• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Yeah, you really didn’t get what I was saying.

    Read the context.

    “Armed minorities are harder to oppress”

    “True, but don’t downplay how much the police will react when they encounter a legally armed minority”

    “True, but consider the black Panthers, who were collectively armed to watch the police”.

    “True, but remember MOVE who were likewise armed as a community and the police dropped explosives on them and burned a neighborhood down. Escalation isn’t necessarily worth it, and being a bigger threat might invite harsher violence rather than deter it”

    “Oh, so you’re saying you should just let people kill you” <- this is you

    “No. I’m saying consider who you’re arming against”

    “You’re being pedantic and not adding value”

    Waco, move, and a large number of early labor movement actions are good examples of how weapons are good for community defense against the government.
    Hence: Consider who you’re defending against. Proudboys? Pinkertons? Your gun might give them pause and prevent their shit. The police? FBI? Army? They’ll shoot you for open carrying; kill your family for shooting back; burn down you and your neighbors houses to get you to surrender. Then the courts will say the people who did it can’t be held liable, make taxpayers pay the survivor some cash and sell your children’s bones to a university as a museum display.

    So yes, some black people justifiably would rather be harassed by the police than harassed harder and then killed.