What's so bad about Guns?

[Soseloshvili]

You know, we leftists have been almost vindictive on the issue of firearms. Why? I mean I understand Socialist opposition to the 2nd amendment, that's in support of private ownership of guns, but what exactly do we have against guns in general?

As someone who grew up in the country I can tell you that a gun has 2 uses to the working person, 1) As a tool 2) as sports equipment. Here in Canada it is impossible to shoot an automatic weapon, and you have to go through 30 different procedures to shoot a pistol. Why?

Now a lot of you are going to want to eviscerate me for saying this, but hear me out. A hunting rifle or shotgun (that doesn't mean .50 snipers or magazine-fed 12 gauges, I'm talking bolt-actions and double barrels) is a tool. I'm for gun registry and licensing for these guns, so that hunters and farmers have what they need because let's face it, hunting plays an important part in conservation so long as it's regulated and farmers do need guns for the elimination of pests and putting down animals (in situations where it would not live anyway, it happens fairly frequently). These guns pose no threat to our security, so who cares?

But what about things like handguns and automatics? Here in Canada you can't even touch one and it's no fun, but down in the states they're everywhere and causing hell. So why not mix guns and Socialism? I mean shooting is a sport, it's an enjoyable activity that has been enjoyed by enthusiasts for centuries. I say we should nationalize all shooting ranges, place them under heavy supervision and give these places all these exotic guns to rent out for use at the shooting range. It's really a great compromise. Most shooting enthusiasts are working class, I can tell you that as someone who lives next to a shooting range. So shooting is really a working class sport, one with which there should be no problem but for some reason we get all ornery on the subject of firearms. What's wrong with enjoying shooting a target with a really cool gun, anyway?

Please please PLEASE do not think this is support for Conservative gun activism. This is my attempt to say that guns and Socialism can mix, and that we really shouldn't be so quick to jump on the anti-gun bandwagon because it drives the working class to Conservative views. Just hear me out. This has been bothering me, and I think it needs to be said.

[Broletariat]

I don't think anyone here really opposes the ownership of guns and stuff as long as you're not like, y'know killing innocent people.

[scarletghoul]

Most proper socialists would support people having guns. After all, where does political power come from ? The people should have that power, so the people should have guns.

"Any unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment." - Huey P Newton

[Garret]

What kind of revolution would it be without a shot being fired back?

[Nolan]

I can only think of one person on this site that opposes gun ownership in general. You're making an unfair generalization.

[revolution inaction]

your clearly new hear, if there anything that revleft agrees on its arming the workers

[scarletghoul]

The OP is probably confusing the socialist Left for the liberal 'left', who generally do oppose the right to bear arms.. this is what separates socialists from liberals; we do not fear radical empowerment of the working classes.

[F9]

Its not the gun, the item per se, but its usage, and the fact that lots and lots of people were killed by those things.Guns have been symbol for imperialism also for some people, some people are just against any kind of violence, and dont want killings etc etc.

Having that in mind, i dont have problem with the item, i found it interesting as a sport a hobby, im not fan of hunting though, i dont own one either(i dont think they would allow me anw) but everything comes to the same conclusion.If butter was used to kill millions a lot other would have problem with butter.Its not the item, its is usage.

Ohh and as others said, you wont find this in here, though i have to say that i have faced this irl.

[Soseloshvili]

I'm not talking about left liberals, I'm talking about Socialists. Arming the workers is different than what I'm describing, Socialists in my experience hate guns because they affiliate it with the Second Amendment and Conservatism, which is private ownership of guns. My point is that guns can be Socialized. That's all. I often find people from the city taking a different opinion.

Arming the workers is only for times of revolution, I'm talking about "peacetime", for lack of a better word, gun use.

[bailey_187]

I like guns.

[Obs]

I like guns, too. The only thing I like better than shooting is shooting up. :p

[Klaatu]

It's not so much the gun, in and of itself. The real problem lies with insane people with guns, most of whom are conservatives. ;)

[anticap]

I for one would like to see revolutionary leftist militias spring up all over the US.

