Rise of Domestic US terrorism fueled mostly by far right

[Alien Overlord]

More detailed answers to OP's questions:

1. Why is the right so much more violent than the left?
There are several reasons for this. The main one, as I explained in a previous post, is higher support. This translates in higher membership in right-wing terrorist groups, more funding, and in general more capacity to carry out attacks. It translates in other ways too, with white supremacist speech having more visibility than the far-left (obvious example: Trump) and their attacks being condoned more.

Another, significantly less important reason is ideology. Right-wing groups tend to be more supportive of Second Amendment rights (and most terrorist attacks in America are carried out with firearms) and to attack people over corporations and public property.

2. What can be done to reduce the instances of right-wing terrorism?
Generally speaking, the same measures can be applied to far-right and far-left terrorism. The two main reasons fueling them are, in my opinion, the extreme political polarization in the US and the ease of access to firearms.

To address political polarization, the US needs to improve the quality of its local elections and destroy gerrymandering. The drawing of electoral districts should be left to independent commissions, never to state legislatures. Another fundamental flaw is the first-past-the-post electoral system in America, entrenching two-party, "black or white" rule.

The ease of access to firearms can be reduced by introducing increased gun control. Honestly the Second Amendment entirely needs to go, but that would be hugely unpopular in America.

Neither of these reforms are easy to implement in any way, because of their unpopularity, lack of political will, or both. Thus, I expect America's terrorism problem to grow worse in the future.

The 2nd Amendment isn't just a part of our constitution, it's the second item on our Bill of Rights. John Locke once wrote Second Treatise on Government which puts forth ideas that these sorts of rights were god-given, they couldn't and shouldn't be taken away by man. Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't just be unpopular, it would be downright treasonous. The federal government would likely lose control over the military if they tried to enforce it, given the military swears it's oath to defend the constitution and not the government.

No the answer isn't to become more radical. The answer to move towards centrist positions and not enflame the right more than it has already has.

[CoraSpia]

So then why were we doing exactly that when BLM were rioting and looting? Besides only a fool would continue provoking half of the population with increasingly radical legislation when those radical positions led to thousands of normal working joe's storming the capital. These aren't terrorists, these are people concerned with losing their rights which is a completely human and normal reaction. If you want proof look at the thousands of examples throughout history of similar events, especially in the former Soviet Union.

A democracy is supposed to work for all of it's citizens, something the left hasn't been doing.

Examples of this increasingly radical legislation?

And what rights are these people losing? (the ability to discriminate against someone over their race, religion, gender, sexuality, gender identity, or other immutable characteristics is not a right, BTW, but seems to be the big thing on the right with all the transgender sports bans)

It's really strange that people on the left keep banging on about how private businesses can set their own rules about who to provide a service to when it's regarding technology companies banning conservative voices but this idea goes out of the window when the group that they would prefer not to do business with is one that progressives like. The lack of consistency here is somewhat curious.

[Odreria]

This is incorrect, I read a blog post that said the left is more violent than the right.

[Vivolkha]

More detailed answers to OP's questions:

1. Why is the right so much more violent than the left?
There are several reasons for this. The main one, as I explained in a previous post, is higher support. This translates in higher membership in right-wing terrorist groups, more funding, and in general more capacity to carry out attacks. It translates in other ways too, with white supremacist speech having more visibility than the far-left (obvious example: Trump) and their attacks being condoned more.

Another, significantly less important reason is ideology. Right-wing groups tend to be more supportive of Second Amendment rights (and most terrorist attacks in America are carried out with firearms) and to attack people over corporations and public property.

2. What can be done to reduce the instances of right-wing terrorism?
Generally speaking, the same measures can be applied to far-right and far-left terrorism. The two main reasons fueling them are, in my opinion, the extreme political polarization in the US and the ease of access to firearms.

To address political polarization, the US needs to improve the quality of its local elections and destroy gerrymandering. The drawing of electoral districts should be left to independent commissions, never to state legislatures. Another fundamental flaw is the first-past-the-post electoral system in America, entrenching two-party, "black or white" rule.

The ease of access to firearms can be reduced by introducing increased gun control. Honestly the Second Amendment entirely needs to go, but that would be hugely unpopular in America.

