NY Times: "The Rise of the Armed Left"

[roscoe]

Apologies to the mods if this can't be kept civil. But here is an interesting article on how political events have pushed a rise in gun ownership on the left (read the comments - some good, some bad):

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/o...nra-trump.html

To keep this forum-safe, I will avoid talking about any political position. But I will say that I know quite a few liberals who have taken to owning guns in times in which they have felt persecuted because of their circumstances. It is less common now, but in the 1980s gay-bashing by gangs of young men was a real thing, and I had some gay friends arm themselves specifically in response to the perceived threat. And, although it is 40 years ago now, in my opinion, the Black Panthers arming themselves were the closest in recent times to embodying the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

It is interesting how this goes - folks on the right arming themselves against some perceived Muslim invasion threat, and folks on the left arming themselves because of a perceived Nazi/White Nationalist threat. (This board and THR are pretty good, but some gun boards are full of folks talking about Muslim invaders).

I actually find it refreshing that the left sees the need to take the initiative to protect themselves, because part of some left-leaning philosophy has historically advocated pacifism (that I, as a liberal, find philosophically indefensible).

One of the NRA's big failings is not to be reaching out across the aisle. They frame themselves as pretty right wing - articles about Socialism, etc., that really have no place in advocating gun ownership. But maybe their interest is in the continued political conflict rather than actually convincing folks from different philosophies.

But, folks, let's keep it clean!

 

[LRDGCO]

The question remains why federal law enforcement would not view an organization such as the Socialist Rifle Association that is based on, and discriminates according to ideological allegiance to Socialism, and that aims to " Arm and train the working class for self -defense" as an unauthorized militia?

It is certain that an organization that declared its aim "to arm and train patriots in self - defense would be this viewed.

 

[Tommygunn]

The question remains why federal law enforcement would not view an organization such as the Socialist Rifle Association that is based on, and discriminates according to ideological allegiance to Socialism, and that aims to " Arm and train the working class for self -defense" as an unauthorized militia?

It is certain that an organization that declared its aim "to arm and train patriots in self - defense would be this viewed.

How do you know law enforcement isn't taking that view; perhaps infiltrating them?
In the 1990s, during the expansion of the militia movement after Ruby Ridge and Waco, it was joked that most militias consist of 1/2 undercover BATF agents spying on the other half, who were undercover F. B. I. Agents.

Seriously, if they haven't violated any laws, the fact they believe in a screwball political ideology doesn't necessarily prove they're criminals.

 

[Wisco]

The more gun owners the better, right?

Lefties and many moderates will need their own 2A organizations because the NRA doesn’t represent them and maybe hasn’t for a long while. They need their own voice in the 2A debate. I’m mostly a libertarian and neither party speaks for me very often, nor do many advocacy groups - certainly not the NRA.

The NRA is a political machine that needs money and they raise it from their most ardent supporters through stoking extreme tribalism and fear-mongering just like any other well-funded political group. If there was money to be raised from anyone else, they’d do it.

 

[paulsj]

I will take couple from the center row a .348 Winchester lever gun and the SxS double rifle. Thanks.

 

[loose noose]

I'm neither Republican or Democrat, nor am I Independent or Libertarian, but I am a staunch Conservative, and do adhere to the 2nd Amendment as it was written 200+ years ago, and yes I do support the NRA and occasionally donate, but when I feel it is appropriate. I feel that gun ownership is a God given right, however, with every God given right, comes a grave responsibility to use that gun (sorry all you fellow Marines "rifles" "firearms") in a lawful manner, as prescribed by a much higher deity, something called conscience.

 

[Scooter22]

I wonder what the S.R.A's take on the anti gun groups and very restrictive laws in states like NY where I live. Sounds like they want guns for some of the same reasons many gun owners do.

 

[WestTexShooter]

Apologies to the mods if this can't be kept civil. But here is an interesting article on how political events have pushed a rise in gun ownership on the left (read the comments - some good, some bad):

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/o...nra-trump.html

To keep this forum-safe, I will avoid talking about any political position. But I will say that I know quite a few liberals who have taken to owning guns in times in which they have felt persecuted because of their circumstances. It is less common now, but in the 1980s gay-bashing by gangs of young men was a real thing, and I had some gay friends arm themselves specifically in response to the perceived threat. And, although it is 40 years ago now, in my opinion, the Black Panthers arming themselves were the closest in recent times to embodying the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

It is interesting how this goes - folks on the right arming themselves against some perceived Muslim invasion threat, and folks on the left arming themselves because of a perceived Nazi/White Nationalist threat. (This board and THR are pretty good, but some gun boards are full of folks talking about Muslim invaders).

