That's pretty much what the Black Panthers did in California in the 1960's. They organized armed marches through California cities and within a year or two the state had passed very restrictive gun control laws.
I often with we could organize a armed, unified, poc and queer movement that regularly demonstrated. Sort of a modern take on Fred Hampton's Rainbow Coalition, but with guns. Worse case gun laws change, best case, they listen.
That has been tried before, in the US. It ended somewhat poorly for the unions, though long term it did drive change. Ultimately, unless your goal is a violent insurrection, being armed really only helps to protect you from other violent militias. That can be important when the government can't or won't prevent their activities (see the KKK and Pinkertons) but if they have full government backing, or the government just outright uses the military, you're now in the thick of an armed rebellion. More often than not, those are a bad plan.,
Ever since the Red Scares[1][2] and the Taft-Hartley Act, all labor unions in the US have been yellow, except for the IWW. If you want a militant labor union, you’ll have to create it from scratch.
Maybe that's what you'd get in the long run, and maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I'd be worried about an escalation in violence (or the expectation of violence) leading to more dead innocents.
18 replies
That's pretty much what the Black Panthers did in California in the 1960's. They organized armed marches through California cities and within a year or two the state had passed very restrictive gun control laws.
I often with we could organize a armed, unified, poc and queer movement that regularly demonstrated. Sort of a modern take on Fred Hampton's Rainbow Coalition, but with guns. Worse case gun laws change, best case, they listen.
I can think of a couple other worst cases.
To shreds you say?
Amazing, in 50 years it went from real black resistance to the complete population of any color being pacified slaves resigning in their fate.
That has been tried before, in the US. It ended somewhat poorly for the unions, though long term it did drive change. Ultimately, unless your goal is a violent insurrection, being armed really only helps to protect you from other violent militias. That can be important when the government can't or won't prevent their activities (see the KKK and Pinkertons) but if they have full government backing, or the government just outright uses the military, you're now in the thick of an armed rebellion. More often than not, those are a bad plan.,
I like where this is going 😈
Ever since the Red Scares[1][2] and the Taft-Hartley Act, all labor unions in the US have been yellow, except for the IWW. If you want a militant labor union, you’ll have to create it from scratch.
Uhh... I'm in the UAW and most of the people I know have a couple guns at least.
Gun control is a terrible idea right now
Labor unions leverage their labor in negotiations. I'm all for people being armed, but not for those types of negotiations.
You want more people to get shot?
Oh God yes, fascists and capitalists
Cool photo.
It's less about "more" and more about changing who
Maybe that's what you'd get in the long run, and maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I'd be worried about an escalation in violence (or the expectation of violence) leading to more dead innocents.
a lot more
But only bad guys?
which is most of the US