Neither of these reforms are easy to implement in any way, because of their unpopularity, lack of political will, or both. Thus, I expect America's terrorism problem to grow worse in the future.

Unfortunately this choice was made in the UK, where I live and it has led to a government that has far too much power in our lives. If Americans want to be free then the worst thing they could do is implement gun control measures. If an increased risk from terrorism or random shootings is the cost for keeping the right to forcibly resist government actions, which is the right which underpins and guarantees all other rights, then it is the cost that a society must pay.

This is a typical argument against gun control and I have two issues with it:

1. It can be flipped entirely on its head. Just as citizens can use guns to resist an unjust government, they can misuse them to violently resist a government they view as unjust (irrespective of whether this is actually the case or not) and impose their own tyranny. Which is exactly what is happening with right-wing terrorism.
2. You can struggle against the government all you want, but even with firearms if you get zero military support the revolt will be crushed and the only result will be more bloodbath for nothing.

The fact that you cited the UK of all places (and not for example, China) as a country where the government has "too much control" over its citizens is telling enough. How does the UK government control your life this much?

I'm sure that in the UK specifically, the cost of not being randomly mass murdered one day for no reason is more than worth it.

[Alien Overlord]

*Something about gun control

Unfortunately this choice was made in the UK, where I live and it has led to a government that has far too much power in our lives. If Americans want to be free then the worst thing they could do is implement gun control measures. If an increased risk from terrorism or random shootings is the cost for keeping the right to forcibly resist government actions, which is the right which underpins and guarantees all other rights, then it is the cost that a society must pay.

I remember studying about theories on government and what really underpins society-what keeps it all together. One of the theories proposed was Force Theory, essentially the idea is that people are kept in line by having one group maintain a monopoly on violence. In todays world we see that as the military (and sometimes police), which can be called on by governments in order to use violence in order to restore or maintain order and control whenever it's necessary. even a nation as liberal as the United States still uses it's police and military to maintain control over the population whenever things become...heated.

When people de-arm themselves or are de-armed by the government it makes them susceptible to tyranny. While a civilian force will never beat a united military in the modern day, firearms are a key factor in maintaining a healthy balance of power. It's incredibly easy to put down a group of people with no means to defend themselves.

In conclusion firearms are an essential right and shouldn't be revoked. What right does a government have to regulate firearms? The answer is none, they don't have a right to regulate what some would say is a human right.

This is incorrect, I read a blog post that said the left is historically more violent than the right.

Relevant article?

[Vivolkha]

More detailed answers to OP's questions:

1. Why is the right so much more violent than the left?
There are several reasons for this. The main one, as I explained in a previous post, is higher support. This translates in higher membership in right-wing terrorist groups, more funding, and in general more capacity to carry out attacks. It translates in other ways too, with white supremacist speech having more visibility than the far-left (obvious example: Trump) and their attacks being condoned more.

Another, significantly less important reason is ideology. Right-wing groups tend to be more supportive of Second Amendment rights (and most terrorist attacks in America are carried out with firearms) and to attack people over corporations and public property.

2. What can be done to reduce the instances of right-wing terrorism?
Generally speaking, the same measures can be applied to far-right and far-left terrorism. The two main reasons fueling them are, in my opinion, the extreme political polarization in the US and the ease of access to firearms.

To address political polarization, the US needs to improve the quality of its local elections and destroy gerrymandering. The drawing of electoral districts should be left to independent commissions, never to state legislatures. Another fundamental flaw is the first-past-the-post electoral system in America, entrenching two-party, "black or white" rule.

The ease of access to firearms can be reduced by introducing increased gun control. Honestly the Second Amendment entirely needs to go, but that would be hugely unpopular in America.

Neither of these reforms are easy to implement in any way, because of their unpopularity, lack of political will, or both. Thus, I expect America's terrorism problem to grow worse in the future.

The 2nd Amendment isn't just a part of our constitution, it's the second item on our Bill of Rights. John Locke once wrote Second Treatise on Government which puts forth ideas that these sorts of rights were god-given, they couldn't and shouldn't be taken away by man. Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't just be unpopular, it would be downright treasonous. The federal government would likely lose control over the military if they tried to enforce it, given the military swears it's oath to defend the constitution and not the government.

