Gun Control and Leftists

[Nuvem]

This topic is, in American politics, more than a dead horse. This is a horse which the NRA has been whipping every time the Democrats have taken power since the 1950s. However, it seems that among Leftists it's an issue that's very alive and hotly debated. As a general rule we Leftists don't believe in private property, but possessions are a different matter altogether. As a generality most of us agree that an individual is entitled to own (or, if the word fits better,"utilize") private possessions. I.E., we're not out to seize your car (unless you have more than you could possibly need), your microwave, your PC, your couch. So having established that people will still be allowed to "own" or "utilize" (trying not to step on toes here) private possessions, the question arises as to whether or not in a post-revolutionary society the people should be allowed to arm themselves or possess weapons.

To me this seems like something beneath debate for Leftists, but I've observed some back-and-forth regarding it. As a generality we can mostly agree that armed revolution is the only viable option for seizing control of a nation for the working classes (sorry pacifists, I said -viable-. Have fun with beating the reaction with sit-ins.). This requires armament of the masses- like the USSR or not, its revolution was a textbook example of what happens in the most advanced stages of revolution; armed workers seize control of major cities and centers of production. The Red Guard was a fully-armed force of workers and soldiers who had defected to the Bolshevik cause, not trained guerrillas like we see in Cuba's example or in general with Che's focal theory. Of course, in the latter stages of the Cuban revolution, the scene was much the same- masses of armed workers seizing control of major cities. In the RSFSR, the Red Guards were almost entirely absorbed into the Red Army shortly after when the White reaction forced civil war. After the war, the masses were disarmed.

Where is the justice in this? These people fought to put the Bolsheviki in power, and were then stripped of their weapons.
No authority has the right to deny its constituents the means of revolution. It is wholly unnecessary to grant free access to explosives, fully automatic weapons or other such military devices, but it is unjust and criminal to deny citizens of a post-revolutionary society the right to handguns, shotguns and any non-automatic rifles. Any authority which does this or seeks to do it has betrayed the people who brought it to power and is illegitimate. It is both the right and the responsibility of the people of a nation to overthrow its government when it has forgotten the welfare of its citizens or committed crimes heinous enough to merit violence, and therefore no authority whether it is the State, local government, council, soviet or committee should rightly deny the weapons of revolution to its people.

It could be argued that this will put weapons in the hands of reactionaries. Perhaps; but it will put more in the hands of revolutionaries, if the revolution truly has the support of the greater part of the people. If the majority of a nation is reactionary, it is not the time for revolution there one way or the other. What truly matters is that the people have the right and the means to overthrow their rulers if such a time comes that it becomes necessary. We must remember the dangers of revisionism and keep in mind always that there may come a time when even the purest of idealized societies could be infected by revisionism, and the need for revolution may again surface.

[this is an invasion]

http://zinelibrary.info/files/guncontrol.pdf

[Imposter Marxist]

Indeed Comrade. We need to keep the workers armed, and ready to battle the reactionaries to the death.

[Boboulas]

Its an american problem, gun control is hardly an issue where people dont have ridiculously easy acsess to killing machines, and are usualy alot more peaceful places.

Its obviosuly not as simple as having them availible, the reasons people feel the need to have a gun needs to be adressed. You shouldnt be afraid of getting shot in your own neighborhood.

And having more guns ISNT a solution to a really complex problem.

[durhamleft]

Its an american problem, gun control is hardly an issue where people dont have ridiculously easy acsess to killing machines, and are usualy alot more peaceful places.

Its obviosuly not as simple as having them availible, the reasons people feel the need to have a gun needs to be adressed. You shouldnt be afraid of getting shot in your own neighborhood.

And having more guns ISNT a solution to a really complex problem.

While I don't like violence, the sad truth is there have been many times in history where very complex arguments have been won by the side with the most guns...

[this is an invasion]

Its an american problem, gun control is hardly an issue where people dont have ridiculously easy acsess to killing machines, and are usualy alot more peaceful places. Right, cause people don't kill each other in the UK...


Its obviosuly not as simple as having them availible, the reasons people feel the need to have a gun needs to be adressed. You shouldnt be afraid of getting shot in your own neighborhood.

And having more guns ISNT a solution to a really complex problem.

It's not the but it is part of the solution.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Its an american problem, gun control is hardly an issue where people dont have ridiculously easy acsess to killing machines, and are usualy alot more peaceful places.

