemy to fight is armed leftwingers.

[The Romulan Republic]

My head says there is a grave danger of them causing more problems than they solve.

My heart says turnabout is fair play.

I get that, and believe me, there's a part of me that would like to go kick some teeth in. But in this case, I think we should as much as possible base our views, and our actions, on two things:

1. What are our core political and moral principles.

2. What is practically necessary to achieve our fundamental political goals.

Now, the answer to 1. (and therefore, to some extent, 2.) is going to differ from person to person, but for most on the Left I would guess that our fundamental principles generally include some form of democratic government and rule of law. Normally, militant groups and political violence are a threat to both those things. So, I would argue that such things can be justified only to the extent that they are absolutely necessary to prevent even greater breaches of democracy and the rule of law.

Generally, I would say:

Defensive use of force against an immediate threat- Justified. Most legal systems make some provision for the use of force in self-defense.

Preemptive use of force- Justified only if you are facing an imminent threat that you cannot reasonably hope to protect against by purely defensive means.

This is, obviously somewhat ambiguous, which is why I would advise exercising extreme caution- when you start justifying preemptive force, it is VERY easy for that to become a slippery slope to "shoot anyone who looks at you funny", and fear and anger have a way of making things seem "necessary" when they actually aren't.

Retaliatory use of force, ie "we're going to get them because they have it coming to them"- Unjustified. At that point, you're just indulging your baser instincts, and engaging in what can only be an escalating cycle of tit-for-tat blows.

Use of force to intimidate political opponents into submission- There's a word for this: Terrorism. Don't do it.

In theory, I think that there may be a place for Left-wing militia-type groups, to provide a collective defense/deterrent in the even that liberal and progressive groups come under attack (as happened in Charlotsville, for example).

In practice, however, I think that militia movements tend to attract angry, unstable people who are looking to START trouble, rather than deter it. And if we are going to descend into political violence, think that it will be very important that the Left is not perceived as firing the first shot, literally or figuratively, if we want most of the country on our side. So I would only support a militia movement that was absolutely scrupulous in vetting and training its members, and in expelling members who decided to make trouble, rather than try to deter or defend against it.

Lonestar's post also illustrates the risk of sparking off an escalating arms race between Left and Right, though that ship may have already sailed.

[Soontir C'boath]

I've heard of the Liberal Gun Club, but this is the first I have heard about this group, though I am not surprised it's around. After all, we had the Black Panthers decades ago that arose on similar lines. Plus, just because Democrats generally supports gun control, doesn't necessarily mean they're against gun ownership and what it entails. Forming groups then become a natural response.

And yea, these guys look like rednecks.

[LadyTevar]

I know some who claim membership. They're a buncha "Good Ol' Boys" who proudly brag about their grandfathers WWII Vet status and claim they too will not stand for Nazis on American Soil.
They still voted for Trump.

[Soontir C'boath]

I know some who claim membership. They're a buncha "Good Ol' Boys" who proudly brag about their grandfathers WWII Vet status and claim they too will not stand for Nazis on American Soil.
They still voted for Trump.

I know Republicans who think neonazis are coming from the Democratic party.

[Dragon Angel]

Since the Right has been amassing weapons for who the fuck knows how long, it was really only a matter of time until the Left did so. Principles count for shit when the real prospect of far right wing extremists jackbooting their ways into your face becomes so very close to reality. It's been building up since the days when our government first decided more and more to deregulate gun ownership to absurd levels.

This is one genie Congress and the gun industry uncorked that will be impossible to return to the bottle.

Though, I don't know much about these people. I hope they are sane.

[Simon_Jester]

This utterly fails to surprise me.

I know some who claim membership. They're a buncha "Good Ol' Boys" who proudly brag about their grandfathers WWII Vet status and claim they too will not stand for Nazis on American Soil.
They still voted for Trump.

You know what? I can live with that last part.

Among other things, because it's a sign that the Trump-voting sector of the populace wouldn't consistently break pro-Nazi if it came down to cases. And that the presence of neo-Nazis in the Trumpist camp is at least capable of causing some measure of confusion or disturbance in that camp's ranks, in principle.

[Zaune]

Retaliatory use of force, ie "we're going to get them because they have it coming to them"- Unjustified. At that point, you're just indulging your baser instincts, and engaging in what can only be an escalating cycle of tit-for-tat blows.

How about retaliatory use of force in cases where repeated breaches of democracy and the rule of law have been committed but legal means of obtaining redress and deterring future instances have proven ineffective, IE large-scale, premeditated voter suppression at a high level in defiance of court orders or a police force with such a severe racially motivated excessive force problem that it's an active threat to the safety of the black population?

