The Right to Bear Arms. [Archive]

View Full Version : The Right to Bear Arms.

leveller

26th July 2009, 22:31

Is the Right to bear arms something to be desired? the Weekly Worker seems to think so.

It would no doubt make revolution easier if you can pop down to Tesco and buy a revolver....but when the moment for insurrection comes wont it be a rather moot point as to whether you have the right to bear arms or not?

Then again arms doesnt mean firearms, so the right could be just to have some truncheons of our own at the next demo see if the police are as keen to kettle protesters who have something more offensive than a placard in their hands.

Its certainly a demand that is a step to far for most of the ruling class in the UK, but a well supported one in the US. Pushes the envelope on democratic demands in the UK to the limit ?

Thoughts anyone?

and is it bear or bare?

New Tet

26th July 2009, 23:28

Hey I didn't have time to read through the whole text but I got just this one little thing to say about the right of bear arms. If you had watched, like me, Werner Herzog's film about the guy who lived with bears for months at a time and wound up getting killed and et by one of em you wouldn't be calling for no rights for bears with arms!

But seriously, why is the right to bear arms an important issue for the working class?

scarletghoul

26th July 2009, 23:50

must... resist... urge... to... make..... lame... puns...

LOLseph Stalin

27th July 2009, 00:00

Personally I think sales on arms should be restricted. Just like many other things they require responsibility. There should however be lighter restrictions than there is now. Sure the intentions are good as they're trying to keep them out of the hands of criminals, but if a criminal wants a weapon they'll get one anyway. It won't make a difference. They're not afraid to break the law so will get them anyway and commit their crime with it. I think that law-abiding citizens shouldn't be restricted from having them as long as they know how to operate them safely(this specifically applies to firearms obviously). There should be some kind of test put in place to determine whether a person is eligible to own a weapon. This is certainly something to be desired for self-defense against dangerous offenders who try to attack you.

New Tet

27th July 2009, 00:12

must... resist... urge... to... make..... lame... puns...

It's easy to learn how to make good puns. You start exactly like me, making bad ones.

mikelepore

27th July 2009, 00:15

Kukulofori

27th July 2009, 00:29

LOLseph Stalin

27th July 2009, 00:37

liberal blab.

As long as there's a gun store somewhere to be looted during the insurrection it doesn't matter. However, if they can, any serious revolutionary should not only own a gun, but be well-trained in its use.

As I've mentioned in my post there should be some kind of way to determine whether somebody is fit to own a weapon. I say all revolutionaries should somehow at least get basic training to meet these requirements so they can own a gun. :lol: We'll need it for the revolution and we would be obtaining them legally(and know how to operate them too).

scarletghoul

27th July 2009, 00:46

Everyone should have guns. is simple

Radical

27th July 2009, 00:55

Vanguard1917

27th July 2009, 01:03

I'm against legalising guns. As much as I feel legalising weapons would help the revolution, it'd be detrementrial to the saftey of humanity. Gun crime is fucked up in the USA. Its low here in the UK. If we legalise guns (Which are hard to get here) it would only increase gun crime and put more lives at risk. When are we going to stop this idea of "right to bair arms". What if a criminal steals a minigun, are we going to have to start legalising them too?

Wherever guns are legal, there is gun-crime

Wrong. There is no direct relationship between gun ownership and gun crime. Some facts...

Switzerland has higher adult gun ownership rates than the US, and far lower homicide rates. The same goes for Israel.

The Philippines and Mexico have strict gun controls and have far higher homicide rates than the US.

Handguns are banned in Washington DC and the city has a murder rate of 80 per 100,000. Arlington, Virginia has almost no gun controls and the murder rate is 1.6 per 100,000.

Well over 99% of the guns in the US have never been used in a crime. Less than one US gun owner in 3,000 commits homicide.

See this article for some more interesting facts: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/4158/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4158/)

------------

Also, while there's no direct relationship between gun ownership and gun crime, there's a very definite relationship between gun control and ruling class fears of resistance to its rule (as the article i linked points out).

In Britain, for example, gun controls were introduced in 1920 in response to the threat of Bolshevism. The 1968 Gun Control Act in the US was introduced in large part in response to threat of the Black Panther Party.

LOLseph Stalin

27th July 2009, 01:03

New Tet

27th July 2009, 01:15

Most of the time when the left calls for accumulating weapons it's because there are are outstanding gaps in their strategies. So many on the left belittle the vital principles: (1) that a revolutionary minority can't do a damn thing, that there is no alternative but for uncompromising and revolutionary goals to obtain the fully conscious support of the majority of the working class, no matter how long that might take; (2) that the working class has to form one large industrial union, the only type of organization that can enable the workers to take, hold, and operate the means of production; (3) a political movement of the working class has to acquire control of the state and enact a legal authorization for the industrial union to take control of the means of production. Many on the left think to themselves: "Those effective principles sound like a lot of work, and call for a lot of patience and self-discipline. Isn't there an easier way?" So they fall into the 1960s fantasy, pretending that the socialist transformation of society will be a matter of hiding behind a tree and shooting a gun at a cop. If such a day actually arrived, the left would find out in the first five minutes that the other side has all the big weapons.