No the answer isn't to become more radical. The answer to move towards centrist positions and not enflame the right more than it has already has.

If we are being more realistic, what America needs to do is fix their gerrymandering issues (without altering the electoral system at large if that is too much) and introduce very basic gun control measures (e.g. background checks on criminal records and mental health history) without touching the Second Amendment.

[Alien Overlord]

The 2nd Amendment isn't just a part of our constitution, it's the second item on our Bill of Rights. John Locke once wrote Second Treatise on Government which puts forth ideas that these sorts of rights were god-given, they couldn't and shouldn't be taken away by man. Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't just be unpopular, it would be downright treasonous. The federal government would likely lose control over the military if they tried to enforce it, given the military swears it's oath to defend the constitution and not the government.

No the answer isn't to become more radical. The answer to move towards centrist positions and not enflame the right more than it has already has.

If we are being more realistic, what America needs to do is fix their gerrymandering issues (without altering the electoral system at large if that is too much) and introduce very basic gun control measures (e.g. background checks on criminal records and mental health history) without touching the Second Amendment.

I actually agree with you about our gerrymandering issues. I disagree with you regarding gun control. Even those with criminal records and mental health issues should still be permitted the right to defend themselves. The only gun control measure I could agree to is a waiting period of no more than 7 days.

[Vassenor]

Reminder that most BLM protests are peaceful, and riots are not terrorism

‘Riots are not terrorism’
Joke, actively using violence and intimidation to achieve a political ends. All the smashed up store fronts, ruined lives, arson and people dead or injured is just a little activism on the side

I didn’t even mention the protests. I’m talking about the riots, some of which are still happening. There is a clear distinction between both.

You mean the ones that tend to start in response to police use of force against peaceful protests?

[Neu California]

Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (1993) - I don't know why our Supreme Court didn't strike this down as unconstitutional, but it clearly was

Gun control has its own topic, so I'll just punt on this one

Affordable Care Act (ACA) (2010)

Fail to see the problem with it. In fact, I have several relatives who would not be able to stay on health insurance if not for Obamacare. I remember the pre-ACA status quo and it was BAD.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) (2012)
DREAM Act (Technically hasn't passed, but the Democrats keep pushing for it so it's relevant)

Yes, because shoving people brought over here as babies and children back to a country they know nothing about and possibly doesn't speak the native language is so moderate.

Executive Order 13985 (Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government)

Your objection to this being?

Executive Order 13991 (Protecting the Federal Workforce and Requiring Mask-Wearing)

I dunno if you've noticed, but we're in a pandemic, so taking measures to reduce the spread and save lives seems like a great idea to me.

Executive Order 14006 (Reforming Our Incarceration System to Eliminate the Use of Privately Operated Criminal Detention Facilities)

Private prisons are awful. Far worse than government prisons. Again, I don't see the problem.

Executive Order 14011 (Executive Order on the Establishment of Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families)

The family separation policy was extreme. This is just righting a wrong.

Executive Order 14010 (Executive Order on Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans)

Reading through it, I see no real issues.

Executive Order 14012 (Executive Order on Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration)

Yes, let's throw refugees under the bus. Not doing so is real extreme.

Executive Order 14009 (Executive Order on Strengthening Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act)

again, explain your issue.

That's not to mention the constant attempts at gun control and other radical legislation that are discussed and pushed for by left-wingers. With the exception of the DREAM Act, everything I mentioned was actually passed or put into law. Regarding transgender sports bans I believe the primary concern is that transgender athletes have an advantage over non-transgender athletes. If that's true then it takes away from the value and legitimacy of the sports themselves. That shouldn't even be a right-wing thing if it's true, it should be universal in support against.

Yeah, the way they've been presented, as far as I can tell, is just discrimination against transgender individuals

[Lamoni]

Hold up, Saiwania is a neo-Nazi? How do you infer this?

He’s a troll account meant to bait, look at his post history for his Neo-Nazi shit. The way he writes his posts is plastic

*** Warning for Troll Naming ***
If you suspect someone of trolling, you do not name them in a forum thread, you report them to moderation.

