On Martin Luther King Day, around 20,000 heavily armed white men marched on the capitol in Virginia to protest proposed gun safety laws (none of which would actually take guns away). They proclaimed they would not abide by such laws, threatened to use their guns against anyone trying to enforce them, and many called for a new civil war. They were lauded by Trump and right wing media. Even mainstream media were praising the fact that while they were certainly trying to intimidate with the display of weapons they did not actually shoot anyone so they were "peaceful". What if it was someone else? What if 20,000 heavily armed black men marched, saying they would not obey the law, threatened to use their guns against law enforcement, called for a new civil war? Would that be praised, called "peaceful"? Or 20,000 heavily armed Hispanics proclaiming they would use weapons to remove children from cages, and to protect Dreamers and refugees against immigration officials? Or 20,000 heavily armed Muslim men proclaiming they obey a higher law and would use weapons against anyone who tried to make them follow civil law? Or 20,000 heavily armed gay, lesbian and transgender people proclaiming they had enough of violence against their community and would use weapons against homophobes and gay bashers? Or 20,000 heavily armed women, of all colors, saying no more Jeffrey Epstein, no more Donald Trump, no more R Kelly, no more men getting away with sexual assault, they would use weapons against any man who sexually abuses women, including police and prison guards? I don't really have to ask what the response would be; in fact, such marches would not happen because they would never get permits. Tell me how white male privilege isn't a thing.