We socialist tend to think in small terms.
We think so small about everything. It's like the wages issue. Some of us want higher wages, others want better wages and still others will settle for a 'living' wage. We want to improve our lot by negotiating for a bigger piece of pie but not the whole pie, no matter that all of it was robbed from us in the first place!

It's the same with the issue of armed self-defense. The government has told us that in some cases we can keep our guns for self-defense as long as its not used to defend against governmental abuse or acts of tyranny. It's okay to use my 9mm to shoot a burglar coming through my window, but god forbid I shoot someone coming to make a false arrest or to haul me away to an internment camp! It's an impossible situation of our own making.

The only logical alternative is to think big. That is, we should call for the complete takeover of the military by the service personnel themselves at every level. In their case I wouldn't emphasize too much the democratic nature of the socialist revolution because, as is obvious, military authority operates best under a less democratic command & control structure. The military as it exists today must come under the democratic supervision of the people before the antiquated need to bear arms finally disappears.

Also we should remember that most military forces of the world are made up overwhelmingly of workers and the children of workers.

cyu

27th July 2009, 20:00

Even in the post-capitalist world, I would recommend everyone has access to the instruments of power, whatever they happen to be. If political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, then in order for everyone to have political power, then everyone should have access to guns.

This isn't to say I think utopia would be achieved simply by giving everyone weapons - in fact, it can be dangerous, but it is a price that must be paid to prevent oppression. If you only allow only one class of people (ie. the police / military) to have weapons, then you are tempting future oppression.

Of course, if you changed weapon research from offensive to defensive, there may come a day when weapons could be dispensed with. For example, if by focusing research funding on bullet-proof vests, gas that obscures vision or other methods to jam targeting systems, magnetic force fields, EMPs, missile defense, or other methods of defense, you pretty much render weapons useless, then you can both stop worrying about both oppression and accidental harm... then it just becomes an issue of the right to bear defensive tools.

Radical

27th July 2009, 21:08

There's gun crime whether guns are legal or not. A criminal is a criminal and will get a gun regardless.

Not all criminals are willing to risk their life by having a gun. Having guns illegal, is much is easier to regulate gun crime. I think legalising guns will increase gun crime. Its almost inevitable because guns will be so much easier to get. Knives would be traded for guns, and instead of kids stabbing people for nothing, they'll be shooting people for nothing. Which is far more dangerous. Legalising guns would also increase the overall dangers.

Gun crime is much more easier to regulate with guns being illegal.

Pogue

27th July 2009, 21:27

I think the likelihood is we will need guns.

SocialismOrBarbarism

27th July 2009, 22:06

Not all criminals are willing to risk their life by having a gun. Having guns illegal, is much is easier to regulate gun crime. I think legalising guns will increase gun crime. Its almost inevitable because guns will be so much easier to get. Knives would be traded for guns, and instead of kids stabbing people for nothing, they'll be shooting people for nothing. Which is far more dangerous. Legalising guns would also increase the overall dangers.

Gun crime is much more easier to regulate with guns being illegal.

So you're ignoring everything Vanguard pointed out, then?

Also, while there's no direct relationship between gun ownership and gun crime, there's a very definite relationship between gun control and ruling class fears of resistance to its rule

And a very definite relationship between gun crime and poverty, bur Radical is ignoring that as well...

Radical

27th July 2009, 22:16

So you're ignoring everything Vanguard pointed out, then?

And a very definite relationship between gun crime and poverty, bur Radical is ignoring that as well...

Please tell me, how the fuck is legalising guns going to keep gun crime at the same level?

All Vanguard pointed out is the fact that Gun crime isent just based on Guns being legalised or not. There are more than one reason why there is Gun crime. Such as Poverty, deprived areas, accidents, anger. Legalising guns would just put it in more hands, which would increase the chances of somebody using the gun. Lets start legalising everything in the name of "Protection". We need to stop somewhere and I believe Guncrime will just be increased if we legalise guns. Look at Knife crime, people are carrying knives in the name of "protection", and this has only INCREASED knife crime in the UK. Thats why the British government is trying extremily hard to stop people from carrying knives. But the reason why people are carrying knives is for the same reason people want to carry guns, which is protection. AND THIS HAS ONLY INCREASED KNIFE CRIME.

Nothing Human Is Alien

27th July 2009, 23:21

The right to bear arms was one of the most progressive things to come out of the bourgeois revolutions. Restrictions on that right were reactionary measures taken by the bourgeoisie in response to upswings in class struggle.

Revolutionaries defend/fight for the right for working people to bear arms. Paternalistic liberals argue against it.

It's a sad commentary on the "revolutionary left" that this has to be questioned today.

Every party in the 2nd and 3rd International (up until Stalin took power in the USSR) struggled for the right to bear arms.

The capitalist state is armed to the teeth. It's ridiculous to go along with our own disarming under these circumstances.

“Remember that the musket is better than all mere parchment guarantees of liberty.” -Frederick Douglass.

Stand up for Judas

28th July 2009, 00:14

The capitalist state is armed to the teeth. It's ridiculous to go along with our own disarming under these circumstances.