[Vivolkha]

What right does a government have to regulate firearms? The answer is none, they don't have a right to regulate what some would say is a human right.

"What some would say" is not a valid argument. If some people say that the Earth is flat, will you believe them? And even with weapons, the state maintains a clear superiority on the use of force through the police and the military.

But I understand it in the context of America's cultural mistrust of authority and anti-statism. Realistically gun control can't be implemented in America, but it has to be recognized that the lack of it is one reason behind its violence epidemic.

[Alien Overlord]

‘Riots are not terrorism’
Joke, actively using violence and intimidation to achieve a political ends. All the smashed up store fronts, ruined lives, arson and people dead or injured is just a little activism on the side

I didn’t even mention the protests. I’m talking about the riots, some of which are still happening. There is a clear distinction between both.

You mean the ones that tend to start in response to police use of force against peaceful protests?

No I think they mean the ones where BLM caused more than a billion dollars in damage

[Vivolkha]

‘Riots are not terrorism’
Joke, actively using violence and intimidation to achieve a political ends. All the smashed up store fronts, ruined lives, arson and people dead or injured is just a little activism on the side

I didn’t even mention the protests. I’m talking about the riots, some of which are still happening. There is a clear distinction between both.

You mean the ones that tend to start in response to police use of force against peaceful protests?

Rioting is not justified even in the face of police violence. Especially not in the US which is not even an authoritarian state.

[Odreria]

You mean the ones that tend to start in response to police use of force against peaceful protests?

No I think they mean the ones where BLM caused more than a billion dollars in damage

Most of the rioting was instigated by police.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

If they are as smart as the people who stormed the Capitol, they are not going to be much of a problem once the political will is there to crack down on them.

[Alien Overlord]

What right does a government have to regulate firearms? The answer is none, they don't have a right to regulate what some would say is a human right.

"What some would say" is not a valid argument. If some people say that the Earth is flat, will you believe them? And even with weapons, the state maintains a clear superiority on the use of force through the police and the military.

But I understand it in the context of America's cultural mistrust of authority and anti-statism. Realistically gun control can't be implemented in America, but it has to be recognized that the lack of it is one reason behind its violence epidemic.

Perhaps not but they still have the right to believe and say the earth is flat if it suits them. My own beliefs don't allow me to infringe upon the rights of others, and that includes the rights guaranteed to us by The Second Amendment-which the military and police swear to defend, not the government. Considering you can be punished with death for violating the UCMJ and enforcing a 2nd Amendment removal would be a crime in that you're breaking your oath, I don't see the military enforcing such a ban. That's not to mention how many servicemen themselves own firearms and more than likely don't want to turn them over in what would clearly be an unconstitutional act.

Violence epidemic? Humans are naturally violent and that's a fact, just look at human history. In nations like France and Britain you just get mass stabbings and vehicle ramming's instead of shootings. Show me a nation with no violence and I'll be impressed. The issue with the US today isn't violence, it's just perceived that way because the media decides to cover it and blow it out of proportion.

[Neu California]

Examples of this increasingly radical legislation?

And what rights are these people losing? (the ability to discriminate against someone over their race, religion, gender, sexuality, gender identity, or other immutable characteristics is not a right, BTW, but seems to be the big thing on the right with all the transgender sports bans)

It's really strange that people on the left keep banging on about how private businesses can set their own rules about who to provide a service to when it's regarding technology companies banning conservative voices but this idea goes out of the window when the group that they would prefer not to do business with is one that progressives like. The lack of consistency here is somewhat curious.

So explain your logic, please. Why should businesses be allowed to discriminate against others based on immutable qualities? (BTW, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was ruled constitutional and broadened in scope by the SCOTUS last year, so this idea of not discriminating against others based on immutable qualities (and religion) is hardly something new or liberal though it has been broadened a bit, but far as I know there has been no similar ruling keeping private businesses from doing business with people who espouse views they don't like. Until that happens, well, too bad, so sad)

Also, there is a vast difference between speech (which only the government is banned from censoring) and, say, sexuality. I fail to see any inconsistency.

Edit: Correction: Title VII was first ruled constitutional back in 1973 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.

