Guns and Anarchy?

[Dr.Claw]

I hear alot of Anarchists talk about being anti-gun. Do they mean that they're just pacifists and choose not to own guns? or do they believe in gun control and wouldn't that mean more laws and be contradictory to the anarchist way? :confused:
Your answers are appreciated

[Invincible Summer]

I hear alot of Anarchists talk about being anti-gun. Do they mean that they're just pacifists and choose not to own guns? or do they believe in gun control and wouldn't that mean more laws and be contradictory to the anarchist way? :confused:
Your answers are appreciated

You may be surprised from what you find in these two threads:


http://www.revleft.com/vb/armed-populace-organised-t101131/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/weaponed-resistance-t91147/index.html

[#FF0000]

I hear alot of Anarchists talk about being anti-gun.

Who told you that? As an anarchist I'm very much in favor of individuals owning guns, even in an anarchist society.

[Dr.Claw]

thanks those gave me alot of insight. as far as i stand with guns... i dont think ill ever own a gun because i dont believe in them, but whether or not that other people own guns isn't up me or up to the state or anybody. Its all up to the people who want them, guns will always be there no matter what you do.

[Dr.Claw]

Who told you that? As an anarchist I'm very much in favor of individuals owning guns, even in an anarchist society.

i didnt say all anarchists, i said alot i was confused on whether anti-gun anarchists are for gun control because of the "control" involved with gun control.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Oh its because there stupid.

Guns should be widely available amongst the workers any serious anarchist will tell you so.

[Comrade B]

I hear alot of Anarchists talk about being anti-gun. Do they mean that they're just pacifists and choose not to own guns? or do they believe in gun control and wouldn't that mean more laws and be contradictory to the anarchist way?
Honestly, never heard this. Only about 10% of people on this website are for very strict gun control, and I think they are all communists.

[Invincible Summer]

thanks those gave me alot of insight. as far as i stand with guns... i dont think ill ever own a gun because i dont believe in them,
You don't believe in them? They're very real...


but whether or not that other people own guns isn't up me or up to the state or anybody. Its all up to the people who want them, guns will always be there no matter what you do.

Yes, this is true.

[Thunder]

Oh its because there stupid.
lol
I do believe that you mean "they're stupid."


Anyways, I consider myself an anarchist. I am for a freedom of gun ownership....but it isn't something I get all excited about. It is hard to get excited about something that can murder another human being.

[Diagoras]

It is largely an issue of equitable power for me. Individual ownership of guns allows for a distribution of power outside of an entity like the state, and allows for individual and collective self-defense regardless of personal anatomical strength,etc. The very act of limiting control over such things into the hands of only a few persons would recreate disparate power.

Of course, as the destructive capacity of the weapon increases, then inviolate individual control becomes completely infeasible and undesirable. I don't think that my insane neighbor, Frank, should be allowed private control over a bomber plane with a full payload, or nuclear weapons, and some manner of democratic control over these things would need to be exercised as a matter of again deterring concentrations of power. He already has automatic weapons mounted on his wall that would most definitely be used against our movement if push came to shove, and I am certain he would cash in his 401k immediately to grab more destructive devices.

Where that line is drawn, though, is really a matter of context and needs at the moment.

[Nils T.]

I am for a freedom of gun ownership....but it isn't something I get all excited about. It is hard to get excited about something that can murder another human being.You act as if your moral purity was natural...

I am against "the right to bear arms", like I am against each bourgeois right. It has been maintained in the USA only because there is no threat that these arms will be used against the state.
The power is distributed broadly among any advanced capitalist society, it is one of their founding principles. It compensates some of the most problematic contradictions of this economic system. If a majority of the population detain individually a little power over others, the people as a whole will be far more tolerant its collective oppression. The right to kill a trespasser in your house only reinforce the legitimity of the state to rule propriety as more valuable than human life; and it don't even have to pay the executionner.

Obama once said something seemingly sensible about frustrated rednecks clinging to guns, gods and absurd angers. But it was just dominant ideology covering itself. A controversy about respect for the working class created to prevent questionning of the artificially induced attachment to safety (or to its symbols). False threats, false securities, false values. And religion to smooth it all.
I'm not "anti-gun" and I don't believe in gun control. I just don't think that the safety represented by the gun under your pillow, even when it's the safety from abuses of state power instead of the safety from robbery, is equivalent to the concrete (that means applied) freedom to fight back against the state.
Guns ownership in the USA didn't prevent the patriot act. It didn't stop the wars. It didn't end the '29 crisis. It didn't challenge capitalism during the last 160 years. Their only positive use was the black panthers' copwatch. But it didn't last after the blacks were granted the equal rights to enforce the capitalist values.
Guns in the USA won't bring forth the revolutionnaries that could hold them for progress.
Even in paris, where they were used to fight the state several times, now they wouldn't have any use. Maybe in brixton, but that's really not sure.