[Rogue 9]

I admit, I cleaned my shotgun when neo-Nazis started coming out of the woodwork after the election, but I'm not sure this is a good idea. Militias tend to attract people looking for trouble, as has already been said.

[MKSheppard]

It's been building up since the days when our government first decided more and more to deregulate gun ownership to absurd levels.

This is one genie Congress and the gun industry uncorked that will be impossible to return to the bottle.

Nothing's changed. National Firearms Act, Gun Control Act, Lautenberg + Hughes Amendment are still operative. So what's this about 'deregulating gun ownership to absurd levels'?

[The Romulan Republic]

Retaliatory use of force, ie "we're going to get them because they have it coming to them"- Unjustified. At that point, you're just indulging your baser instincts, and engaging in what can only be an escalating cycle of tit-for-tat blows.

How about retaliatory use of force in cases where repeated breaches of democracy and the rule of law have been committed but legal means of obtaining redress and deterring future instances have proven ineffective, IE large-scale, premeditated voter suppression at a high level in defiance of court orders or a police force with such a severe racially motivated excessive force problem that it's an active threat to the safety of the black population?

If you are asking me to endorse acts of domestic terrorism targeting state governments and law enforcement, I fear that you will be disappointed.

As to why I hold that view... leaving aside for the moment the morality of such acts- once we go down that road, there is a risk of rapidly escalating violence. I think that it is very dangerous to regard political violence as a limited tool for effecting political change, or punishing ones' political opponents* due to the risk of escalation. My feeling is that one should not engage in anything other than purely defensive acts, unless one is prepared to fight the resulting conflict to the finish- which, frankly, the American Left at present is not. Again, this is not an attempt to address the inherent morality of political violence, but is based entirely in what I regard as the pragmatic course of action.

There is also the risk of appearing as the aggressors, of losing the sympathy of a large portion of the public who would otherwise support us. I'd prefer to avoid violence altogether, but if it comes to that, I want to be DAMN sure that we on the Left are not regarded as instigators. I would point to Lincoln's actions leading up to the Civil War (as just and necessary a war as ever was fought), in which Lincoln was scrupulously careful to make sure that it was the South, not the North, which fired the first shots. In this case, I think, I would rather trust to the judgement of the President who actually won America's civil war.

And in point of fact, there has been some progress in legally overturning voter suppression. A federal court just ruled that gerrymandering was unconstitutional (I posted a thread on it). Yes, said progress is frustratingly slow. But I am very skeptical that acts of domestic terrorism would provide a faster solution. It could just as easily backfire, further dividing the Left while giving the Right a pretext to crack down on our rights even more heavily.

*Perhaps as dangerous as the idea of a limited strike on North Korea, reportedly under debate in the White House.

[The Romulan Republic]

I admit, I cleaned my shotgun when neo-Nazis started coming out of the woodwork after the election, but I'm not sure this is a good idea. Militias tend to attract people looking for trouble, as has already been said.

That's a big part of my concerns as well.

I could perhaps, theoretically, see the merit in a Left-wing militia movement as a means of deterring violence against us by the Right.

In practice, however, I expect that such a movement would tend to attract angry, frustrated, vengeful people; people who are looking to start a fight; people who are more interested in seeing the other side "get theres' rather than actually promoting sound policies.

I am concerned that the result would be to give the (generally larger and better-armed) Right-wing extremist forces the pretext for more violence and crackdowns, while dividing the Left, losing us support from moderates, and ultimately leading to an escalating tit-for-tat exchange.

I am also wary of encouraging political extremism in general (many people mistakenly conflate "principled" and "extremist"). I've watched the Republican Party collapse into a black hole of uncompromising extremism, where the only measure of a candidate's quality now seems to be "How much do you hate the groups we hate?" and "How loyal are you to Donald Trump?", and relatively moderate Republicans like Jeff Flake are quitting because they know that there is no longer a place for them in the party. I don't want to see the Left go down that road, where we start purging anyone who isn't seen as radical enough in the actions they advocate, or pure enough in their hate.

[Zaune]

If you are asking me to endorse acts of domestic terrorism targeting state governments and law enforcement, I fear that you will be disappointed.