And thats why we need handguns legalised, so we can take on the battleships, tanks and artillery divisions of the state? Or is it that we need ownership of trident missiles legalised, so that any worker with a couple of million pounds saved up from working nights at Subway can buy one and challenge the states military on an equivalent level?

I really dont get this call for a legal right to possess guns -firstly, any weapons that a working class persons wage can afford are utterly insignificant against the weapons of the state, and totally useless to defend yourself against it. US citizens can go on and on about how their piddly little rifle protects them against the US governments $515.4 billion a year military armed with atomic bombs, battleships so on, but anyone else can see that as the deluded fantasy that it is.

And secondly, working on the assumption that there were suddenly a proliferation in weaponry capable of challenging the states weaponry that had a retail price within the range of the average wage, why would the state legalise it? Even if that mythical beast the "workers party" got elected and tried to legalise such weapons, why would the army allow their position to be eroded so totally? If youre going to demand the state let you have weaponry capable of defeating the state, you might as well add constant sunshine and freedom to the list of things youre demanding, because the state isnt going to give you it beause it would negate its own existence in doing so.

Or am i missing something?

Nothing Human Is Alien

28th July 2009, 00:40

Or am i missing something? Yes. You're missing a number of things.

A guy with a bolt action .243 has little chance of defeating a section of a professional army, it's true. But a guy with only his bare hands has no chance of defeating it.

A revolutionary who is armed has a better chance of defending himself from a late night attack on his home by the forces of the state than a revolutionary who is armed only with his convictions. At the very least, the fact that he's armed (or even that he may be) is enough to make the forces of the state think twice

The governor of a state will be a lot more hesitant to call out the National Guard to break up a factory occupation when he knows that the workers inside are armed and that workers outside the factory and across the country supporting the occupation are as well.

Some of the most militant and effective strikes in the US in the last century have come from the coal miners of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and Virginia. Even if you forget that workers in these areas were often forced to take up arms to defend themselves against deadly attacks by the mine operators and state forces in order to organize unions to begin with, you can't ignore the fact that these strikes would have been a lot less likely to win (or even begin) if the workers had no means at all to defend themselves.

Black people in the south (of the US) defended themselves from racist attacks by arming themselves. Would you have had them hold hands and sing kumbaya instead?

And even a lightly armed populace is able to do a lot more damage to military units than you seem to imagine. There are numerous historical examples.

But it's more than that.

Our exploiters maintain their rule by armed force. We need to be armed as well.

Why exactly do you think the ruling class is against working people being armed? Is it because they're concerned with the safety of the general population? :lol:

the last donut of the night

28th July 2009, 01:36

Even if the working class were to amass such a large amount of weapons -- which it probably wouldn't; there isn't a huge network of the working class whose orders to bear arms would be followed by everyone --, the state would IMMEDIATELY catch the drift. It would enforce draconian measures to prevent workers from arming themselves. And you know that a small handgun stands no chance to what the state's got.

Stand up for Judas

28th July 2009, 02:55

Yes. You're missing a number of things.

A guy with a bolt action .243 has little chance of defeating a section of a professional army, it's true. But a guy with only his bare hands has no chance of defeating it.

A revolutionary who is armed has a better chance of defending himself from a late night attack on his home by the forces of the state than a revolutionary who is armed only with his convictions. At the very least, the fact that he's armed (or even that he may be) is enough to make the forces of the state think twice.

The governor of a state will be a lot more hesitant to call out the National Guard to break up a factory occupation when he knows that the workers inside are armed and that workers outside the factory and across the country supporting the occupation are as well.

With regards inflicting temporary, minor defeats or delays to the state, the same goes for guys with bolt action .243s, revolutionaries into home defence and militant strikers who are armed and who DIDNT ask the state to let them have guns. My issue isnt with large groups of organised workers being armed. If youre going to use weapons to fight off the state by shooting dead its servants, either when the army has been deployed (the presumed background to your first scenario), when the state is raiding your house/arresting you (the second scenario) or when youve seized a factory with the aim of taking it over and presumably part of a revolutionary or near-revolutionary situation (what i assume is the context of the third scenario, because workers occupied their factory in the US a while back to get redundancy pay and they didnt bring a cache of fully automatics with them, despite the right to bare arms), then the added illegality of the weapons wont add anything to your outcome if you fail, ie being shot dead/blown up/vapourised. If the guns were legally owned before hand, it wont resurrect you, or half your sentence in the unlikely situation you survive opening fire on the army. Unless as well as calling for the right to bare arms you intend to call for the right to shoot state employees dead at will, in which case said guy/revolutionary/strikers will get off scot free, assuming they survive the exchange of fire.

Some of the most militant and effective strikes in the US in the last century have come from the coal miners of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and Virginia. Even if you forget that workers in these areas were often forced to take up arms to defend themselves against deadly attacks by the mine operators and state forces in order to organize unions to begin with, you can't ignore the fact that these strikes would have been a lot less likely to win (or even begin) if the workers had no means at all to defend themselves.

Im not from America, so my knowledge of the US labour movement in the last century is sketchy at best. Do you mean things like the Battle of Blair Mountain? If youve got any links/recommended reading id like to have a looksee, please, because they sound like theyd be both interesting and inspiring.

