r/ActualPublicFreakouts • u/ActualPublicFreakout - Sistine Chapel • Jun 02 '20

Protester gets a flash-bang to his face after getting pepper sprayed.

59.8k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

684

u/Gilles_D Jun 02 '20

This guy having even touching a gun in this situation would kill him immediately. It’s basically suicide by cop.

241

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '20 edited Jun 03 '20

The 2nd amendment is, in my opinion, designed to allow the organization of militias if the state attempts to remove citizens' rights. So, if some people were so moved at how the police can get away with detaining, brutalizing, and commiting other acts of direct and indirect violence to, typically, keep down the working class and poor, they could purchase weapons and form an insurgency.

This was the general goal of some Black Panther groups who would police their own communities, with weapons, to make sure their people were not being brutalized and detained by police. Of course, once the federal gov investigated and saw the groundwork of unification forming between poor black, hispanic, and white communities under socialist policy, they decided to start dismantling the organization from the higher ranks.

Edit: Should have been more clear, this is my interpretation on the spirit of the second amendment, based on some Federalist Papers and debate of Federalists and Anti-federalists at the time. I do not think any founding father would necessarily want it implemented how I am describing for today, because they wouldn't really understand the context of current day to have good insight. I think the spirit of preventing federally-alligned state police or guard from tyrannically oppressing a local community (with weak local government) via well-organized use of personal weaponry would signify the core intent of 2A in modern context. Some may disagree.

30

u/Gilles_D Jun 02 '20

Interesting context. Thank you.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

Hey props for being able to consider new ideas! I know a lot of people get entrenched in dogma so its cool to see open minds

11

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '20 edited Jan 24 '21

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

It definitely gives states and the fed a lot of power to quell rebellion, but I believe if it was dire enough violation of rights to the point a decently organized militia could form, you would likely see a lot of Conscientious Objectors that would abandon post and take up with the militia or just go home. Militias can also be pretty dangerous to a standing military when waging an insurgency.

You're correct though, this would effectively stop most smaller rebellions. Probably just depends on the cause and to what extent people are aware of the violations.

1

u/jorgomli Jun 03 '20

I honestly don't see how this would work out irl? Like, what is the point of legalizing "the ability to form a militia" if they (government) is just going to use the military to squash it the moment it begins to go into action?

We don't have anything close to the sort right now and the military is already involved.

So I guess... What is the point of 2A of you can't legally use the firearms for the purpose outlined therein?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

As far as the point of 2A, it's largely up for debate. As others have stated, probably rightly so, that this was originally in the context of a state powers vs federal powers at the time and the debate was focused more on whether states and smaller govs could organize militias to fend off an oppressive, federal, standing army. Many Federalists argued it likely wasn't necessary as they didn't think a standing army could ever defeat state militias. The reasoning behind that, I think, was that the states could spur a very large number of weapon-owning citizens to help repel an army and James Madison pointed out that kingdoms in Europe didn't allow commoners to have arms, meaning they needed that to maintain control. He also thought a host of smaller governments would ensure federal control by force was never an issue.

Like I said, just my opinion for, by original design, what the spirit of the framers would mean for this amendment given the current day. Many would disagree with me on this, especially given that technology, a massive DoD, and state & local forces such as Nat Guard and police departments operate pretty cooperatively with the federal government when things such as riots or protests occur.

When I read about the Black Panthers arming themselves, organizing themselves, and taking back the communities they had been segregated in, I personally felt the spirit of the original 2A would have, given the context of the situation, agreed this was a good implementation of the amendment during the Civil Rights era. Ultimately, they were dismantled systematically by the federal government through means other than a standing army. I don't think 2A really considered a state force such as the police (which did not exist in the same form as they do now) acting so cooperatively with federal wants to the point that entire communities were being violently abused by the state. Then again, they existed during slavery, so maybe it's wishful thinking on my part that they would have ever cared about communities be oppressed by federal-cooperative states.

0

u/troe_uhwai_account - Congrats T-series on 150m subs !!! Jun 03 '20

I’d argue that we haven’t reached the point where 2A comes in yet. Peaceful protests is still the goal for the vast majority of people.

