MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Farleigh Dickinson University conducted a poll released on May 1 that implies that much of the pro-gun sentiment has nothing to do with self-defense, but rather with anti-federal government rage:
Overall, the poll finds that 29 percent of Americans think that an armed revolution in order to protect liberties might be necessary in the next few years, with another five percent unsure. However, these beliefs are conditional on party. Just 18 percent of Democrats think an armed revolution may be necessary, as opposed to 44 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of independents….
“The differences in views of gun legislation are really a function of differences in what people believe guns are for,” said [Dan] Cassino, [a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson.] “If you truly believe an armed revolution is possible in the near future, you need weapons and you’re going to be wary about government efforts to take them away."
This indication of a rather foreboding simmering of a revolt against the US government was brought to light in a May 1 article by David Sirota on Salon.
But let's be clear that the willingness to take up firearms allegedly "to protect liberties" is occurring after a long right wing-fomented Tea Party siege against a black president. Furthermore, it is – as BuzzFlash at Truthout has often noted – a rebellion of whites who can't separate the image of America as a Caucasian-ruled nation from the legal basis of a democracy as enshrined in the US Constitution. Theirs is a racist fantasy that a democracy should look like the skin color of the "founding fathers," not about the legal framework of the nation that they created.
As the demographics of the United States have changed, the white Alamo contingency has come more and more to define the empowerment of a multi-cultural society as the alleged "taking away of their liberties."
What is in their head is a return to guaranteed white sovereignty. It is the clash of a vision of a white patriarchal society versus the constitutional guarantee of rule by the majority.
It's starting to feel like the US has a solid 1/3 Afrikaner mentality contingent, and the gun has become the symbol of defiance. Most of them, according to the poll, are in the Republican Party.
It's important to remember that the Bush administration was loaded with literal sympathizers of the Confederacy, including Attorney General John Ashcroft and even the Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton. These high-ranking Bush officials represented the wing of the GOP that felt the ante-bellum South has gotten a bad rap historically and, as Norton said in a 1996 speech (as recalled in a January 11, 2001 Washington Post article), "'We lost too much,'" when the South was defeated in the Civil War."
So get ready for more militia, NRA, gun guy and survivalist brandishing of firearms on behalf of white supremacy (because that is what it amounts too, only in coded words).
Sites of fomenting insurrection such as the Oath Keepers even will advise you on how to create a medical kit to treat yourself and fellow rebels when the bullets start whizzing by. Here's an excerpt from an article on Oath Keepers that details what should be in your trauma "blow out" bag:
This means a kit entirely separate from our general purpose medical supplies that is easy to get to not just for ourselves, but also for others who might be trying to save us. I recommend this kit be standardized amongst those in your survival community so that everyone has the same setup, and understands the functions of each item within the kit. It is also important to avoid the mistake of centralizing all medical functions into the hands of a single person within your community. Every individual survivalist should have their own trauma package, or what the military often calls a “blowout kit”, so that their resident medical expert does not have to bear the full burden of purchasing supplies, and redundancy is maintained. Med gear runs out very quickly during social collapse. Don’t assume others will have it for you when you need it.
David Sirota believes that the Farleigh Dickinson poll "might show us that all the vitriolic language employed by the right is undermining the most basic nonviolent democratic ideals that are supposed to define America."
But ideals aren't what are at stake here. What is at stake is whether the Constitution enables a resilient democracy that is not defined by skin color or religion, or is the document just window dressing for white rule?