I actually find it refreshing that the left sees the need to take the initiative to protect themselves, because part of some left-leaning philosophy has historically advocated pacifism (that I, as a liberal, find philosophically indefensible).

One of the NRA's big failings is not to be reaching out across the aisle. They frame themselves as pretty right wing - articles about Socialism, etc., that really have no place in advocating gun ownership. But maybe their interest is in the continued political conflict rather than actually convincing folks from different philosophies.

But, folks, let's keep it clean!

I, for some reason at this moment, can not pull up linked article. But I would have some “issue” with some of your assertions, although I do not think they are insincere.

I arm myself and family mainly because I want to preserve the Bill of Rights, with the bonus of protecting my family. With the 2nd being the lynchpin of the rest of those enumerated Rights. And I think the Bill of Rights are for all Americans - not just pols, reporters, lawyers, actors.

I think the NRA has done an excellent job of focusing its efforts to preserving the 2nd Amendment. I see it as having no other ideological bent as regards any other issues. When they have had to appear to go after certain groups (as it were), it is because those groups are trying to kill the 2nd.

If, in my efforts to protect the Bill of Rights, I happen to obstruct some invasion of America, protect any innocent person, contribute to the betterment of decency - that is just a cherry on top.

 

[Shimitup]

From the article: "If nothing else, an armed left might once again create a bipartisan impetus for gun control."

I find it amusing so see that statement. Should they have had their way already an armed left would not have been possible.

 

[Steve S.]

I am not loyal to any political party or group; I carried an M-16 for a living the last three years of Vietnam. I did not do it for the flag, the Constitution, the Country, my fellow Americans - I did it because my parents were poor and I wanted to go to college - I kept my word and the DoD kept theirs. I am not a patriot nor am I a hero but I have strong beliefs that I am willing to defend at any price. I am glad that others are willing to do the same regardless of political philosophy - I have a deep respect for that practice. I am not as nimble as I once was but I am still a very good shot. I guess if things go bad, I will carry a firearm again. As was said in the movie “Open Range” - “There are things that knaw at a man worse than dying!”

 

[chicharrones]

From the article -

The mission of the S.R.A. is “to arm and train the working class for self-defense.”
. . .
Brad, a 36-year-old math professor, is a founder of the S.R.A.’s North Georgia chapter and a member of the S.R.A.’s central committee.

Seems contradictory to me.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

It's completely hypocritical but there are plenty of legitimate sources out there talking about radical left groups like Antifa arming themselves with firearms.

If the SEHTF it's safe to say not all of these yuppies will be chucking rocks.

 

[AlexanderA]

The previous thread on this very subject was closed because it got too political, and I fear that this thread will be closed as well.

In the meantime, let me say what I've been saying for a long time -- that the real hard-core left is not against guns. The people who are against guns are well-meaning but mushy-headed people in the ideological middle -- such as the proverbial "soccer moms" -- marshaled and funded by plutocratic social engineers like Bloomberg. It is entirely incorrect to call antigunners "leftists." The fact that the antigunners have made common cause with the Democrats (and the pro-gunners with the Republicans) is entirely coincidental.

 

[paulsj]

From the article -

The mission of the S.R.A. is “to arm and train the working class for self-defense.”
. . .
Brad, a 36-year-old math professor, is a founder of the S.R.A.’s North Georgia chapter and a member of the S.R.A.’s central committee.

Seems contradictory to me.

Why? Does working class have to automatically mean "Blue Collar."?

 

[cw308]

Like I said before , the line is drawn in the sand , no middle of the road sad to say . Pick a side and let's see what happens.

 

[taliv]

i have some liberal friends who are pro-2A
but most of the progressives i know that own guns will tell you they don't like them and feel the gov should ban everyone's and that they only have them because others have them.

don't assume that just because people own guns means that they're pro-gun

 

[chicharrones]

Why? Does working class have to automatically mean "Blue Collar."?