If the state was attacking them, how effective would it be for them to petition said state to let them have some guns to fight back?

It occurs to me that miners have a ready access to a source of dynamite - isnt that what the spanish mine workers used to use, pre '36? Obviously that wouldnt apply to, for instance, garment workers, whos large reserves of pins would be of doubtful effect against a platoon of soldiers with rifles, but it certainly leads me to believe that even if guns were illegal in america at that time the miners would hardly have been unarmed, even had they decide against buying black market weapons. I mean, if youre willing to shoot the agents of the state dead, youre probably willing to buy a gun when its illegal.

Anyway, again, my issue isnt with workers using weaponry. Im not a pacifist, in spite of my long hair and gentle nature. My issue is with the application of the demand for the right to bare arms in relation to the context of a country that doesnt currently have it, such as Britain.

Im not an expert on the US, as im probably conclusively proving, but id imagine that the right to bare arms went from a 'necessity', to being something the state didnt want but couldnt easily solve because the difference between its soldiers equipment and the average persons equipment was relatively small, to a profitable industry that no longer threatens the state in the same way due to the now huge disparity between its military equipment and the average persons possible equipment (that was, if it even contains a glimmer of truth, an obscenely short summary).

To get rid of the right to bare arms in the US would be to mess with a pretty big industry/lobby, and to have to engage in a probably fairly costly (financially) de-arming period where theyd probably have to use the army to deal with the "cold, dead hands" types, for only a minor gain in control over the populace. A nice gain from the states perspective, but of debatable worth considering the cost. To bring in the right to bare arms in the UK would require the state to retrain all its police in the use of firearms, it would have to lose a little bit of control (a teeny, tiny bit), and it would gain... nothing. Why would it do it? It gains nothing at all, and in fact loses out.

Black people in the south (of the US) defended themselves from racist attacks by arming themselves. Would you have had them hold hands and sing kumbaya instead?

I questioned whether asking the state to let you have guns and whether the guns you could afford, were they legal, would be sufficient to fight the state. I didnt say that folks should sit around and wait until their heads are staved in out of some idiotic pacifist sentiments. I mean, presumably, if the state didnt care about the racist attacks and let them carry on, and yet guns were illegal, the black people in question wouldnt sit around writing petitions to their local senator/congressman asking for guns to be legalised while their family members were lynched. Theyd arm and defend themselves regardless, which is all well and good. Im not too sure, but isnt that what the Asian Youth Network did in the UK back when the fash were a physical threat?

And even a lightly armed populace is able to do a lot more damage to military units than you seem to imagine. There are numerous historical examples.

Even what would be, if people followed the law to the letter, a totally unarmed populace can do a bit of damage to military units, by breaking the law and arming or by using molotovs or what have you. However, the point isnt to just cause damage, the point is to win. The weapons that US citizens can currently get access to financially might be alright for killing the odd soldier, or prolonging an armed occupation until youre starved out or the place is blown up, but it couldnt defeat it in a revolution on its own, and in a non-revolutionary situation would be guaranteed to lose, even if it takes a bit longer.

But it's more than that.

Our exploiters maintain their rule by armed force. We need to be armed as well.

Why exactly do you think the ruling class is against working people being armed? Is it because they're concerned with the safety of the general population? :lol:

At what point did i say something that gave you that impression? Obviously "our exploiters maintain their rule by armed force. We need to be armed as well."I find it less obvious as to why, therefore, the government that defends my exploiters will give me a legally protected right to arm myself to defend myself effectively against the exploiters that that government represents. :confused:

bobroberts

28th July 2009, 03:48

People have a right to self defense, and a community has a right to defend their community. How they choose to do that should be up to them. There will always be people or groups who try to enforce their will upon other through violence, and people should have the ability to to stop them if they are able.

It is quite likely that any peaceful revolutionary gains have and will be met with violence by the forces of the state or from the forces of global capital working unhindered by the state, and all options to resist that violence, including armed resistance, should be on the table. People very well couldn't win an outright shooting war with state forces, but that is generally not the aim of modern forms of armed resistance, which can only successful if it compliments an already existing popular movement. If an army doesn't have the support of the population it is very difficult for them to win in the long run no matter how much firepower they have, short of resorting to outright genocide.

RainbowLeftist

28th July 2009, 11:32

Yes, as a member of the "American Citizens for the Legalization of RPGs Society", I feel we have the right to have firearms.

Chicano Shamrock

28th July 2009, 13:21

Die Neue Zeit

28th July 2009, 14:14

Most of the time when the left calls for accumulating weapons it's because there are are outstanding gaps in their strategies. So many on the left belittle the vital principles: (1) that a revolutionary minority can't do a damn thing, that there is no alternative but for uncompromising and revolutionary goals to obtain the fully conscious support of the majority of the working class, no matter how long that might take; (2) that the working class has to form one large industrial union, the only type of organization that can enable the workers to take, hold, and operate the means of production; (3) a political movement of the working class has to acquire control of the state and enact a legal authorization for the industrial union to take control of the means of production. Many on the left think to themselves: "Those effective principles sound like a lot of work, and call for a lot of patience and self-discipline. Isn't there an easier way?" So they fall into the 1960s fantasy, pretending that the socialist transformation of society will be a matter of hiding behind a tree and shooting a gun at a cop. If such a day actually arrived, the left would find out in the first five minutes that the other side has all the big weapons.