[Alien Overlord]

No I think they mean the ones where BLM caused more than a billion dollars in damage

Most of the rioting was instigated by police.

They were looting businesses and homes not police stations. If I decide to call someone an obscene name that doesn't give them any right whatsoever to turn around and punch an unsuspecting, unprepared bystander. Similarly just because the police cracked down doesn't give the rioters just cause to loot local businesses.

[Neu California]

Most of the rioting was instigated by police.

They were looting businesses and homes not police stations. If I decide to call someone an obscene name that doesn't give them any right whatsoever to turn around and punch an unsuspecting, unprepared bystander. Similarly just because the police cracked down doesn't give the rioters just cause to loot local businesses.

The riots have their own thread and are off-topic for this one. Take it there.

[Odreria]

Most of the rioting was instigated by police.

They were looting businesses and homes not police stations. If I decide to call someone an obscene name that doesn't give them any right whatsoever to turn around and punch an unsuspecting, unprepared bystander. Similarly just because the police cracked down doesn't give the rioters just cause to loot local businesses.

Looks like you responded to the wrong post.

[Mercatus]

I say we leave these guys the fuck alone until we’ve done something to address that BLM and so-called Antifa members have literally burned down and taken over large sections of cities, murdered children, tried to beat a kid to death with a fucking skateboard (they failed lol), among many other things. Until they are made to answer for what happened at CHAZ, what happened to Cannon Hinnant and others, how many lives they ruined when their businesses were burned down, and other violent acts, I say we let these so-called terrorists run free just like we did with left wing terrorists. If that was peaceful protesting, then the capitol riots were a meet-and-greet.

Remember, it’s just peaceful protesting.

[Alien Overlord]

They were looting businesses and homes not police stations. If I decide to call someone an obscene name that doesn't give them any right whatsoever to turn around and punch an unsuspecting, unprepared bystander. Similarly just because the police cracked down doesn't give the rioters just cause to loot local businesses.

Looks like you responded to the wrong post.

In what way? (I'd advise you to stay on topic)

[Picairn]

Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (1993) - I don't know why our Supreme Court didn't strike this down as unconstitutional, but it clearly was
Affordable Care Act (ACA) (2010)
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) (2012)
DREAM Act (Technically hasn't passed, but the Democrats keep pushing for it so it's relevant)

Executive Order 13985 (Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government)
Executive Order 13991 (Protecting the Federal Workforce and Requiring Mask-Wearing)
Executive Order 14006 (Reforming Our Incarceration System to Eliminate the Use of Privately Operated Criminal Detention Facilities)
Executive Order 14011 (Executive Order on the Establishment of Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families)
Executive Order 14010 (Executive Order on Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans)
Executive Order 14012 (Executive Order on Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration)
Executive Order 14009 (Executive Order on Strengthening Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act)

Just to name a few.

Hold up, how is providing healthcare to more people, allowing illegal immigrants to achieve citizenship, mandating masks in the federal workforce amidst a pandemic, advancing racial justice, ending support for private prisons, reuniting migrant families, resettling refugees in proper places, combating climate change radical? These measures were all targeted towards civil rights, racial and economic justice, preserving a future for humanity to live, etc. Who in their right mind would say these bills and EOs are radical, if not for fascists and authoritarian tyrants?

[Neu California]

I say we leave these guys the fuck alone until we’ve done something to address that BLM and so-called Antifa members have literally burned down and taken over large sections of cities, murdered children, tried to beat a kid to death with a fucking skateboard (they failed lol), among many other things. Until they are made to answer for what happened at CHAZ, what happened to Cannon Hinnant and others, how many lives they ruined when their businesses were burned down, and other violent acts, I say we let these so-called terrorists run free just like we did with left wing terrorists. If that was peaceful protesting, then the capitol riots were a meet-and-greet.

Remember, it’s just peaceful protesting.

Again, wrong thread. Take it to the anti-police protests and riots thread.

Also, cut the whataboutism

[Picairn]

Anyone that thinks laws addressing civil rights, racial justice, economic inequality, climate change, etc. are "radical" and stormed the Capitol as a reaction needs to reevaluate their political positions.