Q: What is your position on second amendment issues?
A: This is an incredibly complex and difficult question to answer. We’ll try to be as simple as we can.
AntiFascism is anti-violence. It is NOT pacifism. As an ideal, one would never need to resort to any sort of violence. Unfortunately we don’t live in an ideal world, and the sad reality is that it’s exactly the fascism we oppose that is most likely to rely on force of arms to compel compliance from otherwise free people.
That means while the ideal is a goal to be sought, in the meantime pragmatic self-protection is reasonably within play.
We find, looking through history, that in spite of gun rights rhetoric about being a “last line of defense against tyranny,” this is a nearly delusional rationalization. One only need a few minutes’ research on the Whiskey Rebellion and how that ended in 1794 to understand the stark reality that defense through force of arms against a proper military unit is no defense at all.
Further it’s clear that the vast majority of those who employ this rationale are, demonstrably, the last people you want to count on to defend you against “government tyranny,” because to them “government tyranny” is wearing a seatbelt or taking reasonable and sane precautions during a deadly global pandemic, but egregious violations of human rights are not just invisible to them, they appear to believe it’s part of their birthright to uphold, support, and assist in those violations.
This is not to paint all gun owners or even second amendment advocates with a single brush; it’s just the reality we live in. Most of the people who are loudest about carrying or wanting to carry deadly weapons are the last people you’d actually want to.
Clearly, there is a disconnect, and this complex and difficult issue will not go away overnight. Just as clearly, a significant number of second amendment advocates are exactly the people that those of us who actually are standing against government tyranny need fear most.
So with all that said, we must apply the same principles to guns as we would to knives or cars or bricks or anything else employed as a tool of deadly force.
We have zero truck with offensive use of arms. Period. We do not instigate, we do not take the first shot, we do not swing first, we do not engage in offensive attacks. Ever.
The simple reality is that if you’ve got the entire US Armed Forces gunning for you, there’s not an arsenal big enough to protect you. While the second amendment is a core value in the United States and the consequences of that have created a culture in which the use of firearms is nearly ubiquitous, brandishing or intimidating people with deadly weapons simply isn’t part of our playbook.
Nonviolence is a wonderful ideal, for which we have much respect. Unfortunately, relying on the fascists to not engage in violent behavior can be suicidal. Therefore we can not, in good conscience, insist that anyone opposing fascism do so unarmed or simply issue a blanket generalization as guidance in these matters. These decisions are best left to the conscience of any given person at any given time in any given situation.
What we can and do say is: intimidation tactics are the tactics of fascism. Offensive violence is a tactic of fascism. Aggression and threats are tactics of fascism. Oftentimes, firearms and weaponry are used as a crutch by those lacking the wit and wisdom to find other solutions. This mentality, we oppose.
Self-defense against offensive violence, aggression, and threats is and has always been understood as a valid and critical human right.
We hope this brings some clarity of vision. We understand, and hope you understand as well, that there simply is no pat answer to this difficult set of problems. Stay smart. Stay strong. Stay safe.