I must state that there are parts where I agree with you and parts where I disagree.

Calling for the right to form militias (as opposed to "accumulating weapons") is something that the left in the developed world abandoned to organizations like the NRA. As you know, the Erfurt Program called for the formation of militias.

In today's world, this demand easily identifies overtly reformist elements, since they don't like even the idea of civil disobedience as a means of making the majority of workers class-conscious.

I'm not sure about the exclusiveness of #2, and the parliamentarism of #3 is something the two of us have discussed already. :)

chimx

29th July 2009, 00:29

It's a sad commentary on the "revolutionary left" that this has to be questioned today.

The majority are liberals or come from liberal backgrounds.

FreeFocus

29th July 2009, 00:36

This is a very simple subject which we have discussed here into the ground before. The answers are simple. If you believe in gun control you are a silly person that needs to rethink their politics.

I don't care about the "right" to bear arms. I already have mine and no one is taking them away. Especially not Hilary Clinton. Don't make me vote Palin!:cursing:

This.

Guns should be available. People should be trained on proper use. The only thing that would discourage crime, if one argues against guns using crime as an example, is eliminating the primary motivator, i.e. capitalism and the poverty it produces.

One concern, however, is crimes of passion. People often go overboard when they know they have a weapon. Nonetheless, this isn't sufficient to support the effective disarmament and prevention of defense by oppressed groups, which is what strict gun control would mean.

In effect, yeah, I'm close to the NRA on this one issue. I'm sure as hell not aligned with the liberals on guns.

What Would Durruti Do?

29th July 2009, 04:24

FreeFocus

29th July 2009, 05:11

I must state that there are parts where I agree with you and parts where I disagree.

Calling for the right to form militias (as opposed to "accumulating weapons") is something that the left in the developed world abandoned to organizations like the NRA. As you know, the Erfurt Program called for the formation of militias.

In today's world, this demand easily identifies overtly reformist elements, since they don't like even the idea of civil disobedience as a means of making the majority of workers class-conscious.

I'm not sure about the exclusiveness of #2, and the parliamentarism of #3 is something the two of us have discussed already. :)

Excellent post. I wasn't aware that the right to form militias was a leftist plank in the early 20th century. Also, good point that the demand would show who is a reformist and who isn't.

Patchd

29th July 2009, 05:14

Is the Right to bear arms something to be desired? the Weekly Worker seems to think so.

It's so important to the CPGB (for those of you who may not understand the connection, the Weekly Worker is the newspaper of the CPGB) that they even have their student group, Communist Students, put it in their manifestos, yes, for student union elections. They call for the right to bear arms in student union election manifestos, as well as criticising other left candidates for not having "even mentioned the word Capitalism once", or for not calling for a revolution ...

... but yes, it's something to be desired for revolutionaries anyway (it would make the task easier whenever it comes down to it), whether I'd include it in a student union manifesto would be another thing though.

Die Neue Zeit

29th July 2009, 05:28

Excellent post. I wasn't aware that the right to form militias was a leftist plank in the early 20th century. Also, good point that the demand would show who is a reformist and who isn't.

http://ia341004.us.archive.org/3/items/EisenachProgram/725_socDemWorkersParty_230.pdf

"Establishment of a people’s militia in place of standing armies."

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm

"Education of all to bear arms. Militia in the place of the standing army. Determination by the popular assembly on questions of war and peace. Settlement of all international disputes by arbitration."

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/sweden/program-1897.htm (Swedish social democracy)

"Public armament instead of a standing army. Arbitration courts for international conflicts."

Actually, even the reformist Bernstein advocated somewhere the right to form militias as part of an "action program" (apart from its presence in the formal program).

[I'm suspicious about the CPGB's e-mailed quotation of Bernstein, though (it seems to me there he was advocating universal military service as opposed to Roman-style "professional" volunteer armies).]

I have yet to write my programmatic commentary on this, though. :(

gorillafuck

29th July 2009, 05:46

Of course we should have the right to bear arms. Some people need guns for protection and they should have the right to get them. Or maybe they just like guns, there's no problem with that. And in revolutionary times, while obviously we'd need a bit more than guns they'd still be very useful to have.

Pirate turtle the 11th

29th July 2009, 12:08

If you support disarming the working class against the ruling class or maintaining the of working class being guns - then your a bit shit really arnt you.

communard resolution

29th July 2009, 13:21

Every party in the 2nd and 3rd International (up until Stalin took power in the USSR) struggled for the right to bear arms.

Can you provide sources for this? A friend of mine claims that in the Soviet Union, civlians were prohibited from bearing arms even in the Lenin era and that anyone caught with arms was considered an enemy of the state and faced harsh penalties.

I tried to google it but couldn't find anything useful. Can you help me out? Thanks.

HeartlessLibertarian

30th July 2009, 03:22

HeartlessLibertarian

30th July 2009, 03:25

Capitalism creates crime, not guns.