As to why I hold that view... leaving aside for the moment the morality of such acts- once we go down that road, there is a risk of rapidly escalating violence. I think that it is very dangerous to regard political violence as a limited tool for effecting political change, or punishing ones' political opponents* due to the risk of escalation. My feeling is that one should not engage in anything other than purely defensive acts, unless one is prepared to fight the resulting conflict to the finish- which, frankly, the American Left at present is not. Again, this is not an attempt to address the inherent morality of political violence, but is based entirely in what I regard as the pragmatic course of action.

Well, that depends where you consider the line between rebellion and terrorism to lie, doesn't it? Because there is a difference, and I don't mean "it's not terrorism if it's us doing it". Targeting political leadership figures and the armed services is a very different thing from targeting Republicans just for being Republicans, or even neo-Nazis just for being Neo-Nazis.

And purely defensive acts don't have to be purely reactive ones either. You're bang on that the Left couldn't see that kind of war all the way through to the end, though... and I don't know you can say the same about the Right.

There is also the risk of appearing as the aggressors, of losing the sympathy of a large portion of the public who would otherwise support us. I'd prefer to avoid violence altogether, but if it comes to that, I want to be DAMN sure that we on the Left are not regarded as instigators. I would point to Lincoln's actions leading up to the Civil War (as just and necessary a war as ever was fought), in which Lincoln was scrupulously careful to make sure that it was the South, not the North, which fired the first shots. In this case, I think, I would rather trust to the judgement of the President who actually won America's civil war.

You're not wrong there, but I'm not sure it would make much difference in the end. The Right will happily claim the Left were the instigators even as video footage of unarmed protestors being mown down by a machine gun mounted on a police MRAP goes viral. Hell, they're still to this day claiming the slaveowners of the Confederacy were the real victims of unwarranted aggression, and people are buying into it.

And in point of fact, there has been some progress in legally overturning voter suppression. A federal court just ruled that gerrymandering was unconstitutional (I posted a thread on it). Yes, said progress is frustratingly slow. But I am very skeptical that acts of domestic terrorism would provide a faster solution. It could just as easily backfire, further dividing the Left while giving the Right a pretext to crack down on our rights even more heavily.

No thanks to the current Attorney-General... And I guess we'll find out just how much progress has been made in a couple of years when the midterms happen. Assuming the blood, soil and whiteness wing of the GOP don't try to get rid of the Voting Rights Act first.

[Simon_Jester]

There is also the risk of appearing as the aggressors, of losing the sympathy of a large portion of the public who would otherwise support us. I'd prefer to avoid violence altogether, but if it comes to that, I want to be DAMN sure that we on the Left are not regarded as instigators. I would point to Lincoln's actions leading up to the Civil War (as just and necessary a war as ever was fought), in which Lincoln was scrupulously careful to make sure that it was the South, not the North, which fired the first shots. In this case, I think, I would rather trust to the judgement of the President who actually won America's civil war.

You're not wrong there, but I'm not sure it would make much difference in the end. The Right will happily claim the Left were the instigators even as video footage of unarmed protestors being mown down by a machine gun mounted on a police MRAP goes viral. Hell, they're still to this day claiming the slaveowners of the Confederacy were the real victims of unwarranted aggression, and people are buying into it.

There's a gap between what Rush Limbaugh says and what the median member of the public believes.

The civil rights era protests illustrated this principle. The sheriff who turns firehoses and attack dogs on crowds of unarmed, peaceful, disciplined demonstrators can say they started it. But if he's being caught on camera with the opposite being true, his ability to engage in doublethink and doublespeak doesn't get him very far.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and lying to these people will literally never stop. They are the target audience of right-wing media outlets.

[Dragon Angel]

I am also wary of encouraging political extremism in general (many people mistakenly conflate "principled" and "extremist").

I don't know if you're aware, but "principles" and "when they go low, you go high" have been used by Democrats and other liberal personalities as euphemisms for inaction and incrementalism, and excuses for political weakness. In the context of guns, there are liberals who claim that if Leftists consider buying guns, they are not being Good Progressives.

And my answer to that is: Fuck that.

The arms race should not be one-sided, and this one-sidedness over the past several years has convinced many who were previously for very strong gun laws (like myself) to just accept that this aspect of American politics is never going to change. We should not be afraid of them; they should be afraid of us, so that they are discouraged from planning to roll us over in the distant future. The Black Panthers as mentioned were one example of such a discouraging force.

Inb4 you go into another filibuster on it: No, this does not mean I am calling for an immediate violent revolution.

I had hoped that we would never reach this stage, but with Nazis further emboldened, people have to do what they have to do to make sure they stay alive. If that means abandoning old liberal principles, then in this shitty world, it is something I accept. With all that said though, and as I mentioned before, I hope this "redneck revolt" is composed of sane people, even if they are not entirely Left.