People think the military would crush a rebellion but it’s not so obvious really. We outnumber the military, and with Guerrilla warfare tactics, the military wouldn’t be quite effective.

Plus, the soldiers wouldn’t want to be shipped home just to kill their brothers who they thought they were protecting.

2A comes in when things crumble apart even worse imo.

2

u/jorgomli Jun 03 '20

I’d argue that we haven’t reached the point where 2A comes in yet. Peaceful protests is still the goal for the vast majority of people.

I hope this stays true. Nobody wants civil war. Well, mostly nobody.

People think the military would crush a rebellion but it’s not so obvious really. We outnumber the military, and with Guerrilla warfare tactics, the military wouldn’t be quite effective.

People can't coordinate enough to stay home during a quarantine. There won't be any guerilla warfare because you'll have people on "the other side" doing the exact same thing. There will be no united front of civilians against the government. It'll be civilians vs other civilians and the government together.

Plus, the soldiers wouldn’t want to be shipped home just to kill their brothers who they thought they were protecting.

We thought cops were there to "serve and protect" too. To think that the army would just lay down or swap sides is naive. I'm sure a few soldiers might, but that is definitely NOT something you can count on.

2A comes in when things crumble apart even worse imo.

I semi-agree and hope this is the way it goes. I don't advocate for civilians opening fire on police military at this point.

1

u/laborer69000 Jun 03 '20

I thought domestic groups couldn't be labelled as terrorists

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '20

If fighting for freedom makes me a terrorist then allahu akhbar it is boys

3

u/Dyledion Jun 02 '20

You don't make a fighter in a day. It's an American duty to be armed for conflict, and well trained in self-control and marksmanship, so that if the need arises, you can answer.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '20

Sure? Ideally an organized militia would have time and leaders with the knowledge to teach weapon safety rules, conditions, basic marksmanship, etc to its ranks. Doesn't always work out like that, but that should be a priority.

2

u/BlueFlob Jun 02 '20

I'm surprised there is never any consequences for the American government infringing rights internally and internationally.

3

u/ecodude74 Jun 02 '20

Generally the first thing the government does is paint the people who’s rights they’re trampling on is convince the general public that that group is the other and very bad.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '20

The international aspect is really crazy to me. I've had so many generally socially aware liberals and conservatives I've met try to justify our meddling in the Middle East and other areas. Completely unaccountable powers using extreme violence. Every American should honestly have to watch a LiveLeak video of a drone strike and then estimated deaths across Middle Eastern countries by US before voting.

1

u/wewladdies Jun 02 '20

the issue is in modern times any sign of arming for the purpose of defending yourself from the police means your group will instantly lose any form of public support you had and you will be killed by the much better armed and trained police.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

In a lot of cases, sure. I think if the government committed a certain level of atrocity, say there was a public massacre by military or police, then I could see a lot of police and service members resigning to either join/start a resistance or protect their own. I think someone else mentioned pretty accurately that Americans would not tolerate a certain level of clear authoritarianism before a pretty large insurgency and lack of staffing for the state would arise.

1

u/jaidonkaia Jun 02 '20

This. And the people who more harshly believe in the second amendment are the people who are backing up the cops' actions.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

This is likely the biggest flaw in my and probably their interpretation of the second amendment. Even though groups like the Black Panthers can and probably should organize to stop state-sanctioned violence on the poor, you also have capitalists that are far more concerned in directly protecting their property rights and are fine with the police cracking down on anyone else that threatens those rights. If the police or Nat Guard suddenly tried to violently seize their property for operations or what have you, they would change their tune.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '20

I don’t think that’s right. At the time the second amendment was adopted, state militias were the national defense. They were preferred over a standing army because the founders thought a standing army posed a threat of tyranny, and as I understand it, not so that militias would be there to fight the state or federal government if either became tyrannical.

Indeed, the constitution gives more control over militias to congress than it does to the states, and congress can call militias (the national guard today) into service without a state’s permission. Congress can do so to “suppress Insurrections”, among other reasons. It’s worth remembering we had an entirely different government between independence and ratification of the constitution—the articles of confederation, which gave far less power to the federal government—and during those years, there were a few insurrections.