We just need to educate the workers of the world that they should use their guns as tools for change, not tools for violence and profit.

If the people don't have guns, only the oppressors will.
Yes, because in countries where capitalism is not practice there is no such thing as murders, robbery, and theft.

Misanthrope

30th July 2009, 03:30

Yes, because in countries where capitalism is not practice there is no such thing as murders, robbery, and theft.

What countries are you referring to?

Durruti's Ghost

30th July 2009, 03:32

Yes, because in countries where capitalism is not practice there is no such thing as murders, robbery, and theft.

FYI, there are no countries where capitalism is not practiced.

HeartlessLibertarian

30th July 2009, 03:36

FYI, there are no countries where capitalism is not practiced.
That says something about the popularity of communism/marxism/anarchism.

#FF0000

30th July 2009, 03:38

Wherever guns are less obtainable by the common rule abiding citizen there is more crime.
Plus, the right to bear arms is the last thing we have to protect outself against an out of control government.

Thaaaaaat just isn't true. As much as I agree with guns being legal and obtainable, pretty much every Western European country in the world has lower crime rates than the United States does, and many (most? All?) are far more strict on gun control than we are in the U.S.

Further, crimes are rarely stopped by armed victims. Those that turn out otherwise are the exception, not the rule.

Yes, because in countries where capitalism is not practice there is no such thing as murders, robbery, and theft. The degree of relative poverty in a country has been shown to have a strong correlation with crime. That isn't something to ignore.

That says something about the popularity of communism/marxism/anarchism. And that's just a dumb statement. Prior to 1776, all "democracies" (by that I mean: Rome) had degenerated into tyranny and fallen, or were just crushed (I'll throw the Ancient Greeks in too).

"HEH THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE POPULARITY OF DEMOCRACY HEH HEH HOORF" ~ British Aristocrat ca. 1775

30th July 2009, 09:46

http://www.thereheis.com/images/family%20guy%20bear%20arms.jpg
I'm all for the right to bear arms! This is what the founding fathers wanted for ALL of us and nobody shall take it away!

cyu

30th July 2009, 18:39

That says something about the popularity of communism/marxism/anarchism.

...and many libertarians regularly say there are no countries where true capitalism exists. How would you answer that?

[By the way, why aren't political trolls restricted to Opposing Ideologies?]

chimx

30th July 2009, 20:18

Can you provide sources for this? A friend of mine claims that in the Soviet Union, civlians were prohibited from bearing arms even in the Lenin era and that anyone caught with arms was considered an enemy of the state and faced harsh penalties.

I tried to google it but couldn't find anything useful. Can you help me out? Thanks.

from the soviet constitution of 1918:

"For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed"

I have read on right-wing conservative sites that the USSR restricted civilian ownership of firearms in 1929. But even if that was the case, following WWII, I'm sure the percent of "illegal" firearm ownership was high.

communard resolution

30th July 2009, 20:21

from the soviet constitution of 1918:

"For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed"

Wow! Thanks for that, Chimx.

What Would Durruti Do?

1st August 2009, 02:56

Yes, because in countries where capitalism is not practice there is no such thing as murders, robbery, and theft.

Where is capitalism not practiced? Parts of Chiapas, maybe parts of India and Nepal, and various communes around the world are the only things that come even close in my mind, and while it would be foolish to think crime is completely nonexistent do you honestly think there would be much reason for murder, robbery, or theft in a socially collective non-hierarchial society? I'd love to hear why.

Chicano Shamrock

1st August 2009, 10:18

Where is capitalism not practiced? Parts of Chiapas, maybe parts of India and Nepal, and various communes around the world are the only things that come even close in my mind, and while it would be foolish to think crime is completely nonexistent do you honestly think there would be much reason for murder, robbery, or theft in a socially collective non-hierarchial society? I'd love to hear why.
There's always going to be reasons for murder with or without Capitalism. Your wife cheats on you... murder. Your neighbor is a dick... murder. There can be all kinds of reasons.

Die Neue Zeit

1st August 2009, 16:58

People’s Militias: The Full Extension of the Ability to Bear Arms

“Education of all to bear arms. Militia in the place of the standing army.” (Eduard Bernstein)

Intimately linked with the self-directional demand for freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association is the demand for the formation of people’s militias. Even after the turn to minimalism, Bernstein never advocated the elimination of this crucial minimum demand in the Erfurt Program, which he himself wrote. Just two years before the outbreak of continental war in 1914, and not long after the turn to vulgar “centrism,” Kautsky made this remark in The First of May and the Struggle against Militarism:

The demand for a citizen force is, above all, not an economic, but a political demand. We put forward this demand in the interest of democracy; to weaken the power which the Government possesses by its control of a professional army.

Until the Cold War, even the various European social-democratic parties continued to advocate for the ability to bear arms and especially form people’s militias like those in Switzerland. The SPD itself had its own militias to counter the growing Nazi party-movement and its anti-worker militias in the 1920s.

