[vanity post] A whole new meaning to 'Rr'

[Razer]

On 08/13/2017 11:17 AM, jim bell wrote:

>
> Sort of an armed "Guardian Angels" operation.


You're describing the OG Black Panther Party. Then black people in the
US were systematically disarmed post-60s rat-infested ghettoed burning.
Someone pointed out all that 'tactical' gear and bacon at
Charlottesville indicated the "United" crowd was middle class and can
afford that, and a $1500 dollar Ar replica. Someone just making ends
meet working 3 fast food joint jobs can't. "But Saturday Night, well
ain't that special. They got the constitution on the run."

Gil Scott-Heron, "Gun"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9cfTKTDXTw

>From a conservative magazine, New Republic:

Gun Control Is “Racist”? The NRA would know
By Adam Winkler
February 4, 2013

National Rifle Association President David Keene stirred controversy
Saturday by insisting that gun control’s origins were racist. “You know,
when you go back in history,” Keene told the Daily Caller, “the initial
wave of [gun laws] was instituted after the Civil War to deny blacks the
ability to defend themselves.” Keene’s history is off by at least
century—gun control existed in the American colonies and in the founding
era—but nonetheless Keene points to an ugly truth about American
history: Gun control has historically been used for racist purposes.

And the NRA’s president should know: His organization was intimately
involved in this history, promoting gun control laws that were tainted
with racism...

Full: https://newrepublic.com/article/112322/gun-control-racist

Rr


>
>
> *From:* Leigh Meyers <g2s at riseup.net>
>
> > Redneck Revolt is a national network of community defense projects
> > from a broad spread of political, religious, and cultural backgrounds.
> > It is a pro-worker,
>
> At first glance, using the term "pro-worker" suggests 'anyone who has
> a job'.  THAT would sound very inclusive, wouldn't it?   But from
> extensive experience reading, I've found generally this is used to
> mean, "blue-collar workers".  
> I really have to wonder about people who insert code-words and
> code-phrases in their speech.  Sounds like the same old
> "class-struggle" nonsense we've been hearing from Communists and
> Socialists for 120+ years.  The same Communists and Socialists who
> were responsible for well over half of the government-caused deaths
> around the world in the 20th century.
>
> I should also point out that the kind of people who speak and write
> like this tend to be PC (politically-correct), which makes me want to
> prod them by reminding them that "pro-worker" could be construed as
> rudely excluding people who take welfare-checks.  Are they trying to
> be hostile in this way?  At least, there's an inconsistency here.  But
> we know they aren't hostile to welfare-check recipients.  Rather, they
> are simply being selective in their targeted audience.  Divide and
> conquer.  And their website, below, confirms this.  Class this, class
> that.  
>
> > anti-racist organization
>
> My working definition of "racist" tends to be, "Anybody who thinks
> race is important".  Sadly, the term "anti-racist" is generally used
> as yet another code-word, used to imply "leftist".  Will you be
> mystified when I tell you that I think that leftists are some of the
> biggest "racists" there are?  Do you understand why?  
>
> > that focuses on working
> > class liberation from the oppressive systems which dominate our lives.
>
> Uh, pardon me, but why only "working class liberation"?  And do you
> mean, "everybody who has a job", or "just blue-collar workers".  And
> why don't you say you want to 'liberate' welfare-recipients, too?  Or
> retired people?  Or children?  What do you think made them
> welfare-recipients in the first place?  Are they not worthy of being
> liberated as well?   Okay, I know, I know, you are engaging in
> selective marketing here.  
>
> Tell you what.  22 years ago, I figured out a method that would truly
> and completely liberate everyone from the oppressive systems which
> dominate our lives.   I called it, "Assassination Politics".  (AP for
> short)   https://cryptome.org/ap.htm   and
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market      Maybe it will
> scare you, because I claim it will completely eliminate governments as
> we know them, and anybody who has a warm place in his heart for having
> a large, intrusive government will find this outcome truly terrifying.
>   Read the essay and tell us all if you are terrified.  
> ×
>
> > In states where it is legal to practice armed community defense, many
> > branches choose to become John Brown Gun Clubs, training ourselves and
> > our communities in defense and mutual aid.
>
> On the one hand, I'd say that's great.  Sounds like a militia.  I
> wonder, however, if there is any recognition here that historically,
> the left has been strongly anti-gun, and has extensively spoken
> against the formation and operation of militias.  Are you ignoring
> those facts?  Do you recognize the inconsistency?  Maybe you should,
> first, explicitly acknowledge this major error, and then work to fix it?
>
> Maybe your first project should be Chicago, with its famous level of
> murders.   Sort of an armed "Guardian Angels" operation.   Are you
> hostile to the people who are doing those murders?  If not, why not?
>  And maybe you won't be able to carry guns in the open, exactly due to
> the restrictive gun laws in Chicago?  The very same restrictive gun
> laws that keep ordinary, law-abiding citizens from carrying guns, laws
> that somehow don't seem to prevent the criminal-class from carry guns.
>
> Maybe you ought to advocate for a change in gun laws, so that American
> government would actually obey and respect the rights guaranteed to
> all Americans by the 2nd Amendment.  My understanding is that when the
> 2nd Amendment was written, in 1789, and ratified, in 1791, the only
> people prohibited from keeping and bearing arms were people who were
> already convicted of a death-penalty offense:  Such crimes were called
> "felonies", those so restricted were called "felons".  Problem is,
> over the next 200 years, the definition of "felony" changed,
> ultimately being a crime punishable by a year or more in prison.  Do
> you really think the Founding Fathers intended that this be the proper
> definition of "felony", and that anyone so convicted be prohibited
> from owning guns?
>
> (One exception:  Blacks were not allowed to own guns in the pre-Civil
> war period.  But the reason given was that they were not considered
> "citizens".  One argument made about the Dred Scott Supreme Court
> decision  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford      is
> that if blacks were declared citizens, they would have the right to
> own guns.)
> ×
>
>
> > This project was founded in June 2016, by several members of previous
> > similar community defense formations in Kansas and Colorado. We have
> > 30+ vetted branches, united under our common goals as outlined in our
> > principles, and organized through a collaboratively built national
> > network.
>
>
> >https://www.redneckrevolt.org/
>
> I checked it.  Clearly a lefty screed.  You are obviously not ready to
> solve any problem, let alone all of them.
>
>               Jim Bell
>
>
> >Rr
>
>
> >Ps. The 60s. "Rising Up Angry", Radical 'Greasers'
>
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Up_Angry
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 19812 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170813/ecd4aaed/attachment.txt>