[Lonestar]

It's been building up since the days when our government first decided more and more to deregulate gun ownership to absurd levels.

This is one genie Congress and the gun industry uncorked that will be impossible to return to the bottle.

The only example of federal ownership deregulation I can think of in the past 50 years are federal court rulings that overturned explicit gun ownership bans in DC and Cook County.

The only loosening of gun laws, at the Federal level, I can think of is letting the Federal AWB sunset in 04 and changing firearm carrying on federal lands to whatever local laws are.

There has been a liberalization of concealed carry laws in the past 30 years or so, but that is certainly different from Congress "deregulating gun ownership".

[Dragon Angel]

I failed at concisely summarizing this infinitely dense issue I guess.

The gist of what I'm saying is: Gun culture has spread massive amounts of weapons in so many directions and it has been rarely checked against in the last two decades. Even the bump stock ban idea that was floated about is going nowhere. There just isn't a political interest in controlling this fallout.

The people who have been arming themselves more have greatly tended to be on the Right, and this has only increased. If the Left is to prevent the Right from getting the idea that they can Bundy their ways into the Left's faces, the only way, failing to enact solid legal controls, to accomplish that would be to match the Right. Because as was said, if the Left and the Right decided to have a shootout now, the Left would probably lose. Given that, and the extremist Right's increasing boldness to jackboot about, we have little other choice, because we sure as hell are not willing to silently fall into obscurity.

[Lonestar]

I failed at concisely summarizing this infinitely dense issue I guess.

The gist of what I'm saying is: Gun culture has spread massive amounts of weapons in so many directions and it has been rarely checked against in the last two decades.

I mean, except in heavily populated states like NY, CA, and IL? To say nothing of smaller ones like the lower half of New England and New Jersey?

Even the bump stock ban idea that was floated about is going nowhere.

Because, ultimately, it didn't meet the existing federal definition of a MG under the NFA. It's also shockingly rare.

You'll be glad to read though, that MA sent letters to gun owners this week telling them that they had 90 days to turn in any bump stocks without compensation or face felony charges.

There just isn't a political interest in controlling this fallout.

The incredibly vast majority of Americans don't give a shit about gun violence, mostly because it doesn't affect them. Gun culture guys, however, will turn out in droves and burn up the wires to prevent gun control legislation from being passed.

The people who have been arming themselves more have greatly tended to be on the Right, and this has only increased. If the Left is to prevent the Right from getting the idea that they can Bundy their ways into the Left's faces, the only way, failing to enact solid legal controls, to accomplish that would be to match the Right. Because as was said, if the Left and the Right decided to have a shootout now, the Left would probably lose. Given that, and the extremist Right's increasing boldness to jackboot about, we have little other choice, because we sure as hell are not willing to silently fall into obscurity.

I've often thought that it's hilarious that anti-LEO people are very frequently also of the same "well only cops should have guns" flavor.

Gun control is often used even today as a way to go after minorities. The Sullivan Act in NYC is used for easy convictions against minorities; there are people who have been on grand juries there and walked away convinced that the NYPD was planting firearms on individuals during stop and frisks.

It's why Northam's election in Virginia was so sad; he wants to decriminalize or legalize weed to end unreasonable prosecution against POCs, but also wants to implement ranging gun control laws which will end up with mandatory minimums. Guns are scarier to the elites than weed is, I guess.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know if you're aware, but "principles" and "when they go low, you go high" have been used by Democrats and other liberal personalities as euphemisms for inaction and incrementalism, and excuses for political weakness. In the context of guns, there are liberals who claim that if Leftists consider buying guns, they are not being Good Progressives.

And my answer to that is: Fuck that.

Neither of those is what I was referring to. I meant exactly what I said- that "principled" is not the same as "extremist". Its also not the same as "uncompromising". I don't have much regard for ideological purists who refuse to work with anyone who doesn't agree with them on everything- so I would actually criticize, not condone, those who say that buying guns disqualifies you for being a "Good Progressive" (using those guns for purposes other than legitimate defense, would, but that's a different question).

I am referring to the people who see "compromise" as equivalent to "corruption", and who would like to see the Left purged of anyone who isn't "pure" enough in their ideology, or radical enough in their positions. Because I don't think that is either a rational approach, or one that is likely to meet with success.

