Summary

Following a February 7th neo-Nazi rally, residents of Lincoln Heights, a majority-Black Ohio town, formed an armed Safety and Watch Program to protect against hate groups.

The rally, where participants waved swastikas and shouted slurs, received little police intervention, sparking fears of future threats when no arrests or identifications were made during the incident.

Volunteers now patrol bus stops and neighborhoods. “I’ve never felt safer as a Black man in my community,” said spokesperson Daronce Daniels.

The historically underserved and self-governing community shows strong support for the initiative with yard signs and sees this as a continuation of its legacy of self-reliance and community defense.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    284 months ago

    The cops didn’t didn’t show up for the same reason that you never see Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus at the same time.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    34 months ago

    All this happens because Americans are obsessed with race. The first time I was asked about my race was when I applied for my visa

  • Deceptichum
    link
    fedilink
    English
    44 months ago

    If the cops didn’t do shit when the Nazis came, why do they think the cops won’t fuck them over if they try to stop the Nazis?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      74 months ago

      Cowards tend to back down when confronted on equal grounds. This is essentially a resurgence of the Black Panther movement, which worked quite well doing the exact same thing.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        14 months ago

        This is essentially a resurgence of the Black Panther movement, which worked quite well doing the exact same thing.

        Well, up until it got COINTELPRO’d and the cops assassinated Fred Hampton, at least.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 months ago

        I wonder if this will trigger republicans to enact gun laws

        Mulford Act A 1967 California bill to repeal the law that permitted citizens to carry loaded weapons in public places The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that prohibited public carrying of loaded firearms without a permit. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, in what would later be termed copwatching. Wikipedia

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          34 months ago

          Ah, Reagan. What a racist piece of shit. Too bad someone with better aim didn’t try to impress Jodie Foster.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            34 months ago

            Fun fact: Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign with a speech in Philadelphia MS - a middle-of-nowhere city known for absolutely fucking nothing except the murder of three civil rights workers in 1964.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            34 months ago

            Or at least a bigger caliber. Why do all these would be assassin’s not spend and extra 200 dollars in range time. Meanwhile kennedy gets the fucking marine that bullseye’s womp bats with a garand.

            • chingadera
              link
              fedilink
              24 months ago

              I’m pretty sure kennedy got a little more attention than that

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                24 months ago

                No way, it was clearly only the guy who was immediately murdered while in police custody.

        • BigFig
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 months ago

          An interesting distinction, so you could carry an unloaded rifle, and a magazine or ammunition in your pocket and be totally legal and still ready to defend yourself if needed

        • chingadera
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          Lmfao imagine showing up to be the voice of the people and banning something termed “cop watching” and not hanging yourself right after.

      • Deceptichum
        link
        fedilink
        English
        04 months ago

        He said he supports law enforcement, but that its handling of the Feb. 7 demonstration doesn’t give him faith that it will protect him in the future. For that reason, he says he’s proud of the neighborhood safety and watch program, even though he wishes it weren’t needed.

        Well for starters opposing the police instead of supporting them.

        • Justin
          link
          fedilink
          04 months ago

          You gotta virtue signal sometimes. Purity testing every word people say will get the movement nowhere.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Plus, the quote only effectively says “I want law and order. I just don’t think the police will use law and order to protect us.”

            He supports “law enforcement”, not “the police”.

  • Diplomjodler
    link
    fedilink
    14 months ago

    I think letting everybody have a gun is absolutely moronic. But if i was living in the US right now i would definitely be stocking up on assault rifles and ammo.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24 months ago

      An assault rifle just tells everyone you can’t aim and are happy with indiscriminate targeting. They are fine when you are fighting 1000 of something, but there’s a reason the army sharpshooting badge doesn’t include burst fire (or didn’t thirty year’s ago, anyway).

      I’d recommend just about anything else for self defense, actually.

      I can’t because of some mental health concerns in my household (not the least of which, my own), but otherwise I’d have a revolver.

      • Diplomjodler
        link
        fedilink
        34 months ago

        I’m not thinking about self defense against some burglar. I’m talking about self defense in the sense the US gun nuts have been talking about for decades. Now that tyranny has actually arrived, they’re very quiet all of a sudden. Who would have thought.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 months ago

          WWI more than a hundred years ago demonstrated conclusively the military worthlessness of a bunch of dudes armed with rifles, when faced with the real elements of state military power: artillery, tanks and airplanes. The US government has no fear of a bunch of fat old dudes with closets full of peashooters.

          • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️
            link
            fedilink
            44 months ago

            Oh yes, on an open battlefield against declared combatants, absolutely. However, that’s not how it’s going to go down in the US. This is where we get to dredge up that old quote about a rifle behind every blade of grass.

            Take a look at any “anti-insurgency” operation in the last ~80 years or any situation that devolved into door-to-door warfare in a city full of both nongovernment combatants and also where basically every single civilian also hates you and your army. Except in our case about a third (32%) of those civilians are armed.

            Even if only half of those civilians are on our side, we’d outnumber the entirety of the US police and military forces combined by a little over 13 to 1. Nobody wants to fight a war of attrition and I’m not recommending one, but the fascists would have to achieve an unrealistically ludicrous k/d ratio to succeed. There’s no way around it other than this would outright require indiscriminately blowing up large sections of their own cities and infrastructure to get us, surely killing a handful of combatants each time but also taking out at least double their number in uninvolved civilians.

            That sort of thing does not tend to go any way towards making the rest of those civilians left get less involved.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        24 months ago

        [Assault rifles] are fine when you are fighting 1000 of something, but… I’d recommend just about anything else for self defense, actually.

        (Pointedly) Yeah, we know.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        04 months ago

        An assault rifle just tells everyone you can’t aim and are happy with indiscriminate targeting.

        Tell me you’ve never shot a gun, without telling me you’ve never shot a gun

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Qualified expert with an M-16. Which also implies I’ve fired an M-60, but that’s not really relevant to the discussion.

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          Valid.

          At current gun ownership rates in the US, every willing person who wanted a gun could be issued one instantly if enough people were willing to share.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      54 months ago

      Forget it. If you can’t imagine the government rounding up all the stockpiles of weapons from right wingers around the country, you should be against any further gun control. Our enemies are already well armed. Don’t make it harder for the rest of us.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    14 months ago

    Every group of people need to have autonomy and independence, and the right to self-govern. No people should have to fear violence and repression from another group.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    164 months ago

    Wanna bet this community sees a temporary decrease in crime?

    Hell, I personally would feel safer as an opponent of facism there too.

    History shows us that this will not be tolerated for long though, regardless of the constitutional right. I hope this idea is picked up elsewhere. There are a lot of places that could benefit from running their own regulated militia: cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      104 months ago

      You wanna bet they’re gonna make some laws now to restrict them because black people are exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        74 months ago

        That’s the part I’m curious about. California did enact a law in 1967 requiring permits to openly carry loaded firearms, but the Black Panthers didn’t just go away.

        Anything enacted at a federal level will get pushback, and I’m very curious about how it will be constructed to avoid pissing off their support. In either way, I would presume that people aren’t just going to passively hand over their guns. We know how that ends up.

        • chingadera
          link
          fedilink
          34 months ago

          That will be the true test on how strong fascism is in this country. I have ten bucks on Republicans willingly handing their firearms over at the direction of the current administration after decades of not being able to shut the fuck up about keeping their 2a rights.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          24 months ago

          Black father’s are why Reagan, and the NRA passed gun control in the past. Fox will be fully utilized to push an agenda of dis-arming pigmented people. And when enough of the community has forgotten the experiment, they will go back to pushing ‘gun rights’.