Professor means Masters degree or PHD, doesn't it?

Once you have one of those pieces of paper, you're usually not working class, especially if you're an academic.

I have a brother in law that is a college professor. He will work with his hands and get dirty, but he is in no way "working class".

 

[entropy]

It's completely hypocritical but there are plenty of legitimate sources out there talking about radical left groups like Antifa arming themselves with firearms.

If the SEHTF it's safe to say not all of these yuppies will be chucking rocks.

Armed and proficient are two different things. Most of the ANTIFA man-children abhor guns, nor have what it takes to become properly trained, although some are more than willing to commit violence without them. The % of potentially violent ANTIFA types that are actually trained and armed is minuscule. The % that are trained to the level many of the members here are is microscopically small. Yes, even an untrained child with a gun can kill, we all know that, but I'm casting my lot against the Rebels without a Clue.

 

[CapnMac]

I could expound upon this at some length--but,only in an entirely political way. So, none of what I would have to say would be appropriate for THR. So, on this, I shall stand moot.

 

[armoredman]

They are pro guns for themselves, pretty much, not everyone else. I've seen some of them "practicing", and it would have been funny if they weren't so serious. However, the effect of being legally armed might actually work on them to feel more independent and possibly even think 'why do the leaders want these things banned?" Maybe. Straw grasping, of course.

 

[roscoe]

The question remains why federal law enforcement would not view an organization such as the Socialist Rifle Association that is based on, and discriminates according to ideological allegiance to Socialism, and that aims to " Arm and train the working class for self -defense" as an unauthorized militia?

It is certain that an organization that declared its aim "to arm and train patriots in self - defense would be this viewed.

This is kind of interesting. What is an unauthorized militia?

 

[Enfielder]

Men........and women if you're here, please listen to a tale of division.
Please look at the last elections since George W. Bush.
We are a country divided in half. We are weak and fighting amongst ourselves while those who pull the strings that control our lives have no resistance but rhetoric from bleating calves who represent both sides. Antifa or the NRA or whoever (I can't think of examples right now because of alcohol) are fighting the same fight. We all have kids and lives to protect. We all have imaginary enemies, such as immigrants, Muslims, or anything that goes bump in the night and that fear is what those who control would use against us.
We are ****ing humans. We need food, shelter, heat, clothing, love, security, safety, a few guns, Netflix, and some beer or another form of escape. We need people to be good to us and not take our stuff.
We need security. Something that we can only get if we have the means in his world, which are harder everyday to come by.

Guns are our safety valve in this country. With out the second amendment, the constitution would be toilet paper, BUT, without the rest of the document, we'd be a bunch of gun-mongering fools.

I'm drunk and loving it, but my message is to understand that, at the level we work as citizens, we all want to be safe. We all have different idea how to make it happen; be it fighting against white supremacy for disrupting what we believe to be equality or fighting against those who want free healthcare and potentially threaten the economics of it all, we just all want to be safe.

 

[armoredman]

When I drunk post it's usually, "I luv alla youse guys, really!!!" Yours makes perfect sense,

 

[paulsj]

This is kind of interesting. What is an unauthorized militia?

Armed groups that are not part of the National Guard. Members of National Guard are well-regulated authorized militia.

 

[Deus Machina]

From the article -

The mission of the S.R.A. is “to arm and train the working class for self-defense.”
. . .
Brad, a 36-year-old math professor, is a founder of the S.R.A.’s North Georgia chapter and a member of the S.R.A.’s central committee.

Seems contradictory to me.

Not contradictory at all. I can donate time, money, and my hair to the local women's cancer center without being either a woman or cancer patient. Maybe his parents were factory workers. Maybe he put himself through college working construction.
Promoting a cause does not necessarily mean one directly benefits from it or even fits in the demographic, and one shouldn't steer away from a good cause because they don't themselves directly gain from it.
Whether you consider it a good cause is up to you, but if it's something that shows those that may be of an otherwise opposing viewpoint that one can still support the right of the people to their instruments of defense, and get them to see the good in it and the issues of further restrictions, that's at least one mark on the benefit side of that Venn diagram.