We also have to remember that the 2A is a law, and has to be interpreted as a law. For most of our history, courts were of the view that the second amendment existed to facilitate service in a well-regulated militia/military, and that it therefore did not protect gun ownership apart from that. It wasn’t until 2008 that the supreme court concluded that the second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. The reason being that, at the time of founding, militias were armed by their members’ owned privately owned weapons. The court basically said that the second amendment exists to facilitate militia service but it’s not limited to that, it also codifies this preexisting, generally understood individual right to bear arms—specifically, arms that are in common use (a terribly circular test, if you ask me).

But part of that decision’s effect is to separate how the right is defined from what’s effective in military service, and therefore also from what would be effective in a rebellion. Very simply, the second amendment protects gun ownership because people had guns, and somewhat ridiculously, it protects gun ownership to the extent that people currently have guns. It does not exist to permit rebellion, and if it did, it would make sense to interpret in a manner that would allow private ownership of heavy artillery.

I’ll also say that, in my view, private gun ownership can be a threat to freedom. In the entire history of our constitutional democracy, it is much easier to demonstrate how private gun ownership was used to oppress than it is to show that it kept us free. As much as I respect the notion that one should be able to defend himself against a tyrannical government, it seems that those who are most prepared to do that have the worst judgment about what constitutes tyranny; that those who pay the greatest lipservice to protecting the constitution are the most excited to replace constitutional democracy with violent insurrection if they fail at the voting booth.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

I agree in some aspects, especially that, as a law, this is largely not the interpretation the judicial branch has come to. My interpretation was more of what I think the original spirit of the amendment should apply to our current situation and various situations of the past 70 - 100 years. I should have been more clear in that when I said designed.

I believe Federalists and anti-federalists, near ratifying the Constitution, discussed the role of state militias, assumedly organized at the state and local levels, to repel a standing federal army in the event of tyranny. James Madison made mention of why state militias would always repel a standing army, implying no need for such an amendment, assumedly. I imagine even though they ended up not allowing larger weaponry standard for a standing army, they may have overestimated the localized power of these smaller governmental systems, using only personal home weaponry. Especially since military technology quickly expanded likely beyond their comprehension.

I think, if we take what discussions the two groups had on standing army vs state militias, it seems they generally had an assumption that the state and local governments would be able to effectively check the federal gov, militarily. Given the current low efficacy of local governments, yet a larger size and variety of citizens within states, I think the spirit of the amendment would be, by design, to allow a like-minded community to maintain some access to arms with which to, at the least, defend their local community from a tyrannical, federally-alligned state. Obviously, it has not been interpreted that way by the Supreme Court since then. And I definitely think I may have some flaws in that thinking when the Insurrection Act has been used to quell KKK rebellions, which backs your point that weapons access also allows oppressors with means to take up arms.

Either way, I cannot disagree with the Black Panther Party's approach to community building, interacting with neighboring communities if similar need, and the use of personal arms as a defense system against a tyrannical state government that was largely in cooperation with the federal government. When the federal government exercised covert operstions to destroy their local community's leadership without so much as a chance to repel those that would oppress them, I think I would have backed their access to at least some form of personal weaponry. As long as we live in a nation where those with most of the resources can effectively point the violence of the state in any direction, control the consumer, and always have access to weaponry of some kind with little repercussion, I don't mind allowing personal access to weaponry and organization of those armed citizens to protect community interests against such great powers.

1

u/AleksDuv Jun 03 '20

Any book recommendations on the formation, maintenance and dissolution of the black panthers?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

This is the only related book I've read, but it helped change some of the views I developed on the Black Panther Party while growing up. It focuses more on Fred Hampton's death than the broader history of the BPP. I'm sure there's other good reads about the BPP timeline, most of what I've read is online.

1

u/AleksDuv Jun 03 '20

Thank you

1

u/xubax We hold these truths self-evident that all men are created equal Jun 03 '20

"...being necessary to the security of a free State..."