That all changed with rising urban crime rates in the 1960s, when social-democrats everywhere became “social-democrats” and, instead of extending the concept of welfare towards gun ownership (“gun welfare” for workers, leaving aside the question of gun models), supported liberal gun control measures and do so to this day. This left the advocacy of so-called “gun rights” to right-populist gun lobby groups like the National Rifle Association. Only recently did the Supreme Court of the United States, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, explicitly confirm the Second Amendment right to bear arms for non-militia reasons such as self-defense at home. For obvious reasons it did not address the militia question, which is commonly interpreted to refer to the National Guard.

As mentioned in Chapter 5, the advocacy of this demand easily separates class-strugglists from the most obvious of cross-class coalitionists, since Bernstein himself pushed for this demand in less formal workers’ action programs. The latter group in today’s environment is so spineless that even the question of civil disobedience is rarely, if ever, discussed. To them, strikebreaking by hostile governments and private contractors should not be resisted. To them, occupations by foreign powers should not be resisted either, contrary to what happened in countries like Lebanon – due in large part to the application of both the pre-war SPD’s “alternative culture” model and the inter-war SPD’s militia model by that “party of God” known as Hezbollah!

REFERENCE:

The First of May and the Struggle against Militarism by Karl Kautsky [http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1912/05/war1912.htm]

Asoka89

1st August 2009, 17:15

Until the Cold War, even the various European social-democratic parties continued to advocate for the ability to bear arms and especially form people’s militias like those in Switzerland. The SPD itself had its own militias to counter the growing Nazi party-movement and its anti-worker militias in the 1920s.

That all changed with rising urban crime rates in the 1960s, when social-democrats everywhere became “social-democrats” and supported liberal gun control measures (and do so to this day), leaving the advocacy of so-called “gun rights” to right-populist gun lobby groups like the National Rifle Association. Only recently did the Supreme Court of the United States, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, explicitly confirm the Second Amendment right to bear arms for non-militia reasons such as self-defense at home. For obvious reasons it did not address the militia question, which is commonly interpreted to refer to the National Guard.

Yes, but in the short-term this isn't a pressing task for socialists. In order words we have so much organizing and education to do, the bearing arms question is premature and I wouldn't advocate going into the camp of the NRA in the near-future at least.

FreeFocus

1st August 2009, 17:27

Yes, but in the short-term this isn't a pressing task for socialists. In order words we have so much organizing and education to do, the bearing arms question is premature and I wouldn't advocate going into the camp of the NRA in the near-future at least.

It should never have been dropped. Nonetheless, not all socialist struggles are at the same point. For some groups it would be a powerful step, for others a premature one. The strategic reality isn't the same everywhere in the world.

Asoka89

1st August 2009, 17:29

It should never have been dropped. Nonetheless, not all socialist struggles are at the same point. For some groups it would be a powerful step, for others a premature one. The strategic reality isn't the same everywhere in the world.

Where in the world would the liberalization of gun laws be a "powerful step" forward?

Chicano Shamrock

2nd August 2009, 00:10

Yes, but in the short-term this isn't a pressing task for socialists. In order words we have so much organizing and education to do, the bearing arms question is premature and I wouldn't advocate going into the camp of the NRA in the near-future at least.
What's wrong with being on the side of the NRA other than it is reformist? Don't let Bowling for Columbine fool you. The NRA lobbies to keep arms in the hands of the working class and to keep us from having to register ammo. In LA we have to give a copy of our ID and do a thumb print to buy ammo. That is a step backwards and the NRA can help fight against that. Luckily surrounding cities don't require thumb prints or ID's.

I'm not saying the NRA is some working class group. They have their own interests but we can benefit from what they do.

Asoka89

2nd August 2009, 01:02

Crime and violence doesn't benefit the working class. Without a revolution on the horizon, without any widespread class consciousness or even class identification--- I won't be on the side of any reactionary f**@s. Plus as a whole poor people and progressive people (those that would be radicalized to form the base of any socialist movement) are for gun-control at the moment

Pirate turtle the 11th

2nd August 2009, 01:15

scarletghoul

2nd August 2009, 01:24

To quote myself from another thread on this subject,
Political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The people should have political power so the people should have guns

Pol Pot

2nd August 2009, 01:37

To quote myself from another thread on this subject,
Political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The people should have political power so the people should have guns

I fully agree on this opinion. The only way to resist the central tyranny is for individual people to own arms. Most of the right wingers support right to bear arms because they like hunting and passing on the tradition of "manly powerful gun-handling'' from father to son, but that is not the reason for us to dismiss right to bear arms.

Asoka89

2nd August 2009, 02:00

Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

To paraphrase Alinsky, what an idiotic quote when the other side is the one with all the guns.

scarletghoul

2nd August 2009, 02:34

what?

genstrike

2nd August 2009, 03:32

You know, I can see why we would want to enact laws against letting people have guns. There are some people I just don't trust with guns.

Of course, most of those people are cops and soldiers...

scarletghoul

2nd August 2009, 03:35

Exactly. People need guns to defend themselves against these instruments of state oppression, like the Black Panthers done. A truly revolutionary leftist group will support arming the oppressed people.
If you support restriction of gun rights for people, you are supporting a bourgeois state monopoly on arms, and therefore bourgeois power over the working class.