The only people that benefit from this right are guns sellers and mafias leaders, while the poor still work and die for them. And they die more often that every 160 years. Meanwhile, i'm favourable to gun control.

[Dr.Claw]

You don't believe in them? They're very real...

Of course I believe they exist :lol: You are a very literal person aren't you.

[Invincible Summer]

Of course I believe they exist :lol: You are a very literal person aren't you.


Hahah I just wanted to point out how your phrasing sounded odd is all. :cool:


But really though, I think a fear of guns comes from a lack of training and exposure to them, as well as an unequal distribution of the power that comes with owning a firearm.

[Dr.Claw]

I'm not afraid of them because I actually used to hunt and I've been around guns my whole life,and I've been taught gun safety and how to respect them, I really don't care if other people own them... I just don't want to

[Invincible Summer]

I'm not afraid of them because I actually used to hunt and I've been around guns my whole life,and I've been taught gun safety and how to respect them, I really don't care if other people own them... I just don't want to

I was speaking generally

[Psy]

I'm not "anti-gun" and I don't believe in gun control. I just don't think that the safety represented by the gun under your pillow, even when it's the safety from abuses of state power instead of the safety from robbery, is equivalent to the concrete (that means applied) freedom to fight back against the state.
Guns ownership in the USA didn't prevent the patriot act. It didn't stop the wars. It didn't end the '29 crisis. It didn't challenge capitalism during the last 160 years. Their only positive use was the black panthers' copwatch. But it didn't last after the blacks were granted the equal rights to enforce the capitalist values.
Guns in the USA won't bring forth the revolutionnaries that could hold them for progress.
Even in paris, where they were used to fight the state several times, now they wouldn't have any use. Maybe in brixton, but that's really not sure.

Gun ownership did turn the Detroit riot of July 1967 into a very short lived armed struggle and if the insurgences of Detroit in 1967 had RPGs or heavy machine guns they would have been able to take on the light amour that spearheaded the National Guard's counter-attack into the occupied areas of Detroit. So I would say weapons is tactically important to winning a battles.

[Comrade B]

Gun ownership did turn the Detroit riot of July 1967 into a very short lived armed struggle and if the insurgences of Detroit in 1967 had RPGs or heavy machine guns they would have been able to take on the light amour that spearheaded the National Guard's counter-attack into the occupied areas of Detroit. So I would say weapons is tactically important to winning a battles.
What would they have won after that?
What was the goal of the riots?
How would that be achieved by blowing up the national guard?

[Psy]

What would they have won after that?

They would have repelled the National Guard buying time as it would have taken time for the US army to deploy outside Detroit and start a major assault on Detroit.



What was the goal of the riots?

To crush the Detroit police department in reaction to police brutality.



How would that be achieved by blowing up the national guard?
Since the goal was to kill pigs crushing the national guard in itself would have achieved that goal. Detroit July 1967 reactionary but that doesn't change the tactical importance of arms.

[Nils T.]

I don't oppose anyone who wants to kill a pig, but as you said, in this particular event the outcome would not have been very progressive.

So yeah, guns can be used to kill people. I never denied that. I denied that their simple ownership grants freedom.


I've been taught gun safety and how to respect themYou've been taught to respect guns ? Scary...

[Dr.Claw]

You've been taught to respect guns ? Scary...

I meant in the way you would respect a fire,heavy machinery or anything else that can potentially harm another being. In other words Ive been taught that guns are dangerous and that you shouldn't fuck around with them.

[Comrade B]

Since the goal was to kill pigs crushing the national guard in itself would have achieved that goal. Detroit July 1967 reactionary but that doesn't change the tactical importance of arms.
The military is made up entirely of working class. We should focus on recruiting them rather than killing them for something as pointless as revenge. Violence should only be used once there is actually a plan for post revolution and the process of revolution.
Also, would the poor of the city be willing to shoot the poor of the city who joined the military?


To crush the Detroit police department in reaction to police brutality.
Would they have really stayed gone after the city was 'liberated'


They would have repelled the National Guard buying time as it would have taken time for the US army to deploy outside Detroit and start a major assault on Detroit.
The Army would have won though. And if they hadn't, the city would have been bombed.