Its obviosuly not as simple as having them availible, the reasons people feel the need to have a gun needs to be adressed. You shouldnt be afraid of getting shot in your own neighborhood.

And having more guns ISNT a solution to a really complex problem.

The reason we need guns is capitalism. Capitalism is barbarism. You are foolish to not own protection when people will go to any length to survive and get what they need.

[The Douche]

I own most of my guns because collecting, restoring, building, and shooting them is my hobby. Only one of my guns is really to defend myself.

People who see guns as "tools of destruction" or some such nonsense are clinging to pathetic liberal ideas.

If you can't trust the people to own guns how can you trust them to run all of society? Communists calling for gun control is laughable.

[Magón]

Its an american problem, gun control is hardly an issue where people dont have ridiculously easy acsess to killing machines, and are usualy alot more peaceful places.

Its obviosuly not as simple as having them availible, the reasons people feel the need to have a gun needs to be adressed. You shouldnt be afraid of getting shot in your own neighborhood.

And having more guns ISNT a solution to a really complex problem.

Owning a gun or two in a residential area, doesn't mean I'm afraid of my neighbors. It's quite the opposite really. I own guns because I like to shoot guns, not everyone has to own a gun, but in a case where it's like we talked earlier in the Anarchist thread in the Learning section, it's to defend from Totalitarianism, Oligarchies, Fascism, and others who would do harm to the society. I'm pretty sure in a society that's armed, but also has the understanding that working together rather than robbing each other for personal gain, is quite the opposite of Anarchism it's Fascism. Also, you seem to be going under the pretext, that in such a society where people are armed, they don't use Common Sense, which in the other thread I addressed too. Which is, to be an Anarchist, you have to live and breath by Common Sense. That's what mostly what Anarchism is! Common Sense! If you don't have Common Sense, and don't know that hurting your fellow working neighbor not only hurts them, but you as well, you're not at all able to call yourself an Anarchist or Socialist, or whatever you call yourself.

People have to use Common Sense, and with an armed populous for civil defense, Common Sense would obviously be rampant.

[Red Commissar]

The problem is not so much gun control with me as it is the form of gun culture prevalent in much of the United States. Those who posit that crime can be reduced by either restricting access to guns or making it more available oversimplify a complex problem.

From a revolutionary standpoint, obviously access to weaponry will be important. We must however be vigilant and be aware that the forces of reaction can also utilize the masses in their own way. I would say in the United States that the whole mass of reactionary militia types is evidence of this.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

While I don't like violence, the sad truth is there have been many times in history where very complex arguments have been won by the side with the most guns...

And that has not always borne fruit in a fair and good society.

[FreeFocus]

I support universal training and ownership, unless individuals choose to turn down their opportunity to train with guns (which is silly) or own them (there could be ethical objections people could raise, which is fine for them).

Gun control is bullshit.

[chegitz guevara]

For communists, gun control means a steady aim.

[The Douche]

One thing I think is important to understand is the political realities of gun control/gun ownership.

In the US gun ownership is largely tied in with personal freedom. It certainly is in my mind (because of the culture I have grown up in) most working people I know associate gun ownership with the ability to defend yourself and your family, and it is seen as a deterent to tyranny.

Though firearms haven't be used in a very long time here to combat tyranny, the association still exists. And so, if personal firearms ownership exists to protect us from tyranny, logically the only people who want to do away with firearms ownership are tyrants.

Communists in the US are often accused of being anti-gun. That is why so many US revolutionaries are so firmly arguing against it, its political ground we have to make up, and in my public presentations on communism its a question that gets asked every time.

[Blackscare]

All for gun ownership.

I'll be buying a handgun of some sort, and an SKS, later this year.

Handgun for more practical purposes, self defense, looking awesome, etc.

I'll keep the SKS around in case there ever is a revolution or something. Need something like a carbine with moderate range and decent stopping power to be useful in some sort of warfare. Also because shooting shit for fun with that would be sooo fun. Like vagrants.

[The Douche]

All for gun ownership.

I'll be buying a handgun of some sort, and an SKS, later this year.

Handgun for more practical purposes, self defense, looking awesome, etc.

I'll keep the SKS around in case there ever is a revolution or something. Need something like a carbine with moderate range and decent stopping power to be useful in some sort of warfare. Also because shooting shit for fun with that would be sooo fun. Like vagrants.

I dunno what you consider "moderate range" but the 7.62x39 caliber isn't very useful/accurate past 300 meters. That said, most engagements occur in or around 100 meters, at least, in urban environments.

