Re: An answer to your question

[I cc'ed to our mailing list: [email protected]]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 [email protected] wrote:

> In your recent article, dated June 7, 2001, on <A HREF="http://www.monkeyfist.com/articles/758">Monkey Fist</A>, you asked:
> 
> > Could someone point me to any right-wing non-violence training? To major 
> victories (in the U.S.) of a sustained, multi-year predominantly non-violent 
> conservative protest movement? Heck, just point me to such a movement? <
> 
> It would appear that a perfect example of a victory of  "a sustained, 
> multi-year predominantly non-violent conservative protest movement" is the 
> campaign waged by the NRA against needless laws that restrict a basic right 
> of the citizens of the United States, namely to own specific items of 
> personal property (firearms).

Nice example *except* it's not, predominately at least, a protest
movement, afaict. To give the leftyish analogy, the NRA is more like NARAL
(on Abortion).

>  The NRA never advocates violence of an 
> offensive nature, even though the organization was originally formed to teach 
> people the proper and safe use of firearms (teaching firearms safety is still 
> a major responsibility of the NRA). 

True, but the NRA itself isn't a protest movement, it's an
organization. And it's not an organization leading or participating in a
protest movement (as far as I know). It seems to have several purposes,
1) a hobbiest group (loosely speaking, i.e., it's for gun enthusiasts to
share information and organize activities) and 2) a political action
organization. But the political action is typically through
"normal" channels such as lobbying, mail campagins, fund raising,
endorsements, etc. Not marches, boycotts, sit-ins, teach-ins, etc.

> I have never heard of a single act of violence that was attributed to the NRA 
> or encouraged by their policies or public statements.  Never.  Their 
> "movement" is comprised of its members exerting their lawful political 
> pressure to inform lawmakers of their interets, and legally engaged lobbyists 
> paid for by member contributions. 

Right! And that's fine. But it's not a non-violence based protest
movement. (And nothing wrong with that!) E.g., you don't have NRA civil
disobedience training seminars, etc.

> While there are still needless, and infringing, laws on the books, I would 
> consider the NRA's efforts a victory, since most Americans retain the right 
> to keep and bear arms.

Another example is the Sierra Club, which is predominantly (on the
political side) a lobbying organization. The environmental movement as a
whole is more varied (e.g., there are violent and non-violent groups and
actions).

>  By the way, the NRA trained me to teach firearms 
> safety, and this is something I enjoy doing, at no fee, to people interested 
> in knowing more about the safe handling and use of firearms.

This seems laudable (I'm not a gun fan myself and actually do believe in
gun regulation, but I seen no inherent wrong in enjoying target shooting,
for example, or training people to safety), but it doesn't really answer
my question.

Again, the anti-abortion movement seems closer. They used to (at
least) hold marches every year in Washington on the anniversy of Roe
v. Wade. Operation Rescue engaged in clinic blocades and protests.

And they had problems with a militant wing!

But, 1) they weren't really mass based, most anti-abortion folks seem to
prefer working through normal political channels...that or it just hasn't
taken off yet, 2) they tend not to be violently surpressed or face violent
surpression. IIRC they *do* hold CD training (or did) because they *did*
get arrested. I believe they fairly self-consciously borrowed tactics from
the civil rights movement, but again, that borrowing doesn't seem to be
widespread.

Thanks for the response though!

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.