[Dr Mindbender]

The problem i see with guns, especially when you live in a country with such liberal gun laws as America is that it enforces the rule of property. As long as rich people (ie. landlords) can legally own expensive armalites, shotguns and rifles it gives them a legal pretext to shoot first and ask questions later.

The way in which the right wing (specifically the BNP) clambered to arms to speak up for Tony Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29) here in the UK should speak volumes.


I for one would like to see revolutionary leftist militias spring up all over the US.

The problem is the bourgeoisie can always afford more (and better) guns than you.

If ever there was an armed militant leftist insurgency in the US i rather suspect there would also be an upsurge of opposing militant reactionary groups, not unlike Colombia and arguably like here in Northern Ireland.

[Nolan]

The problem i see with guns, especially when you live in a country with such liberal gun laws as America is that it enforces the rule of property. As long as rich people (ie. landlords) can legally own expensive armalites, shotguns and rifles it gives them a legal pretext to shoot first and ask questions later.

That makes no sense. Workers could pool resources and buy anything a landlord could. Are you arguing that the rule of property is more enforced in the US than it is in Russia or China? And that it's because of guns as personal property? :lol:


The way in which the right wing (specifically the BNP) clambered to arms to speak up for Tony Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29) here in the UK should speak volumes.

Not really.



The problem is the bourgeoisie can always afford more (and better) guns than you.

Yes, the bourgeois state has the military, this is not news.


If ever there was an armed militant leftist insurgency in the US i rather suspect there would also be an upsurge of opposing militant reactionary groups, not unlike Colombia and arguably like here in Northern Ireland.

Yes, like anywhere else on the planet.

[anticap]

The problem is the bourgeoisie can always afford more (and better) guns than you.

Nobody believes that any brand of militia is going to overthrow the world's most powerful state. But that's not the point. The point is to be seen. It's essentially the same logic claimed by those who support voting for socialists even though there's not a chance of winning even 1% of the vote.


If ever there was an armed militant leftist insurgency in the US i rather suspect there would also be an upsurge of opposing militant reactionary groups, not unlike Colombia and arguably like here in Northern Ireland.

There already are reactionary militias in the US. Lots of them, armed to the teeth. And if the emergence of leftist counterparts led to even more, then so what? Should we not make our presence felt as strongly as we can? The Left should never kowtow to the Right.

[Nolan]

I like guns, too. The only thing I like better than shooting is shooting up. :p

You've never fired a weapon, have you.

[Adi Shankara]

I agree with guns 100%, but I disagree with the 2nd Amendment of the United States, because the 2nd Amendment was originally designed to enforce property rights (aka, usurpation of property being "the tyranny of government"), whereas I think gun ownership is best for defending proletariat and working class interests. of course, that's not to say that the 2nd Amendment and the working class' handling of guns can't work congruently, but I just don't feel comfortable with the idea behind the 2nd Amendment.

P.S: only liberals and hippies really oppose guns. Real leftists have no monolithic opinion on it, we're not that predictable :D

[Nolan]

I agree with guns 100%, but I disagree with the 2nd Amendment of the United States, because the 2nd Amendment was originally designed to enforce property rights (aka, usurpation of property being "the tyranny of government"), whereas I think gun ownership is best for defending proletariat and working class interests. of course, that's not to say that the 2nd Amendment and the working class' handling of guns can't work congruently, but I just don't feel comfortable with the idea behind the 2nd Amendment.

P.S: only liberals and hippies really oppose guns. Real leftists have no monolithic opinion on it, we're not that predictable :D

This is the thing, though. Gun ownership is not about the 2nd Amendment.

[Nolan]

I saw a source on RevLeft about the Second Amendment and it's initial ties to the institution of slavery. Does anyone have that?

[Obs]

You've never fired a weapon, have you.
Not once. :(

[F9]

I'm not talking about left liberals, I'm talking about Socialists. Arming the workers is different than what I'm describing, Socialists in my experience hate guns because they affiliate it with the Second Amendment and Conservatism, which is private ownership of guns. My point is that guns can be Socialized. That's all. I often find people from the city taking a different opinion.

Arming the workers is only for times of revolution, I'm talking about "peacetime", for lack of a better word, gun use.

Of course, why not wouldnt guns exist in "peacetime"?(maybe in peace time you are talking about communism, and thats what i am using it too)
They will be used for hunting, but mostly as a sport, or as part of collections.But if we destroy its bad use(killing each other) there why wouldnt they exist?It will be the same as the basket ball, it can kill someone if you hit his/her head many times with it, but its not something thats going to stop exist in "peacetime".

[Vanguard1917]

Gun restrictions on the civilian population should be abolished, and the bearing of arms by the capitalist state should be exposed for what it really means.

Liberals oppose the Second Amendment for pretty much the same reason that they're often uncomfortable with the First Amendment -- the American masses can't be trusted with either the freedom of arms or with the genuine freedom of ideas.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I'm not talking about left liberals, I'm talking about Socialists. Arming the workers is different than what I'm describing, Socialists in my experience hate guns because they affiliate it with the Second Amendment and Conservatism, which is private ownership of guns. My point is that guns can be Socialized. That's all. I often find people from the city taking a different opinion.

Arming the workers is only for times of revolution, I'm talking about "peacetime", for lack of a better word, gun use.
i basically started the same thread when i joined.


yes guns can be collectivized. a community armory of sorts.

and also, i do enjoy firearms and i would like to one one or two some day.


im guessing the socialists you are talking to are social democrats. they arent revolutionary.

any revolutionary socialist would support the use of firearms.

[Kyrite]

Legalizing gun ownership in places like Britain would do little good. Since there is no revolutionary movement it would only serve to increase homicide rates and violent crime.

[Animal Farm Pig]

I no longer own any guns, but I used to have a small arsenal. The only problem I have with guns is the cost. It's worse in liberal parts of the USA with restrictions on gun ownership.

I was actually considering buying a pistol about a year ago. There had been a lot of violent crime around the warehouse where I worked-- to the point that we all worried about our safety. I was looking at getting perhaps a Bersa Thunder .380 or a CZ-82 in 9x18. Cost for the weapon itself would be a bit over $200; however, all of the various California fees and requirements would automatically add another ~$150 of cost on top of it. Add the cost of a holster, ammo, and range time. I quickly realized that a basic weapon for self-defense would cost me nearly two weeks wages. Too damn expensive.

Part of that is California being stupid. Part of that is changes in firearms costs.

For some perspective, my first pistol (a CZ-52 [awesome gun]) cost me $150 in 2002. It was a private party sale in Texas. I gave the guy the money, he gave me the gun. No fees, no paperwork, no waiting period, no bullshit. A Romanian AKM in 5.45x39 with a few magazines cost me less than $300. No way to get an AK for that price today, and it wouldn't even be allowed in California.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

gun control is worker control

Saturday Night Specials are the best example of this. Made illegal simply because they were affordable.

[#FF0000]

Yeah I really don't know of many socialists who oppose gun ownership.

[Salyut]

Please please PLEASE do not think this is support for Conservative gun activism.

Conservative gun activism shoots itself in the foot. Don't believe me? Join a Canadian gun forum and well... Lemme just say that saying you support CCW in Canada is fine and dandy, but freaking out about the Pink Pistols and women owning guns is another.
* Couple this with the urban/rural divide and I expect a total ban on anything that doesn't fit within a strict definition of a hunting weapon in Canada within 10-15 years to be brutally honest.

*One of those mens rights reactionary dipshits. He was arguing that women with CCW would shoot men out of hand and claim rape. Not. Joking.

[TwoSevensClash]

Whats so bad about guns is the give power to the workers which makes them harder to control. Also another thing bad about guns is that I only have three:(

[crazyirish93]

the only reason guns are so tightly controlled is to control us if we all had guns it would not be hard to start something but the populace has been convinced that guns are bad and so they would be safer if only the guards and the army have em which is completely wrong but the governments are safe as long as we cant get/ build our own:mad:

[Stand Your Ground]

I for one would like to see revolutionary leftist militias spring up all over the US.
Same here. People should also be practicing stealth methods. The amount of opposition we could face could be far greater than our numbers, so stealth would be a great advantage.

[Raúl Duke]

Whats so bad about guns is the give power to the workers which makes them harder to control.

Umm...that's the whole point.
Why would workers need to be controlled? By whom?

[Die Rote Fahne]

I support gun ownership. And the working class being armed.

I do not support the second amendment or the capitalist constitution of the US.

[28350]

People who protest guns protest them because they kill people.
But there's already killing regardless.
Swiss bankers kill without guns.

[Who?]

Gun control?

As much as I would like to see a peaceful transition to socialism I don't think it's going to happen. We need an armed working class to lead an armed revolution. When the police and the army are the only ones with guns you know you're in trouble.

[∞]

I pack heat...http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpBKtUI-NJmyAVmJXZdzuVsPTw50Ed5KPWoMeGE32knWjZUpI&t=1&usg=__Kz4owIBDKCjAa7I2l-SguwOVGLg=

[Soseloshvili]

Of course, why not wouldnt guns exist in "peacetime"?(maybe in peace time you are talking about communism, and thats what i am using it too)
They will be used for hunting, but mostly as a sport, or as part of collections.But if we destroy its bad use(killing each other) there why wouldnt they exist?It will be the same as the basket ball, it can kill someone if you hit his/her head many times with it, but its not something thats going to stop exist in "peacetime".


i basically started the same thread when i joined.


yes guns can be collectivized. a community armory of sorts.

and also, i do enjoy firearms and i would like to one one or two some day.


im guessing the socialists you are talking to are social democrats. they arent revolutionary.

any revolutionary socialist would support the use of firearms.

People seem to be under the impression that gun use hasn't been banned under Socialism before... that in any Socialist state, this wouldn't happen. It kind of has, in every single one.

Take Cuba, Fidel Castro is famously quoted as saying " ¿armas para qu é?" (guns, for what?) because after the revolution he requisitioned all guns of any sort, even those used by peasants. This isn't to say anything against Cuba, it's just that Socialists have notoriously taken away guns from everyone once they get in power, even long after the revolution. It may be paranoia that there will be counter-revolution, it may just be that they believed under Socialism there was no need for guns. I don't know. The point is that this is what has been happening, contrary to what everyone on this thread has said.

By the way, I do own a gun (several actually), a .22 repeater and a black powder gun (what most of you would call a musket, it's actually used for hunting because there's less regulations on it than other guns). But I've fired just about everything else including pistols and machine guns, I rent most guns I've fired from a shooting range near my house.

[anticap]

I pack heat...http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpBKtUI-NJmyAVmJXZdzuVsPTw50Ed5KPWoMeGE32knWjZUpI&t=1&usg=__Kz4owIBDKCjAa7I2l-SguwOVGLg=

You actually pack that? ;)


Socialists have notoriously taken away guns from everyone once they get in power

Then where's the socialism? If the working class collectively and democratically decides to disarm, that's one thing. Being disarmed by decree from above is another. Only one of these is consistent with socialism.

[Nolan]

People seem to be under the impression that gun use hasn't been banned under Socialism before... that in any Socialist state, this wouldn't happen. It kind of has, in every single one.

Take Cuba, Fidel Castro is famously quoted as saying " ¿armas para qu é?" (guns, for what?) because after the revolution he requisitioned all guns of any sort, even those used by peasants. This isn't to say anything against Cuba, it's just that Socialists have notoriously taken away guns from everyone once they get in power, even long after the revolution. It may be paranoia that there will be counter-revolution, it may just be that they believed under Socialism there was no need for guns. I don't know. The point is that this is what has been happening, contrary to what everyone on this thread has said.

By the way, I do own a gun (several actually), a .22 repeater and a black powder gun (what most of you would call a musket, it's actually used for hunting because there's less regulations on it than other guns). But I've fired just about everything else including pistols and machine guns, I rent most guns I've fired from a shooting range near my house.

Well obviously none of us are Fidel Castro. You can ask him. :lol:

Anyways it's not like you think:


In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, Cuba ranks at No. 76

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cuba


We're arguing that it need not happen - and very rarely will you find a revolutionary socialist in favor of gun control.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Everyone should be encouraged to learn how to use a rifle safely and effectively. Widely available firearms plus a trained population equals misery for any invading/occupying army.

[CleverTitle]

I'm a fan of guns. I'm not a fan of their correlation with right wing crazies.

[Nolan]

Everyone should be encouraged to learn how to use a rifle safely and effectively. Widely available firearms plus a trained population equals misery for any invading/occupying army.

Heh. I hear this line a lot, but honestly it's a terrible argument most of the time.

There's a difference between plinking cans and combat.

It would be effective when paired with squad tactics and the like.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Heh. I hear this line a lot, but honestly it's a terrible argument most of the time.

There's a difference between plinking cans and combat.

It would be effective when paired with squad tactics and the like.

Until very reasently many countrys had military service and recruite training that evry (often just male) adult citizen had to go trough.
I think evry leftist, if they get the oppurtunity, should do such a thing since you will learn so much, not just about guns, but to use them in various situations, build team work, diciplin and organisation skills that would be useful not just in a revolution, but in more dayly activitise such as planing and organizing a protest, to help unionizing.

[∞]

You actually pack that? ;)


RedHawk...9 rounds of hell

[Obs]

RedHawk...9 rounds of hell
You should be ashamed. Scopes don't belong on anything but rifles. On everything else, they look bad, they're useless, and they fuck around with the weight of the gun.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Heh. I hear this line a lot, but honestly it's a terrible argument most of the time.

There's a difference between plinking cans and combat.

It would be effective when paired with squad tactics and the like.

I think anyone who's at least reasonably fit and likes shooting guns might like to give that sort of thing a go as well. It's also a good idea to have firearms safety and handling be common knowledge if you're going to have the things around.

[Ravachol]

The problem i see with guns, especially when you live in a country with such liberal gun laws as America is that it enforces the rule of property.


The rule of property is already protected by just about the best firepower available: the state



The problem is the bourgeoisie can always afford more (and better) guns than you.


This is no argument in favor of gun-abstinence. The nature of class society will always ensure that Capital will be protected by force for that is it's very nature: violence. Capital is de-facto (and almost always de-jure as well) violence and legalist nonsense isn't gonna change that.

[∞]

You should be ashamed. Scopes don't belong on anything but rifles. On everything else, they look bad, they're useless, and they fuck around with the weight of the gun.

I was toying around with the scope I saw on it...it is useless to me :P

[Rusty Shackleford]

I believe cuba has weapons familiarization and defense training for all citizens in highschool.

11 million people, and of them, all who have been through highschool (so i can imagine somewhere around 9-10 million, younger people are left out) are all capable of using a kalashnikov, which if you know one type of kalashnikov, you basically know them all.

a pretty good reason for imperialists to not to try to invade cuba :D

[Nolan]

A source would be nice.

[Das war einmal]

I don't like guns because they are intended only to kill or hurt others, but I see the point of having the ability to defend yourself.

[Nolan]

I don't like guns because they are intended only to kill or hurt others, but I see the point of having the ability to defend yourself.

No they're not.

[Klaatu]

Liberals oppose the Second Amendment for pretty much the same reason that they're often uncomfortable with the First Amendment -- the American masses can't be trusted with either the freedom of arms or with the genuine freedom of ideas.

I've heard that liberals oppose the 2nd amendment, but the 1st? I've always heard that they embrace and protect the 1st. :confused:

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I like guns, but until I fully move out from my parents (I'm in college right now) I can't have a gun in the house because my dad doesn't trust there being any guns near my mom.... :D

[anticap]

No they're not.

I don't want to derail the thread, but before someone claims that guns and other technologies are neutral, I want to say "bullshit." Technologies are created for a purpose, and that makes them non-neutral. It would be absurd to claim neutrality on the grounds that a technology has no intentions of its own, because (1) nobody would claim that is does, and (2) if a technology is not volitional, then it can't stake out a neutral position for itself.

What people mean when they say "technology is neutral" is either (1) that it was created with neutral intentions, or (2) that it can be used for either good or bad. The first claim is ridiculous, for the most part. The second claim is beside the point: the fact that I can kill someone with a car doesn't balance out its intended purpose and thereby render it a neutral technology.

(I'm not necessarily agreeing with Redklok that guns are intended only to kill or hurt others.)

[Nolan]

Guns are made for a variety of reasons. Only certain types are made only to kill people - but even those have peaceful applications. For instance the AR-15 (gun newbies as a rule like to call it the "m16") is a great plinking gun, and can even be used as a varmint rifle.

[Nolan]

Watch out Big Government!

http://sumodawg.com/AR15-2.jpg


We are teh TEA PARTAY

[Soseloshvili]

Believe me, I understand. For it to be Socialism there has to be collective ownership of guns. I'm just saying that in every established Socialist state this stopped immediately after revolution / civil war and never returned.

But since everyone seems to be agreeing with me that collectivization of guns is Socialism, I'm kind of confused. Oh well. C'est la vie.

[Nolan]

Believe me, I understand. For it to be Socialism there has to be collective ownership of guns. I'm just saying that in every established Socialist state this stopped immediately after revolution / civil war and never returned.

But since everyone seems to be agreeing with me that collectivization of guns is Socialism, I'm kind of confused. Oh well. C'est la vie.

Collective ownership? We're talking about guns, not the means of production.

[Das war einmal]

I don't want to derail the thread, but before someone claims that guns and other technologies are neutral, I want to say "bullshit." Technologies are created for a purpose, and that makes them non-neutral. It would be absurd to claim neutrality on the grounds that a technology has no intentions of its own, because (1) nobody would claim that is does, and (2) if a technology is not volitional, then it can't stake out a neutral position for itself.

What people mean when they say "technology is neutral" is either (1) that it was created with neutral intentions, or (2) that it can be used for either good or bad. The first claim is ridiculous, for the most part. The second claim is beside the point: the fact that I can kill someone with a car doesn't balance out its intended purpose and thereby render it a neutral technology.

(I'm not necessarily agreeing with Redklok that guns are intended only to kill or hurt others.)

Sure, guns are also used for sports or hunting or perhaps just for the show of it, but it's crafted with a sole purpose. The feudal states of Europe where the first to use guns, for imperialist goals. Thanks to the gun, the Europeans have enslaved billions and destroyed entire civilizations.

I'm just saying it is an ugly thing, there are better inventions for the human race which have provided us with so much more.

[COMPLEXproductions]

i believe in an armed populace in general. No one is going to rob a grocery store if the people inside all have guns. Plus, they will know how to use them because at the age of 17-18 people will be required to do military training followed by two-three years of mandatory state labor(the things that are essential for a society and not commodity jobs; janitor, garbage men, etc.). Aside from an armed populace, to rid the need for police, there should be a schedule for civilian patrol units; since everyone is trained in military operations anyway. There will be three levels of civilian patrol. The fist will be the immediate patrol squads. If something that requires more men arises, there will be an emergency list of civilians on schedule. If anything bigger comes, the sirens go off.

[Pavlov's House Party]

i believe in an armed populace in general. No one is going to rob a grocery store if the people inside all have guns. Plus, they will know how to use them because at the age of 17-18 people will be required to do military training followed by two-three years of mandatory state labor(the things that are essential for a society and not commodity jobs; janitor, garbage men, etc.). Aside from an armed populace, to rid the need for police, there should be a schedule for civilian patrol units; since everyone is trained in military operations anyway. There will be three levels of civilian patrol. The fist will be the immediate patrol squads. If something that requires more men arises, there will be an emergency list of civilians on schedule. If anything bigger comes, the sirens go off.

I'm pretty sure after the revolution the working class will figure organizational crap out itself. Anything like this is basically pointless leftist fap material.

Also I took my firearms safety course last week, but Canadians don't get any cool guns like you yanks:(

[thriller]

There are a few socialists/anarchists that hate guns, but I do believe it's mainly because they want to hate whatever the right-wing capitalists like. I like guns, I think they are important for the working class, but one MUST be educated.


The problem is the bourgeoisie can always afford more (and better) guns than you.


That's true but it don't mean shit. Look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, even the U.S. The biggest, baddest empire in the world (UK for those who don't know) got smashed by farm boys with lesser weaponry (I know that's a big generalization, but I hope you get my point). We must remember that no matter how big the stick, we can still rise up. Their hatred for our equality will NEVER be stronger than our love for the people.

[COMPLEXproductions]

I'm pretty sure after the revolution the working class will figure organizational crap out itself. Anything like this is basically pointless leftist fap material.

Also I took my firearms safety course last week, but Canadians don't get any cool guns like you yanks:(

Of course it won't be exactly like this or anything. We'll only know when the time comes, but don't tell me you've never toyed with the hypothetical. Just giving a quick example of how an armed populace could be implemented effectively.


Also, I know we have guns haha :D

[Red Hornet]

I'm pretty sure after the revolution the working class will figure organizational crap out itself. Anything like this is basically pointless leftist fap material.

Also I took my firearms safety course last week, but Canadians don't get any cool guns like you yanks:(


Actually, Canadians can get brand new guns imported from China.. Americans can't (except for certain shotguns that were exempt from the import ban, I've seen Norinco copies of a Remington 870) I'm actually jealous of Canadas gun laws in SOME ways because I'd love to get a brand new Norinco M1A or SKS (even if I could only use 5-round magazines)

You can still get semi-automatic "black rifles" even in non-restricted configuration, check out the CZ-858-2. But you are right, Americans can get semi-auto AK-variants while they are prohibited in Canada.

[Klaatu]

i believe in an armed populace in general. No one is going to rob a grocery store if the people inside all have guns. Plus, they will know how to use them because at the age of 17-18 people will be required to do military training followed by two-three years of mandatory state labor(the things that are essential for a society and not commodity jobs; janitor, garbage men, etc.). Aside from an armed populace, to rid the need for police, there should be a schedule for civilian patrol units; since everyone is trained in military operations anyway. There will be three levels of civilian patrol. The fist will be the immediate patrol squads. If something that requires more men arises, there will be an emergency list of civilians on schedule. If anything bigger comes, the sirens go off.

You are right, but then that is assuming that everyone is sane. And as we know, this is absolutely not true. There is an abundance of jackass kooks out there, and they are all riled up by Fox News, and Republican hate-mongers. Deport all USA conservatives, and I can agree with an armed populace of level-headed left-wing folks.

[Adi Shankara]

Sure, guns are also used for sports or hunting or perhaps just for the show of it, but it's crafted with a sole purpose. The feudal states of Europe where the first to use guns, for imperialist goals. Thanks to the gun, the Europeans have enslaved billions and destroyed entire civilizations.

I'm just saying it is an ugly thing, there are better inventions for the human race which have provided us with so much more.

Should we ban fire then? Fire has been used for centuries to burn villages, raze crops, and has ended and killed millions in certain instances in certain cities (Great London Fire, Fall of Constantinople).

However, we also know fire is used for cooking, for heating homes, and for combustion to run engines.

[COMPLEXproductions]

You are right, but then that is assuming that everyone is sane. And as we know, this is absolutely not true. There is an abundance of jackass kooks out there, and they are all riled up by Fox News, and Republican hate-mongers. Deport all USA conservatives, and I can agree with an armed populace of level-headed left-wing folks.

There will always be crazy people, there are crazy people always and nothing humanity can come up with as far as societal structure will be perfect. Jackasses are inevitable. But if someone tries to bring a gun to school, what could have turned into a tragedy could be put to a close more rapidly with trained civilians/students.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Actually, Canadians can get brand new guns imported from China.. Americans can't (except for certain shotguns that were exempt from the import ban, I've seen Norinco copies of a Remington 870) I'm actually jealous of Canadas gun laws in SOME ways because I'd love to get a brand new Norinco M1A or SKS (even if I could only use 5-round magazines)

You can still get semi-automatic "black rifles" even in non-restricted configuration, check out the CZ-858-2. But you are right, Americans can get semi-auto AK-variants while they are prohibited in Canada.

Yeah but all semi-auto firearms (shotguns & rifles) are restricted to having 5 round magazines. If you get for example a Chinese made SKS with full clips you have to get it modified to hold 5 rounds at your own expense.

Also most firearms clubs prohibit military grade weapons on their ranges and don't sell the ammunition, so if you don't buy from China or online you end up with crappy sporterized guns that don't pack enough punch for hunting moose, let alone deer.

[Obzervi]

Guns give dumb right wingers power. All the power should be in the hands of the state (post-revolutionary).

[Magón]

Guns give dumb right wingers power. All the power should be in the hands of the state (post-revolutionary).

This is a problem, people seeing guns as power rather an equalizer. When I buy a gun, I have no more power over someone, than if I didn't have the gun. Guns are an equalizer when it comes to both sides having them. Whether Right-Wing or Left, if you have a gun, and are going up against the other side who also has guns, they're an equalizer, not power. If I go up against some body builder, who could possibly kill me in one blow of his fist, I've equalized the situation with my gun, and it's all a matter of who gets hit first. Guns aren't power ... ever. (Unless of course you take over a population with no guns, then you're over compensating with too much power. But that's not in todays societies.)

[Red Hornet]

Yeah but all semi-auto firearms (shotguns & rifles) are restricted to having 5 round magazines. If you get for example a Chinese made SKS with full clips you have to get it modified to hold 5 rounds at your own expense.

Also most firearms clubs prohibit military grade weapons on their ranges and don't sell the ammunition, so if you don't buy from China or online you end up with crappy sporterized guns that don't pack enough punch for hunting moose, let alone deer.

From what I understand, they are already have been pinned to 5 rounds because magazines that hold more than 5 are illegal. I've seen SKS detachable magazines that are short, (unlike the pseudo-30 rounders pinned to just 5)

And ammunition for SKS should be available at any gun store, they make bolt-actions in 7.62x39 too, its also powerful enough at shorter ranges to take deer. The M1As are definitely capable of taking a deer. The 7.62x51 (308 Win) is commonly used for deer hunting, more powerful than a 30-30 but less powerful than 30-06. For moose it's possible to take one at shorter ranges with the 308.

[Das war einmal]

Should we ban fire then? Fire has been used for centuries to burn villages, raze crops, and has ended and killed millions in certain instances in certain cities (Great London Fire, Fall of Constantinople).

However, we also know fire is used for cooking, for heating homes, and for combustion to run engines.


I wasn't proposing a ban on guns. I just said it's an ugly thing in general. The world would have been better off if no one possessed guns but thats an utopia.

Btw fire is as you pointed out yourself far more beneficial to mankind than guns.