Also, SKS's aren't really "carbines" they're pretty long, unless you get one of the 16 inch chinese paratrooper models. Just do yourself a favor, don't "trick it out" with all kinds of doodads, SKS's aren't really made for that.

[Blackscare]

I dunno what you consider "moderate range" but the 7.62x39 caliber isn't very useful/accurate past 300 meters. That said, most engagements occur in or around 100 meters, at least, in urban environments.

Also, SKS's aren't really "carbines" they're pretty long, unless you get one of the 16 inch chinese paratrooper models. Just do yourself a favor, don't "trick it out" with all kinds of doodads, SKS's aren't really made for that.
Bolded part is pretty much what I was getting at. Also, I was in fact looking at the smaller chinese models. And I wasn't going to trick it out at all.


Any ideas for other surplus rifles then? I'm open to suggestion, I was just thinking of an SKS because they have a pretty good value-to-quality ratio on the market, it seems.

[Magón]

I dunno what you consider "moderate range" but the 7.62x39 caliber isn't very useful/accurate past 300 meters. That said, most engagements occur in or around 100 meters, at least, in urban environments.

Also, SKS's aren't really "carbines" they're pretty long, unless you get one of the 16 inch chinese paratrooper models. Just do yourself a favor, don't "trick it out" with all kinds of doodads, SKS's aren't really made for that.

Just wanted to point out, that SKS's are considered Carbines by US Law and by the general collection of people who shoot them around the world. Any site you look the SKS up on, it will say Carbine, rather than Rifle. And I agree, "tricking it out" or "Sporterizing" any gun for that matter ruins it.

Also, for more open environments, that's why you get yourself a rifle with the 7.62x54R round. (Preferably a 91/30 Mosin-Nagant. They shoot up to 2000m! Of course, nobody but a sniper is going to be shooting that far.) But the x39 round is okay.

[The Douche]

Any ideas for other surplus rifles then? I'm open to suggestion, I was just thinking of an SKS because they have a pretty good value-to-quality ratio on the market, it seems.

If you were looking at the paras then you were probably looking to spend around 250 or 300 I think, I haven't looked at them in while. For another 100 or 150 you can get an AK. And if you ever forsee the need to use it as a fighting rifle, I would much rather have an AK. But, as somebody who has an AK, and used to have an AR15, and who has been shot at by AKs and carried and AR in combat envionments, I would reccomend buying an AR, its worth saving up the extra few months or so, imo.


Just wanted to point out, that SKS's are considered Carbines by US Law and by the general collection of people who shoot them around the world. Any site you look the SKS up on, it will say Carbine, rather than Rifle.

Yeah, but they are quite large and unweildy, I have a yugo.


Also, for more open environments, that's why you get yourself a rifle with the 7.62x54R round. (Preferably a 91/30 Mosin-Nagant. They shoot up to 2000m! Of course, nobody but a sniper is going to be shooting that far.)

The round is effective at that range, but I would hardly reccomend that to anybody as a "sniper" weapon. Mosin Nagants are very hit or miss, some of my friends have had very accurate ones, others have certainly not be anymore than "capable". Also, most available 7.62x54 is machine gun ammo, and is not a very accurate load.

If you can get a good shooting mosin, and you want to pay to mount a modern scope on it, and pay out the ass for good 54 ammo, then it can be a decent platform. But you've wasted your money when you could just buy a rem 700 in 308.

[Konstantine]

Gun control is a fairly ridiculous notion. For one thing, what have we to defend ourselves against criminals? They already get guns illegally in the first place.

Secondly, if you look at crime rates in areas where people own guns, you'll be surprised. In Switzerland, for example, military service is a requirement for all able-bodied males over 18. They go through rigorous training, and are sent home afterwards, taking annual refresher courses. They are also given a military-grade firearm, uniform, and ammunition to take home so they can always be ready to defend their country. Guess what crime rates are in Switzerland? Almost non-existant.

Thirdly, if we have no guns, we lack any means of defense against corrupt officials or the government. Armed revolution is the only truly successful form of revolt, and if we have no guns, we can much more easily be put down and controlled by our oppressors.

[The Douche]

Crime is low in Switzerland because of the massive welfare state, not because of gun ownership. You remove crime by removing the social motivation for it.

[Konstantine]

Crime is low in Switzerland because of the massive welfare state, not because of gun ownership. You remove crime by removing the social motivation for it.