The arms race should not be one-sided, and this one-sidedness over the past several years has convinced many who were previously for very strong gun laws (like myself) to just accept that this aspect of American politics is never going to change. We should not be afraid of them; they should be afraid of us, so that they are discouraged from planning to roll us over in the distant future. The Black Panthers as mentioned were one example of such a discouraging force.

I have no objection to private gun ownership (with the usual caveats regarding things like background checks and proper training). Nor to using those guns defensively, if necessary.

Inb4 you go into another filibuster on it: No, this does not mean I am calling for an immediate violent revolution.

I didn't say you were.

I had hoped that we would never reach this stage, but with Nazis further emboldened, people have to do what they have to do to make sure they stay alive. If that means abandoning old liberal principles, then in this shitty world, it is something I accept.

Understandable, but how many principles can you abandon before we cease to be liberals, and simply become another shade of authoritarianism? That is what I fear.

With all that said though, and as I mentioned before, I hope this "redneck revolt" is composed of sane people, even if they are not entirely Left.

Agreed. My fears regarding a militia (at least, a defensive militia) would be greatly lessened if I were confident that it was comprised of rational, disciplined people looking to deter aggression by the other side, not precipitate unnecessary violence themselves.

Unfortunately, it is my impression that militia movements tend to attract angry, unstable people with itchy trigger fingers.

It might surprise you to hear that I do not automatically object to the use of force, if it is motivated by defensive necessity. What I object to is undisciplined, untrained, unaccountable force- which is what I expect to see from militia groups, in general.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, that depends where you consider the line between rebellion and terrorism to lie, doesn't it? Because there is a difference, and I don't mean "it's not terrorism if it's us doing it". Targeting political leadership figures and the armed services is a very different thing from targeting Republicans just for being Republicans, or even neo-Nazis just for being Neo-Nazis.

Well, I'm also not going to endorse attacks against US politicians and troops, either. Both because I don't feel we're at a point as a country where that would be the lesser evil, and because I don't particularly desire to get questioned by the FBI.

And purely defensive acts don't have to be purely reactive ones either.

In peacetime, I'd say they do, as a rule.

Condoning preemptive violence means opening a huge can of worms. Its very easy to advocate unjustified uses of force out of fear that something might happen if you don't strike first. I'd hate to see that sort of thinking, for example, applied to the North Korea situation (as it was applied to Iraq in 2003).

When you're already in the midst of fighting a war, then obviously you can't constraint yourself to purely defensive stances- the only way to ensure victory is to take the initiative and go on the offensive.

But we are not, obviously, yet in a state of war, and if it comes to that, I'd rather it not be my side that fired the first shot, for reasons both moral and pragmatic which I have already stated.

You're bang on that the Left couldn't see that kind of war all the way through to the end, though... and I don't know you can say the same about the Right.

I think, as I believe I've said before, that basing our actions on the assumption that the other side doesn't have the stomach for a fight would be arrogant and dangerous. It reminds me very much of the claims (on both sides) at the start of the American Civil War that it would all be over in a few months, or after one big battle.

If you're going to advocate such a dangerous course of action as political violence, then the least you can do is acknowledge the possible consequences of such a course of action.

You're not wrong there, but I'm not sure it would make much difference in the end. The Right will happily claim the Left were the instigators even as video footage of unarmed protestors being mown down by a machine gun mounted on a police MRAP goes viral. Hell, they're still to this day claiming the slaveowners of the Confederacy were the real victims of unwarranted aggression, and people are buying into it.

Some people are- the die hard ideologues on their side. The people I'm talking about reaching are not, primarily, the die-hard Trumpers, but the moderate Leftists and Centrists who's support the Left does actually need.

But Simon_Jester kind of already addressed this.

No thanks to the current Attorney-General... And I guess we'll find out just how much progress has been made in a couple of years when the midterms happen. Assuming the blood, soil and whiteness wing of the GOP don't try to get rid of the Voting Rights Act first.

Yes, we'll have to see what happens. But I prefer to give the legal and non-violent options a chance to work, if there is any hope of them doing so, before turning to blood in the streets.

[Dragon Angel]

I mean, except in heavily populated states like NY, CA, and IL? To say nothing of smaller ones like the lower half of New England and New Jersey?

Since all the states are connected, there isn't much that is going to stop heavy weapons from leaking into those. They may be the strongest links in the chain, but they will always be affected by the weakest links, which are just too many at this point.

Because, ultimately, it didn't meet the existing federal definition of a MG under the NFA. It's also shockingly rare.

You'll be glad to read though, that MA sent letters to gun owners this week telling them that they had 90 days to turn in any bump stocks without compensation or face felony charges.

