let’s say, hypothetically, I found myself in a position to begin to actually implement the mass line, perhaps through connections with orgs that have pre-existing relationships with a deeply oppressed community that’s interested in implementing community defense. I’m aware I can read Mao and get an outline of the strategy, feel out the circumstance, and implement whatever is possible, but relationships are fragile and it’s deeply important that any plan I proposed be rock solid. moreover, I need to teach a bunch of people the nitty-gritty of what we need to do - so a feel for the theory isn’t quite sufficient.
so let’s crowdsource an archive. let’s pull together the resources that are out there from MLs, Maoists, leftcoms, anarchists, whoever has tried to implement these tactics. I’m not worried at this moment whether the goal of the works is to build a demcent party or not - I’m interested in the practical details of planning and implementing a program based on these tactics.
what do you got, hexbears? are y’all here to LARP or to create the conditions necessary for the revolution?
If you're asking what to look out for -- i.e., what I mean by "post-Katrina situation" -- it's basically chuds living out their murderous fantasies in the lawlessness of a disaster and its aftermath. After Katrina, there were chuds patrolling the streets and shooting "anything... darker than a brown paper bag" and plainclothes pigs just rolling up and shooting people in cold blood. And that's what people actually went down for: these sorts of situations were almost certainly more common than what made it into a courtroom. Here's someone claiming to have massacred at least 38 people.
I think one of the best ways of stopping these sorts of pogroms is harassing the perpetrators from a few hundred yards away. If you confront them at close range, you're going to need at least a few armed friends, and some of you will probably die. But from a distance, one shooter may be able to keep a group of murderous chuds from getting too bold, and that shooter could plausibly live to fight another day. Militia chuds are amped up to kill, but getting amped up to die is very different, and I don't think most of them are there. In their fantasies, they're shooting fish in a barrel. Their fantasies do not involve seeing their buddy catch a bullet and then watching him bleed out why they scramble for cover and frantically try to spot their assailant. They want to go on a hunting trip; they don't want to go to war. Even if you don't actually hit anyone, just the experience of getting shot at will cause some to go home.
So you're looking for a rifle. If your budget is limited to a few hundred bucks, bolt action rifles are cheaper than semi-automatics, and are capable of accomplishing the "harass right-wing death squads from a distance" strategy outlined above. If your budget is closer to a grand, AR-style semi-automatics are tried and true, and will serve you much better if you ever are unfortunate enough to end up in a situation where you need to fire repeatedly. I would look for something in a larger caliber than .22 -- you'll struggle to hit anything past maybe 150 yards with that. As for what caliber to look for specifically, that's going to depend on the calibers available for the guns you're considering (which will depend on your budget), and you should also consider the ammo availability/cost point I mentioned in my previous comment. If your budget allows it, a gun with a muzzle brake built into the barrel will make accurate shooting easier and stands a better chance of being legal in your state (some states restrict or prohibit barrels that are threaded at the end to allow for attachable muzzle devices).
Good post. Thankfully I'm at the point where I'd probably only ever need a gun in that scenario. Unfortunately, I live in an area that a natural disaster breaking down society is a very real possibility. I've shot around with some rifles and carbines before and I do enjoy 9mm carbines, but I do worry that the effective range is too low on them. For reasons I can't get into, I'm not going to be able to own a variety of guns for different purposes, maybe one or two, so I want something that is a little versatile. Would a .45 carbine be worth it, or should I accept that I need something bigger than pistol munition?
Obviously you won't have all the answers I'm looking for but I appreciate responding to me so far.
I don't have a ton of experience with carbines, but here's a guy shooting a 9mm carbine at 400 yards with enough accuracy and effectiveness to (for instance) disrupt chuds threatening people at a checkpoint (skip to about 11 minutes). If you're really trying to keep it to one gun, a carbine's not a bad bet, although I'd search around for more stuff like this before committing to a purchase. The ammo will almost certainly be cheaper than rifle ammo, and I'd prioritize a gun you can afford to practice with over one you can't. A rifle is definitely going to be more accurate and give you longer-range options, of course.
I don't have a good feel for carbine prices, either. If you can get two guns, and you can get a handgun and a bolt-action rifle for the price of a carbine, that might give you better options overall (also look for what type of scope comes with whatever you're buying, or if you'd have to add that to the total cost; it's going to be harder to get close to someone at a few hundred yards with only fixed sights). A lot of it comes down to balancing your budget, your other constraints (e.g., how many guns you want to bother with, whether getting any particular gun is legally difficult), and what you might be conceivably doing with them.
This was my thought as well, the video is comforting too. Best weapon is one you know how use.
Thank you, I have friends I can discuss this further with but I wanted your input since it seems like you've though through this a bit. Bolt-action and pistol might end up being the ticket down the road, something I will think about when I get living situation worked out.