The Detroit riots were also, nothing more than a riot.
They were not organized, a tank comes in, who tells people where they are?
Are a bunch of random civilians really willing to go out there and declare war on the US?
Also, imagine how many more people would have died if tanks were forced to open fire on the city?

[Diagoras]

I am curious as to where the line is drawn. Pistols and rifles seem to be fine for most of us. Are automatic weapons fine to own as well? If so, how about more destructive weapons? Tanks, rocket launchers, larger missiles? Obviously the social context matters in addressing such things, but I am curious as to your opinions.

[RebelDog]

I hear alot of Anarchists talk about being anti-gun. Do they mean that they're just pacifists and choose not to own guns? or do they believe in gun control and wouldn't that mean more laws and be contradictory to the anarchist way? :confused:
Your answers are appreciated

"Revolutions without theory fail to make progress. We of the 'Friends Of Durruti' have outlined our thinking, which may be amended as appropriate in great social upheavals but which hinges upon two essential points which cannot be avoided. A program, and rifles."
—El Amigo del Pueblo, No. 5, July 20, 1937.

[Blackscare]

Dr. Claw, I notice you're relatively new. Sorry for not one but two pretentious overly-literal responses from people in here, we're not all like that :)

As for weapons, ideally I would have small arms up to light machine guns readily available to people and do away with any sort of heavier weapons. In reality heavier weapons would need to be controlled by communities that hold them, not individuals.

[Psy]

The military is made up entirely of working class. We should focus on recruiting them rather than killing them for something as pointless as revenge. Violence should only be used once there is actually a plan for post revolution and the process of revolution.

Agreed



Also, would the poor of the city be willing to shoot the poor of the city who joined the military?

You could ask was would armed mutinies have plagued the US Army assaulting Detroit like it was plaguing the US Army in Vietnam. In Vietnam officer assassinations by their own troops became so common the term fragging was born to describe assassinations by friendly forces. If the US Army couldn't keep discipline in Vietnam how could they have kept discipline assaulting Detroit?



Would they have really stayed gone after the city was 'liberated'

In Paris May 1968 the Paris police force was broken and had to barricade themselves into the government buildings and wait for the French Army and French generals had mixed feeling about deploying the French Army as they feared their troops would switch sides when deployed on the streets of Paris.



The Army would have won though. And if they hadn't, the city would have been bombed.

That would depend on if the US army could keep discipline over its troops. I doubt US pilots would have taken lightly the dropping bombs on Detroit if there was rebel US troops there.



The Detroit riots were also, nothing more than a riot.

A armed riot



They were not organized, a tank comes in, who tells people where they are?

True but they didn't have to be disorganized and even the most disciplined revolutionary army would still need anti-tank weapons to deal with a hostile tank coming in.



Are a bunch of random civilians really willing to go out there and declare war on the US?
Also, imagine how many more people would have died if tanks were forced to open fire on the city?
That is if the tank crews were willing to fire or venture deep into the city if they think they could be ambushed with anti-tank weapons.

[Nils T.]

Rue Gay-Lussac, les rebelles, n'ont que les voitures à brûler.
Que vouliez vous donc, la belle, qu'est ce donc que vous vouliez?

Des canons par centaines, des fusils par milliers,
Des canons, des fusils, par centaines et par milliers

Dites moi comment s'appelle ce jeu-là que vous jouiez?
La règle en parait nouvelle, quel jeu, quel jeu singulier!

Des canons par centaines, des fusils par milliers,
Des canons, des fusils, par centaines et par milliers

La révolution, la belle, est le jeu que vous disiez.
Elle se joue dans les ruelles, elle se joue grâce aux pavés.

Des canons par centaines, des fusils par milliers,
Des canons, des fusils, par centaines et par milliers

Le vieux monde et ses séquelles, nous voulons les balayer.
Il s'agit d'être cruel, mort aux flics et aux curés.

Des canons par centaines, des fusils par milliers,
Des canons, des fusils, par centaines et par milliers

Ils nous lancent comme grêle grenades et gaz chlorés;
Nous ne trouvons que des pelles, des couteaux pour nous armer.

Des canons par centaines, des fusils par milliers,
Des canons, des fusils, par centaines et par milliers

Mes pauvres enfants dit-elle, mes jolis barricadiers,
Mon cœur, mon cœur en chancelle, je n'ai rien à vous donner.

That being said, I stand by what I said earlier : the spanish population in 1937 was using their rifles and their cannons to an end that the US population now despises and fears. If this situation changes, the US governement will outlaw guns no matter what anarchists think, like the threatened bourgeoisies of europe did.