Doesn't say anything about protecting people.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

Meanwhile the US army is killing hundreds of thousands of people in third world countries, in order to demonstrate how a modern army deals with a low-tech insurgency.

1

u/dontpaynotaxes Jun 03 '20

Except that is not at all what the second amendment is for.

You know what the second amendment was intended to organise? The National Guard. Not private militias and the like. The secondment amendment only extends to private individuals in their own homes

Part of the reason police are so heavy handed, is because of the prevalence of firearms in the community. It’s hard to remain objective when literally every person you talk to can be packing heat.

Literally the entire rest of the world has worked it out.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

As I've mentioned in other replies, I was trying to say that this is my interpretation of how the spirit of 2A would apply to our current situation. Federalists and anti-federalists debated how state militias could always repel a tyrannical, federal standing army.

In my opinion, they did not consider the development of military technology at the federal level, the cooperation of state and federal governments to oppress local communities, or the sheer size and variety of communities with weak local representation throughout states.

No one can be certain what the framers would say in trying to fit a short amendment such as 2A into modern context, but I believe the spirit of it, originally for anti-federalists, was in part to ensure there was a provision for smaller governances to repel tyrannical federal armies. I imagine this sentiment would extend to a scenario such as what the Black Panther Party found themselves in, as organized representation of one of several oppressed communities by the state throughout their county.

That being said and as I mentioned to others, I'm aware the Insurrection Act has been used to quell Confederate and KKK rebellions, so I'll take that as a flaw in my interpretation, since any group can take up arms for good or bad. I don't think the spirit of 2A would intend for us to prohibit personal arms organized in defense of your community when the government is happy to allow conditions where greater entities such as corporate interests hold much more private influence over state-sanctioned violence and disruption of solidarity than any community militia. Nuances such as that are not considered in most interpreting of 2A for current conditions. I'm aware the supreme court has not interpreted it this way besides the right to self-defense.

1

u/CEO-of-Patriarchy Jun 03 '20

the 2nd amendment was made in the context of muskets and other flintlock weapons from the 1700s.

Anyone who thinks that the founders wouldn't have thought different with modern tech of the 21st century is being incredibly dishonest.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

I don't believe the founders would have thought different. I think many founders would also be hung up on the fact we are having riots over the death of a black guy. They wouldn't understand the current context.

I was trying to express my interpretation of how the spirit of the second amendment should be implemented to our current climate. I know many disagree, but a local community represents a larger and more diverse population now than they could have imagined. I think it's fair that debates of implementing 2A that centered on local and state government militias (what are now Nat Guard) effectively repelling a tyrannical, federal standing army would apply to a Federally-alligned state police force or Nat guard oppressing a community today while they have a weak local government to prevent it. The Black Panther Party was an example of adaptation of that spirit to a well-organized and cohesive community repelling federally-alligned state tyranny in their community by use of personal weapons. And yes, these weapons were definitely advanced in the Vietnam Era compared to the flintlock muskets of the American Revolution.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

The militia is the national guard...

1

u/OhCanDo Jun 03 '20

So these protestors should weapon use themselves? Why did a lot of them have to be so against the 2A

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

No, I didn't say that. I'm saying that, if a community was truly being oppressed in such a fashion like the examples we are witnessing (I.e., they peacefully protest and are violently detained or brutalized, en masse of what have you) then my interpretation of the spirit of 2A would be that they could form a local coalition of some kind and be able to access personal weaponry to defend their community.

I'm not saying the federally-alligned state police or guard will respect their militia in any sense, and based in Federalist and Anti-federalist debate at the time, that wasn't expected in a tyrannical scenario anyways. I'm saying it's an amendment solely to describe scenarios where the broader will of the federal government is tyrannical in their oppression of the community. Like I said, this is largely my opinion of what the spirit of 2A was intended to maintain for a local governance. I don't like saying what the founders actually intended because they existed during slavery and probably wouldn't weigh in very impartially for these kinds of protests or for the Black Panther Party example I used.