Think of it this way. Even in socialist economies, people still want more. It's human nature. Now, let's do a hypothetical situation. You want to rob a house, and you have two choices: the one on the right, one on the left. The one on the right has no guns in it, the one on the left has a military-grade assault rifle in it and a trained soldier owns it. Which do you choose?

Remember, this is a completely hypothetical situation. I'd never steal, I'm sure you wouldn't either, but just follow along.

[The Douche]

Even in socialist economies, people still want more.

Proof? Want more? More what? More than they need? More than is reasonable? For what reason do they want it?


It's human nature.

Does not exist. You have just presented the most basic, backwards, and assinine right wing anti-communist arguement.

The rest of your post is absolutely moronic. There are two positions which we have to discuss as communists looking at gun control. There is gun control in a capitalist society (we should oppose that because it is an invasion of privacy and natural rights, and because in capitalist society it is sometimes necessary to defend yourself from criminals). Then there is gun control in post-revolutionary society (which we should oppose because again, it is an invasion of privacy and natural rights).

Some individuals, infected with liberal delusions, think that the masses cannot be trusted with guns, and they should be banned.


Guns will not solve the issue of crime, if you think that then you are probably not a communist.

[Konstantine]

Proof? Want more? More what? More than they need? More than is reasonable? For what reason do they want it?



Does not exist. You have just presented the most basic, backwards, and assinine right wing anti-communist arguement.

The rest of your post is absolutely moronic. There are two positions which we have to discuss as communists looking at gun control. There is gun control in a capitalist society (we should oppose that because it is an invasion of privacy and natural rights, and because in capitalist society it is sometimes necessary to defend yourself from criminals). Then there is gun control in post-revolutionary society (which we should oppose because again, it is an invasion of privacy and natural rights).

Some individuals, infected with liberal delusions, think that the masses cannot be trusted with guns, and they should be banned.


Guns will not solve the issue of crime, if you think that then you are probably not a communist.

I'm an avid Communist, so don't even go there with that nonsense.

As for your last statement, no, I don't believe guns lessen crime, but they are a damn good support to crime-lessening efforts.

[The Douche]

I'm an avid Communist, so don't even go there with that nonsense.

As for your last statement, no, I don't believe guns lessen crime, but they are a damn good support to crime-lessening efforts.

Dude, if you think "greed is human nature", then you're not a communist.

Guns don't really lessen crime per se, they just make it easier for innocent people to defend themselves from crime.


The point of this is that we as communists should not use crime as the justification for firearms ownership, it should be defended on principle because we fight for emancipation. Logically, as communists we advocate working class control of every facet of life, if you don't trust workers to own a rifle how can you trust them to facilitate the production of food?

[Konstantine]

Dude, if you think "greed is human nature", then you're not a communist.

Then what's it caused by?


Guns don't really lessen crime per se, they just make it easier for innocent people to defend themselves from crime.

Good point, but that's my point. For self-defense, people need guns.



The point of this is that we as communists should not use crime as the justification for firearms ownership, it should be defended on principle because we fight for emancipation. Logically, as communists we advocate working class control of every facet of life, if you don't trust workers to own a rifle how can you trust them to facilitate the production of food?

Agreed.

[The Douche]

Then what's it caused by?

Economic systems which are based on limited resources?


Good point, but that's my point. For self-defense, people need guns.

You said guns lessen crime rates. Its true, but in such a small way its really not worth argueing that point.

[Konstantine]

You said guns lessen crime rates. Its true, but in such a small way its really not worth argueing that point.

Once again, the two houses. Which would you rob if you have to, the one with a gun or the one without a gun?

[The Douche]

Once again, the two houses. Which would you rob if you have to, the one with a gun or the one without a gun?

I would probably wait until neither house was occupied and then rob the house with a gun, cause then, hey! Free gun...

Besides that, if I knew the odds of me encountering an armed person in my robbings were high, I would obviously acquire my own gun. If I am driven to robbery nothing is going to stop me from doing it. The vast majority of people rob because of the social conditions (capitalism) not cause its easy (its not) or cause they're shit heads. (though some are, but those people have personality disorders)

[#FF0000]

Once again, the two houses. Which would you rob if you have to, the one with a gun or the one without a gun?

What does this have to do with anything? Studies show that guns don't reduce crime rates as much as one would think, so why would you continue to believe otherwise?


It's human nature

No such thing.