That's good on MA. I'm more and more growing to like that state...

Since the Las Vegas incident I've been growing more and more concerned that bump stocks and other similar ways to emulate automatic weapons fire will become popular. They may have been known about for a long time, but Las Vegas gave an empirical result as to how effective and horrific they could be. With this real life event as an example, more would be attracted to using these in the future.

Though, I don't know how one would ban ownership of something that resembles the concept of "automatic weapons emulation". Laws have to avoid being overly vague after all.

The incredibly vast majority of Americans don't give a shit about gun violence, mostly because it doesn't affect them. Gun culture guys, however, will turn out in droves and burn up the wires to prevent gun control legislation from being passed.

I'd probably say "maybe the politicians should just grow a spine and finally do what is right regardless of what the voters explicitly tell them", but beyond the inherent conflict between morality and politics, there is also ...

I've often thought that it's hilarious that anti-LEO people are very frequently also of the same "well only cops should have guns" flavor.

Gun control is often used even today as a way to go after minorities. The Sullivan Act in NYC is used for easy convictions against minorities; there are people who have been on grand juries there and walked away convinced that the NYPD was planting firearms on individuals during stop and frisks.

It's why Northam's election in Virginia was so sad; he wants to decriminalize or legalize weed to end unreasonable prosecution against POCs, but also wants to implement ranging gun control laws which will end up with mandatory minimums. Guns are scarier to the elites than weed is, I guess.

Yeah, I've seen that argument before re: gun control being used to beat on the marginalized and ... there is a lot of merit to that. It makes thinking of effective laws to control guns now fractally more complex, since cops will tend to target us. You'd need to get law enforcement everywhere in the country to be better on that but hahaha good fucking luck with that. Philando Castile was all too clear of an example of that with a person of color doing everything right, and yet, still being executed.

It's another part of why I abandoned my stance on gun laws too ... there would just not be a fair foundation for it in today's world.

Neither of those is what I was referring to. I meant exactly what I said- that "principled" is not the same as "extremist". Its also not the same as "uncompromising". I don't have much regard for ideological purists who refuse to work with anyone who doesn't agree with them on everything- so I would actually criticize, not condone, those who say that buying guns disqualifies you for being a "Good Progressive" (using those guns for purposes other than legitimate defense, would, but that's a different question).

I am referring to the people who see "compromise" as equivalent to "corruption", and who would like to see the Left purged of anyone who isn't "pure" enough in their ideology, or radical enough in their positions. Because I don't think that is either a rational approach, or one that is likely to meet with success.

Alright; I agree, largely. Apologies for any undue aggression.

As far as being uncompromising, on the flipside, there is the Democrats' view of compromise basically meaning "just give into the Republicans' wishes all the time", but I'm sure you already know that and we don't need to rehash it. Mainly I'm mentioning to bring it out.

Understandable, but how many principles can you abandon before we cease to be liberals, and simply become another shade of authoritarianism? That is what I fear.

Well, I'm definitely not with the gulag fans, so that's a line already.

(Incidentally, it strikes my sense of irony how people who dislike the US prison system can also be fans of the Soviet gulag camps. Thankfully those people seem to be ... very few.)

The principles I'll abandon are the ones that will just prove to needlessly obstruct gaining any sense of rights and equality for me and others like me or in my social class. Years ago, I would have thought that ownership of guns would only serve to paint us in a bad light to a scared population. After learning more about how violence--or more specifically, the display of capability of violence--has had significant positive effects in previous civil rights gains, I am no longer of that opinion. After learning too about how our decks are already stacked against us in the court of public opinion, principles related to our optics exponentially dropped in my priorities, since there's no sense in worrying about a sunken cost.

Agreed. My fears regarding a militia (at least, a defensive militia) would be greatly lessened if I were confident that it was comprised of rational, disciplined people looking to deter aggression by the other side, not precipitate unnecessary violence themselves.

Unfortunately, it is my impression that militia movements tend to attract angry, unstable people with itchy trigger fingers.

It might surprise you to hear that I do not automatically object to the use of force, if it is motivated by defensive necessity. What I object to is undisciplined, untrained, unaccountable force- which is what I expect to see from militia groups, in general.

Most people I know at least are of the defensive opinion. I have unfortunately also seen people who are wannabe revolutionaries, but in the greater picture it seems like those voices would be utterly drowned out by the sensible ones. No one wants to die, after all, and we're all too well aware of who the military will side with if we collectively strike first.