That's just untrue. A pogrom is an organized massacre of an ethnic group - it's not happening, in southern states or anywhere else in the US.
Even if you are now aware that "pogrom" wasn't the right word to describe something "against Muslims" that is worrying you, please do write what that is.
Whilst not a pogrom it certainly does lay the ground for some future issues. All you have to is consider the reaction if Muslim Americans decided to use their 2nd ammendment rights to protest christian or jewish churches, whilst covering their forces and armed with semi automatic weapons.
The messages of the protest were "solution to islamic terrorism -> ted cruz" (obviously a call to the solution of the assumed problem through voting, that is, politically, they refer to: https://www.tedcruz.org/ ) and "stop the islamization of america" according to the picture from the same site:
Isn't even filing such event as something "against Muslims" (implying "in general") a big misinterpretation? Who benefits from such misinterpretations?
And did the protesters break any law?
The main theme is pretty clear here:
"Against the islamization of America"
And they're standing outside a mosque holding rifles.
The precise reason is written in the article:
"he was convinced that Irving’s mosque had established the country’s first Islamic court earlier in the year—a false rumor that started online but grew in popularity after Mayor Beth Van Duyne made it the focus of speeches to Tea Party groups.
“They shut the illegal court down,” Wright said, incorrectly. “And then, they threatened to kill the mayor.”"
A bunch of gun-wielding lunatics that think mosques are setting up secret courts.
My argument was, it wasn't "against Muslims" as a whole but just against "islamization" by supporting the candidate of protesters, that makes a big difference. For example, Ataturk was effectively against islamization of Turkey, as its top political leader, and made it much more modern and more secular state, ending sharia courts in 1924. Which was a worthy goal for anybody who wasn't an islamist.
If it wasnt a protest against muslims why were they protesting outside a mosque? If they wanted to protest extremism is being an extermist yourself the best way to do that? Surely they should be protesting against someone who is espousing extremist beliefs and not just the nearest collection of muslims who have not been accused of any extremism.
Is america really becoming islamized? is there any evidence of this? Or does their definition of islamisaztion mean any muslims living in America at all?
Could the same protests be carried out without face masks and weapons? These seem to be included just to cause fear.
But, per article, they actually believed they had an information about the specific extremism happening exactly in this mosque, so it's not "just the nearest collection of muslims" it appears they did exactly what you suggest to do:
"he was convinced that Irving’s mosque had established the country’s first Islamic court earlier in the year—a false rumor that started online but grew in popularity after Mayor Beth Van Duyne made it the focus of speeches to Tea Party groups."
well that is entirely subjective, given that the following line states that it was a false rumour that started online it could have been started by anyone, including these armed militants, as reason to wander round intimidating people.
Also a moderate amount of research online indicates that not only was it an unsubstantiated rumour but it was debunked in July of this year. So had these individuals done any actual research they would not have protested this venue for the reasons they said they were protesting.
Thats just the first link I clicked which gives the date of July. 3 or 4 links down is the snopes article.
So defending them by saying they had legitimate reason to protest is untrue and anybody wanting to check this could have done so in a few minutes on the internet. They either checked and protested anyway because it was never really about protesting (but about intimidation) or they did check, found their claim was false and protested anyway because protesting was always just a cover for intimidation.
That's an interesting approach to the covering of the real possibilities. No further comment.
They either didnt check the veracity of their information and protested something they didnt fully understand. Which to me means they didnt really mind what reason they were using to protest there i.e. they didnt believe in the reason given, but that didnt mater as it was just an excuse to use as to why they were doing what they were doing.
They did check and find it to be false but protested anyway because the reason for the protest was never really anything other than an excuse to wander round intimidating people.
In both cases my point was that the reason given was just an excuse, whether it was true or not was not important to the protestors.