They’re Waiting For An Excuse

Have you seen gun nuts sporting a patch that reads “RWDS”? It stands for Right Wing Death Squad.

Personally, I bet those clowns would urinate and run if confronted by comparable force; usually fascists like to make sure that they have overwhelming force on their side before they start anything. But, start things they will, if they have the opportunity to attack, maim, and wound people weaker than they are. Recent events in the US have made me begin to re-assess my stance on guns; I’ve been wondering if I should re-zero my rifles and make and age a ghillie suit – if the KKK starts marching openly around here, someone needs to keep an eye on them. I was not in Germany in the 1930s, obviously, but I imagine this is what it felt like: the air seems to be heavy with threat. But I think that the fascists are mostly bluster, unless we reveal ourselves to be weak. Have you noticed that their operating assumption is that decent people will just roll over? Fascists are really stupid. But stupid is dangerous; “ignorance is strength” and all that.

The Tactical! spammers sent me this, and it bothers me.

“Ammo used by the army and special forces” my ass. I mean, they use ammo. Lots of it. But military stuff comes in waterproof plastic packs that are quite utilitarian.

What blows my mind is the cognitive dissonance of Donald Trump as the punisher. First off, any of us could whip that bloated milkshake’s ass with one hand, even if his bone spurs weren’t acting up on the day of battle. He’d be more likely to cry and die of a heart attack trying to run from conflict – this is a guy whose ass was thoroughly pwn’d by a 17 year-old Swedish girl, who is stronger, faster, and way smarter than him. So what does it say about what’s going on in the wanna-be-RWDS’ mind that they think of Trump as a mighty bringer of fight?

My theory is that they don’t know what a fight is, so they mistake all that comic-opera tactical gear for strength. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean they won’t feel empowered to start trouble. Quite the opposite, in fact. When Dylan said “A hard rain’s a gonna fall” he didn’t have to add that some people don’t have the sense to come in out of the weather.

One other thing that bothers me, a lot: the fascists have been claiming that walking around with a rifle is “peaceful protest.” No, it’s not. Peaceful protesters don’t carry weapons. The purpose of the weapon is that it’s a threat. The media are being fucking idiots propagating the “peaceful protest” meme by not calling it out for what it is. Let me clarify the dynamic:

That is a peaceful protest. There are people with weapons, being threatening (that’s what they are for, after all) and there’s a peaceful protester with flowers. In case any “journalists” are reading this, now you understand and can go forth and explain it to your audience.


  1. komarov says

    But, start things they will, if they have the opportunity to attack, maim, and wound people weaker than they are.

    Odd, why did US cops just pop into my head? I’m mystified.

    But military stuff comes in waterproof plastic packs that are quite utilitarian.

    Oooh, yes. Basically tactical ziploc bags – amazingly, an actual product with that name does not (yet) exist – if we’re thinking of the same thing. Those were nice.

    As for the punisher, you have to admit Trump has managed to punish a lot of people for things like insufficient whiteness, living in areas struck by natural disasters or even for having to flee utterly inhumane condtions, which may or may not have been the fault of the US in the first place. Even “just” the first travel ban caused an epic level of chaos and misery, that your garden-variety angry bureaucrat or functionary can only dream of as they shred someone’s forms over a missing i-dot or a non-regulation staple.
    Fascists really like their physical violence but they can appreciate suffering inflicted on “The Enemy” in any form.

  2. Pierce R. Butler says

    I do hope someone points out that ad and brand name to lawyers from Marvel Comics Conglomerate.

    The Republican Party may not feel inclined to defend their own name too assiduously in this case.

  3. says

    @ xohjoh2n #5
    I’m not a gun aficionado, but it seems to me that hollow-point bullets would be more effective against unarmored targets, where more solid points would be better against targets wearing body armor, for better penetration. Is that true?

    Whether or not that’s the case, is it fair to say that the bullets preferred by a given military force says something about what targets they think they’re likely to be up against?

  4. voyager says

    Guns and ammo have only one function and nothing about it is peaceful.
    My father was a boy in 1930’s Germany and he told me it was very dangerous to be openly anti-fascist. Lives were ruined and people disappeared.

  5. xohjoh2n says

    @7, me neither but… it’s a very old rule and somewhat complicated, and probably really not a very good one, but here’s my take:

    Full Metal Jacket gets you pretty much the same amount of dead, so it’s not like the rule is directly for humanitarian reasons, and no military treaty is going to forgo a massively more effective weapon unless its effects are irredeemably beyond the pale so, being both local small arms fire you can bet there isn’t that much difference.

    The original rule was put in place basically because expanding rounds leave a bloody awful mess of the corpse, and the officer class felt that was beneath their dignity, and they should be able to be buried prettier, like they used to be when they used to only get stuck by swords.

    (Of course the US never signed *that* treaty, but did sign a follow-up which almost but not quite implies the same thing. In any case, until now the US military has always pretended it was bound by that rule.)

    On the other hand, expanding rounds are more likely to stop the intended target in one or fewer shots (so potentially reduce casualties by not having the shooter shot back at…), less likely to “over penetrate” or having missed the actual target and hit scenery, ricochet off and carry on and hit other things (including unaimed for non-combatants.) They’re also apparently aerodynamically more accurate than FMJ. So the risks of collateral damage are lower.

    So they’re preferred by police forces to whom the rule does not apply, and who prefer either reducing collateral damage or making sure the target is really dead (jurisdiction dependent).

    So it’s an old rule, probably a bad rule, possibly beyond its time, but still a matter of international treaty until recently abided by by the US.

  6. says

    The gun crowd love to bring up the Nazis and the Holocaust. “If only the Jews had guns it might not have happened!” They ignore the fact that German Jews were well outnumbered by non Jewish Germans. More importantly an uprising by some sort of armed Jewish resistance would have played right into Hitler’s hands. The Nazis claimed Jews were a threat to the German order, and what better evidence would there have been than Jewish Germans taking up arms against the (according to the Nazis) rightful government of German? The gun crowd ignore, or are ignorant of, the level of anti-Semitism found outside Germany. It wouldn’t have just been Nazis who would have had their prejudices confirmed.

  7. komarov says

    A very “charming” take on hollow-point bullets I heard from I don’t remember who many, many years ago was that the much more grievous injuries they can cause are essentially a plus. The line of thought there was that injured casualties are more damaging than dead ones. A dead soldier is an empty bunk. A maimed one is a full hospice bed, costs a lot of money and demoralises the rest of the troops. The key argument, naturally, was the economic one, making war prohibitively expensive. Sod the troops but hold the (bottom) line!

    P.S.: Marcus, that’s it. They seem to have had a makeover since last I saw one. But my surprise was mainly that there isn’t an overpriced clone floating around on the tactical-wannabe market. Different shade of green, a cross-hair brand logo (TM) (R) (C) (Pat. pend.) and a 500% markup on the production cost and you’ve got a product line for the ethusiasts.

  8. jrkrideau says

    @ 11 timgueguen
    “If only the Jews had guns it might not have happened!”

    Do we know that they did not? IIRC Germany had pretty lax gun controls until about 1938–39. Did the Nazis disarm the Jews, the Roma and homosexuals before this?

    This ignores your very valid point that gun-nutters are innumerate.

    I just would not trust gun-nutters’ history.

  9. dangerousbeans says

    Wouldn’t surprise me, war has always been as much about logistics as fighting

    It seems to me that the requirements for military ammunition would be available in 10 ton lots, doesn’t go off, cheap, and works well enough. Hardly seems like it would be high quality stuff

Leave a Reply