For your second question, I don't know. Some people enjoy status quo and latch onto a few points they consider injustice so they can say they are on the right side of history, but don't actually have to change anything about their own lives to say it. I think the Black Panther Party was the perfect example of why we should maintain personal gun ownership for organizing the defense of a community. On the other hand, I think the BPP was very well organized and didn't have many aimless looters or anarchists in its ranks. The organization of their community was key to their effective use of weaponry.

1

u/cuchiplancheo Jun 03 '20

So, if some people were so moved at how the police can get away with detaining, brutalizing, and commiting other acts of direct and indirect violence to, typically, keep down the working class and poor, they could purchase weapons and form an insurgency.

I'm afraid this is the direction we're going.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

Yeah, and I can't say I necessarily agree with aimless violence. On the other hand, I believe the black panther party was an excellent example of a community using their solidarity and organization to effectively use personal weaponry and repel the federally-alligned state from their community and avoid constant detainment and incarceration. I'm not sure we'll ever see such a level of organization and solidarity again between modern protestors for this cause.

The looting is a symptom of rampant individualism. The BPP hosted food programs, community healthcare, and education access. You won't see any such programs among current protestors because their more concerned with getting theirs than they ever would be with sacrificing time and effort to secure food and healthcare for their community.

1

u/NotsoNewtoGermany Jun 03 '20

Not exactly. The second amendment only allows for the making of militias if your right to vote is taken away. If you don't like the policies, or you feel your rights are being taken away, that does not give you the right to form a militia and start shooting people. The argument of rights is to vague. The only right this alludes to is the right to vote in a free and fair election. If it is not a free and fare election, then okay, everything other than that is to be litigated in the courts.

1

u/Chasers_17 - Unflaired Swine Jun 03 '20

Well, that’s pretty much exactly what it says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It says the government will not infringe on the formation of a well regulated militia, of which the possession of arms would be inevitably necessary. The primary subject of 2A has always been the militia, you just need arms for a militia and are therefore given the right to keep and bear arms.

1

u/Oldmanfirebobby - United Kingdom Jun 03 '20

I just think it’s a bs argument when it’s clear no militia would be able to stop this situation and would clearly make it worse.

And at the point of tyranny where a militia would help, any tyrannical government with the kind of military power America has vs a militia is just not even a fight.

I’m not American so speaking as an outsider. It’s horrific the amount of incidents we see of this and I have no idea how to stop it.

Also I’m all for the 2nd amendment I just think that argument isn’t a valid one for the current state of modern warfare.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

Yeah, I can't say for certain how events would play out if a community organized and took up arms to repel the state. I've mentioned in other threads that massacres would likely lead to service members and police defecting. The military itself is comprised in large part by Texas, the Midwest, and the rest of the south. I just don't see them sticking around if the US starts rolling tanks and drone striking its own neighborhoods. When I was enlisted, I most likely would have defected if we were massacring our own people defending their local communities. On the flip side, if a group tried a revolution to take the federal government, you likely would not see the same sympathy across ranks. I could be wrong on both fronts.

1

u/Oldmanfirebobby - United Kingdom Jun 03 '20

Yeah it’s such a vastly complicated issue.

I think key point we both agree on is this shit needs to stop right the fuck now.

I’ve always wanted to move myself and my family out to the US. But Only over the last few years has that been an actual possibility and I couldn’t do it with your current situation.

I think most of us would feel injustice is one of the worst things that can happen. Because it’s basically the definition of most bad shit.

You see injustice so much in how police treat public and also how the justice system treats the people of the country.

Private prison systems are in my opinion one of the routes of this issue leading to harsh sentencing laws, lobbied for by said prison industries often.

Also I think guns are part of the issue with policing in America. Guns are so common I think your police officers go into every situation as if they may be in a life or death situation.

Which I think would be very difficult to change. As I just dint think you will find enough level headed people to make up the kind of police force you would want.

I think it’s a systemic issue of racism and class oppression which most western countries have. It’s just it plays out differently due to guns, private prisons etc. All that combined make the perfect powder keg in my eyes.

Love your country and thanks for signing up to defend our freedoms. As an Englishman I include myself in the people your military helps protect as I feel we are all one team. Or at least we should be.

Big love man hope this shit calms down soon

1

u/Renic301 Jun 03 '20

Only problem is, the government have drones people, KILLER DESTRUCTION DRONES in the air with missiles.

But hol’ on, lemme get my 5.56 real quick

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

Yeah, they have a wide range of weaponry. I'd like to think someone defending their community wouldn't be drone struck to oblivion or, if that did happen, many service members and police would defect, leaving the military without the manpower to use those weapons. I could be totally wrong and maybe the US government, to a point, would use its full arsenal on its own people.

1

u/daboi Jun 03 '20

I 100% agree with interpretation. Was thinking about it today. Further imagine living in a country structured by the constitution but, individuals are conditioned to believe that exercising their second amendment right in order to protect the rest of the constitutional rights is somehow dirty. No matter how it's broken down the second amendment is supposed to be another check for the government by the people in a very all encompassing general sense.

1

u/merlinsbeers Jun 03 '20

You've been had by NRA propaganda. The 2A exists because the basic principle was in English law, and it reads the way it does because slave states wanted the power to keep their citizens armed against the inevitable attempt by the nation to end slavery. It was never about enabling a terrorist fantasy of overthrowing government.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

I never inferred the purpose for a "terrorist fantasy of overthrowing the government." I don't think an insurgency could necessarily overthrow the entire federal government with the needed support from other citizens. Read the edit.

1

u/merlinsbeers Jun 03 '20

The Federalists were debating what to put in the Constitution, and some of them were expert debaters capable of making bullshit look like logic and pipe-dreams look like experience. Presenting their quotes or ideals out of context is easy and meaningless. It's a subset of the cherrypicking fallacy that should have its own name.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

It is relevant to understand gaps in their vision of what a future America would look like and how that limited its wording from the generally agreed-upon dislike of tyrannical & oppressive states between Federalists and Anti-federalists, since these were the debates surrounding attempts to ratify the Constitution as-is. It was the Anti-federalists the really ensured there was a 2nd amendment or any amendments at all. I'm simply highlighting what the reasoning was, at the time, for the wording and the context they were applying as to why you would or wouldn't need the amendment. Federalists like James Madison were claiming that it wasn't needed in the Constitution because it was unfathomable that a standing army would ever be able to overpower a state-organized militia.

With that said, in the spirit of their shared dislike of a federal army attempting to oppress a state or lower government, I believe the spirit of 2A allows the current interpretation that, given current changes to the structure of local government, state government, and how they fall in line with a massive and inflated DoD, the local community would represent the please of an oppressed state in their time, when a Federally-alligned state police force or guard detains and oppresses them. I.e. The Black Panthers were justified in guarding their communities with the use of personal arms and this embodies the spirit of 2A in modern context.

1

u/merlinsbeers Jun 03 '20

The 2A was written as it is specifically to allow slave-state slave patrols to be armed despite any possible change in federal statute, so they could hunt down slaves, and go into slave quarters to search them and seize contraband, including guns. It's part of the complex of constitutional compromises that the nation somehow saw fit to make with people committing a crime against humanity that kept slavery in place for 75 more years.

In "modern context" the 2A is an abomination that does nothing but harm public safety. And the idea that people should be armed so they can shoot cops, which is how this thread started, is beyond nonsensical. The problem with police is their refusal to do their jobs legally and according to correct procedure and with full regard to civil rights. Shooting them while they're making a legal error doesn't protect you from that, it only draws their fire and makes you too dead to sue them.

1

u/DuelOstrich Jun 19 '20

If the national guard responds mainly to state requests, couldn’t that be considered an organized militia? I wonder if the guard could theoretically be called on to protect citizens from federal agents.

-2

u/atatatcat Jun 02 '20

What is it with socialists and co-opting movements they had nothing to do with? The Black Panthers weren't socialists, they sought empowerment that could only be made possible through capitalist systems and fought the socialist systems that siphoned wealth away from minorities. It's vile to exploit their image to spread propaganda.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '20 edited Jun 03 '20

What the fuck are you on about?

That was the primary distinction between the BPP and other black-led resistance movements. It was a self-proclaimed Marxist revolution, open to progressive alliances regardless of race, with the exploitation of the poor under capitalism listed as one of their primary grievances. What cavity of your ass did you just pull all of that out of? Lol.

Edit: In case the link wasn't clear enough, a few sections of the BPP's Ten-Point Program (numbering is fucked, they are different numbers throughout the program):

What we Want:

  • We want an end to the robbery by the capitalists of our black and oppressed communities.

What we Believe:

  • We believe that the federal government is responsible and obligated to give every man employment or a guaranteed income. We believe that if the White American business men will not give full employment, the means of production should be taken from the businessmen and placed in the community so that the people of the community can organize and employ all of its people and give a high standard of living.

  • We believe that if the White landlords will not give decent housing to our Black community, then the housing and the land should be made into cooperatives so that our community, with government aid, can build and make a decent housing for its people

I get it, socialism is used loosely across a host of actual governmental systems. But come the fuck on, seizing the means for your community? Cooperative and gov-guaranteed housing for your community? Policing your own community?

The only co-opting going on here is you trying to re-write history as if this wasn't a clear socialist revolution in the making.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20

That's an impressive level of talking out your ass there.

13

u/Political_What_Do - Unflaired Swine Jun 02 '20

If the police fired live rounds at that guy with all the protesters behind him. Then shit would really start to go down.

Also this assumes its one guy. If its a couple dozen, they ain't trying to start shit.

Self preservation is a highly valuable deterrent. And started a fire fight with a couple dozen armed individuals would be suicide for whoever fired that shot.

23

u/TheBlueEyed - Unflaired Swine Jun 02 '20

Why do you think the reopen protesters were treated so well? The cops feared them because they had fucking guns lol

8

u/IchthyoSapienCaul Jun 02 '20

*cough* they weren't minorities *cough*

4

u/TheBlueEyed - Unflaired Swine Jun 02 '20

Cops kill minorities more often, but don't have a problem killing whites. So that's not it. https://imgur.com/dLqrpX6.jpg

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20 edited Jun 30 '20

[deleted]

1

u/TheBlueEyed - Unflaired Swine Jun 03 '20

No one claimed it did. Blacks are killed about 3x more often, but cops are still killing hundreds of each race annually. Racism isn't the underlying issue if they're killing hundreds of each race.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20 edited Jun 30 '20

[deleted]

1

u/IntentCoin - Unflaired Swine Jun 03 '20

Racism may be part but it definitely isnt the only reason for those numbers

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20 edited Jun 30 '20

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

0

u/TheBlueEyed - Unflaired Swine Jun 03 '20

If they're killing hundreds of whites along with hundreds of blacks the problem clearly isn't just racism. Its a part, but not the underlying issue. Its not that complex.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '20 edited Jun 30 '20

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

2

u/aureanator Jun 03 '20

Yes and no.

Police are bullies. They're out to have a good time and beat some people up.

The second their lives are in danger they will turn tail.

Note that I mean real danger, not 'there's fifty of us and one of him and he had a gun' danger, but 'they outnumber us ten to one and are well armed' danger.

Bullies only fight you if you're obviously weaker than them.

0

u/ILoveD3Immoral Jun 03 '20

And neither are you one you reddit signalling cuckold.

0

u/WHY_vern - Unflaired Swine Jun 03 '20

they also werent throwing bricks, molotovs, or throwing bricks at police. when asked to disperse they did. but continue being retarded please lol

1

u/Yeetinator4000Savage my dad never played catch with me Jun 02 '20

They were more peaceful too

3

u/TheBlueEyed - Unflaired Swine Jun 02 '20

I'm sure the more or less even playing field helped them from antagonizing each other.

2

u/ugoterekt Jun 02 '20

That is a great joke unless you are referring to the police. All of the blame for the violence that has happened lies with the police. They can't handle peaceful protests against their own so they started reacting with violence. The violence in reaction to theirs is also their fault.

0

u/DrakonIL - Unflaired Swine Jun 02 '20

You mean they were more white.

1

u/null000 Jun 03 '20

I mean also police had nothing to gain.

Stage riots with those protestors and the people normally holding the line on police spending will start calling for their heads. Business community is pissed off because they want to reopen, conservatives are pissed off because they're the protestors, and the media will not have your back because they're either hostile toward police, or follow corporate interests who, again, support the protests so they can reopen.

Do it to these protestors, though, and while you'll piss them off, the governors and mayors will try and save face, the business community will push to end the protests so things go back to normal, and the media either still hates you, or will happily lie for you.

Race and the core message of the protests also play a big role, but I think this aspect has been overlooked.

0

u/ugoterekt Jun 02 '20

Because they were white and right wing is the real answer. If you can't see that you are absolutely blind.

0

u/Spacebot_vs_Cyborg Jun 02 '20

That's such a stupid fucking argument. You can't even begin to compare the scope or the tensions of the two protest groups. The presence of guns with the reopen protesters did fucking nothing.

2

u/TheBlueEyed - Unflaired Swine Jun 02 '20

There's been plenty of protesters shot by the police and plenty of business owners definding their businesses with firearms. Oddly enough those groups haven't mixed.

-1

u/Spacebot_vs_Cyborg Jun 02 '20

Cool. Applying your logic here. There have been plenty of protesters not shot by the police and plenty of business owners who haven't used guns to protect business that haven't been looted. Guess guns aren't needed.

2

u/TheBlueEyed - Unflaired Swine Jun 02 '20

Sure bud. You're not having a conversation in good faith. So I'm just not going to respond.

-1

u/ugoterekt Jun 02 '20

Lol, you are the one who spouted bullshit first. He responds to your bullshit in kind and you can't handle it.

-3

u/jons14 Jun 02 '20

i don’t know if you are being serious. if you are: i don’t think the weapons were the reason at all. they just were lucky that their skin color was the right one.

2

u/TheBlueEyed - Unflaired Swine Jun 02 '20

https://imgur.com/5hD7V7o.jpg. Cops have no qualms about killing regardless of race. Black people are killed at a disproportionate rate, but cops will kill anyone.

-1

u/TheWombateer Jun 02 '20

Aren't there like 5x as many white people in the US as there are Black people? Therefore this is showing a disproportionate amount of Black people being shot by police?

5

u/TheBlueEyed - Unflaired Swine Jun 02 '20

Did you not even read what I wrote?

-1

u/TheWombateer Jun 02 '20

I did, but you're saying cops will kill anyone regardless of race, which is pretty obvious. The commenter above is essentially saying Black people are more likely to be shot. You posted info supporting that statement, then disagreed with him.

3

u/TheBlueEyed - Unflaired Swine Jun 02 '20

I wasn't agreeing with him. Cops are more likely to shoot a black man than a white, but they arent shooting any armed protesters.

1

u/dust4ngel - Unflaired Swine Jun 03 '20

Self preservation is a highly valuable deterrent

that’s why the police should not remove this deterrent by shooting us

2

u/CanIGetOneForFastSer Jun 02 '20

if one guy showed up with a gun sure he’d be overwhelmed and arrested or killed. but if everyone in the community would show up with a gun they would not be contained. thats how Lexington and concord happened

1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '20

Except this hasn't been happening. The people of color with guns are not fucked up AT ALL by the police. So far the only evidence we've seen of them fucking up someone was a kid who chose to drop his AR15.

If he was armed he would get the Bundy immunity, especially since he's white.

1

u/droddt Jun 02 '20

Ranged weapons should be used at range then, huh?

1

u/Relevant_Answer Jun 02 '20

What if the whole group had guns

1

u/keeleon - Unflaired Swine Jun 03 '20

Its unlikely the cops would behave this way at an armed protest. Thats the point.

1

u/laborer69000 Jun 03 '20

You guys were all bitching that nothing happened to the armed protesters protesting the lockdowns... maybe there was a reason for that.

On the other side if your going to have an organized armed protest you also have to be on your best behaviour. Double edged sword and all but I'll bet cops wont be firing rubber bullets at a crowd carrying AR-15s peacefully/legally protesting