What Would Durruti Do?

2nd August 2009, 04:14

To paraphrase Alinsky, what an idiotic quote when the other side is the one with all the guns.

And who has all the power? Makes sense to me. If the people want power, they need guns.

Asoka89

2nd August 2009, 04:24

And who has all the power? Makes sense to me. If the people want power, they need guns.

Uggghh. If they do that's the very last stage.

The psuedo-left loves speaking to an imaginary working class and crying "agitate, agitate, agitate". They forget about the "educate and the organize".

anticap

2nd August 2009, 05:23

I'm amazed to find "revolutionary leftists" advocating gun control. I note that they tend to hail from places with strong restrictions on guns, which suggests to me that they've swallowed the propaganda around them instead of taking an objective look at the issue.

They claim lower gun crime as justification for restricting guns, just as the propagandists do. But even if we accept such claims as true, are there any other corollaries that might interest revolutionists? For example, along with lower gun crime, might there also be lower revolutionary sentiment? Have people become increasingly silent with their increased impotence?

Also, who are these "gun criminals" that have been suppressed? Don't they tend to be the folks who occupy the lower rungs of the ladder? Isn't exposing the injustices that lead such people to a life of "crime" part of what we do as revolutionary leftists? Then why do some of us assist in the obfuscation of those injustices by advocating the "quick fix" policies of the chief obfuscators?

Of course, the reverse is also possible: perhaps those of us who oppose gun control are simply parroting back the propaganda we've swallowed. But even if that's the case, which situation is more in line with revolutionary sentiment? Isn't it the one where people from all rungs of the ladder have access to arms, and the right to bear them (which makes it that much more difficult to deny access)?

As to the feasibility of lightly-armed revolutionists taking on a heavily mechanized military, is it even necessary to cite history for examples of how successful this can be?

(BTW, I don't mean to suggest that all comrades from places with restrictive gun laws are indoctrinated fools, or that all those from less restrictive places are True Enlightened Revolutionists. Far from it. I realize that many of you who live under tight restrictions are strong gun rights advocates, and I respect you all the more for it. I also realize that there are plenty of indoctrinated fools everywhere.)

Asoka89

2nd August 2009, 05:41

I'm amazed that people on Revleft don't have basic levels of reading comprehension.

I said in Western capitalist societies at least, in the short-term, its irrelevant.

Die Neue Zeit

2nd August 2009, 07:20

Asoka89

2nd August 2009, 09:12

Actually, I have to disagree with you there, Asoka. The CPGB's Communist Students openly advocates people's militias in its platform (I believe it was mentioned earlier in this thread or in the thread on the CPGB).

That doesn't mean that "people's militias" are on the short-term agenda, or even on the mid-term agenda.

It's irrelevant to the struggle at the moment to advocate for the liberalization of gun laws.

Chicano Shamrock

3rd August 2009, 12:53

That doesn't mean that "people's militias" are on the short-term agenda, or even on the mid-term agenda.

It's irrelevant to the struggle at the moment to advocate for the liberalization of gun laws.
So you support disarming me? Maybe that way I could have no defense from gangsters around here. That would make you happy?

So because armed revolution may not happen soon you are advocating the monopoly of arms in the hands of the state's thugs and gangsters?

Well like I already said I have mine and you aren't getting them.

cyu

3rd August 2009, 20:11

perhaps those of us who oppose gun control are simply parroting back the propaganda we've swallowed.

In my younger days, I swallowed the entire agenda of the (American) Democrats - which included gun control. Isn't it interesting that in a capitalist society, the pro-capitalists want their supporters to have guns, while those who sometimes try to appear to be against capitalism want their supports to not have guns?

It is quite a grand strategy, really - if the anti-capitalists are ideologically opposed to having guns, then capitalists will always remain in control.

RevolverNo9

3rd August 2009, 20:15

Actually, I have to disagree with you there, Asoka. The CPGB's Communist Students openly advocates people's militias in its platform.

Er, I'm not sure there's more than five members of 'Communist Students' in the whole country! You can hardly use that as an example of the demand's striking urgency and relevency here, particularly given the group's near-pariah-like status on the couple of universities where they exist.

Indeed, they're the only political group I can imagine putting that on a student union platform! :lol:

What Would Durruti Do?

4th August 2009, 01:54

Uggghh. If they do that's the very last stage.

The psuedo-left loves speaking to an imaginary working class and crying "agitate, agitate, agitate". They forget about the "educate and the organize".

I don't think anyone is forgetting about the "educate and organize" stage. Obviously you aren't going to put up much of a fight without organization and educated revolutionaries.

I'm not advocating "go out and shoot some capitalists", I'm just pointing out the reality that most don't seem to want to face: eventually we'll have to take up arms and the earlier to prepare and familiarize yourself the better. You don't wait until the revolution actually starts to learn to fire and take care of a weapon.

Sarah Palin

4th August 2009, 16:34

I support the right to bear arms as long as there is oppression of the working class. After we achieve international communism, I don't think there is going to be a need for guns. Of course I don't want to stifle anyone's rights, so there should always be a "right to bear arms."

And I just had to show you all this:

http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery/images/1/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg