gun control (split from arizona shooting)

[S.Artesian]

*split form here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/congresswoman-shot-arizona-t147809/index.html?p=1983887#post1983887*

It's Arizona, anybody can get hold of a firearm legally in Arizona, provide he or she has the money.

[Tablo]

Well, if he couldn't get the glock legally he could have gotten it illegally. Then again I like my guns and freak out about any laws regulating them.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

speaking about the military bit, how fucked up an country are you if you find someone unfit to join the militairy and say "You might be too nuts to shoot people abroad but hey, you can still buy an legal 30 shot semi-automatic glock at home"

Yeah but if he didn't have access to that gun, George III could come back and oppress people.

[Sasha]

Yeah but if he didn't have access to that gun, George III could come back and oppress people.

yeah... also;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

funny that the people rallying against any form of gun controll with an apeal on the constitution always fail to mention that "well regulated Militia" bit.

i mean, even if that wouldnt mean that the whole amendment is obselete ever since the US has an profesional army surely they should agree that the founding fathers for sure didnt mean every idiot should have an arsenal of assault rifles under his bed.

[Tablo]

yeah... also;


funny that the people rallying against any form of gun controll with an apeal on the constitution always fail to mention that "well regulated Militia" bit.

i mean, even if that wouldnt mean that the whole amendment is obselete ever since the US has an profesional army surely they should agree that the founding fathers for sure didnt mean every idiot should have an arsenal of assault rifles under his bed.
I prefer every American has an arsenal of assault rifles under their bed...

[El Rojo]

funny that the people rallying against any form of gun controll with an apeal on the constitution always fail to mention that "well regulated Militia" bit.

i mean, even if that wouldnt mean that the whole amendment is obselete ever since the US has an profesional army surely they should agree that the founding fathers for sure didnt mean every idiot should have an arsenal of assault rifles under his bed.

Venezuelans that I have talked to about this (they got a new constitution a few years back) find the US constitution (and other western nations with ancient constitutions or legal systems) utterly mental. they don't understand how you can run a country with a document written over 200 years ago

[The Douche]

i mean, even if that wouldnt mean that the whole amendment is obselete ever since the US has an profesional army surely they should agree that the founding fathers for sure didnt mean every idiot should have an arsenal of assault rifles under his bed.

Anarchy means political control of individual rights.:thumbup1:

PS your contempt for regular people is also a nice touch.

[Sasha]

I prefer every American has an arsenal of assault rifles under their bed...

yeah hmmm, me not but from an revolutionary perspective i can see your point, but surely you would think the capitalist state system (of wich the republicans are an cornerstone) would have done away with it by now? i really dont see how it benefits them. slavery was also in the constitution, but still the US had an devining war over doing away with it.

[Sasha]

Anarchy means political control of individual rights.:thumbup1:

i'm an anarcho-communist not an individualist, i both support gun rights AND gun control.


PS your contempt for regular people is also a nice touch.nothing to do with contempt, everything to do with being happy to know that in all likelyhood the bulletproof vest i wear to work is most likely (if ever needed at all) only there to protect me against an knive, not an gun, let alone the kind of calibers and ammo US drunks might be walking around with. Not to mention the fact we had 1 school shooting till now, with an converted alarmpistol shooting .22 killing 1 teacher instead of massacared classrooms.

again, i'm all for gun rights, but like acces to other dangerous tools like heavy machinery, cars, explosives etc etc they need to be regulated and i think not giving them to paranoid schitzoid kids would be a good place to start.

i never got why if you agree with that for an car you need an license, an exam testing your skill and safe behaviour, an test you are not blind etc etc not to mention the rule that you loose your license if your driving drunk or dangerous than why not support the same things for guns?

[StockholmSyndrome]

The fact is that we live in a culture of violence and fear. Every "idiot" can have an assault rifle under their bed, even in a peace loving society. Gun rights is not the issue. It does not matter whether the shooting was political, or if the guy is a nut job. What matters is that this guy is probably going to be executed, which will only perpetuate the cycle of violence.

[The Douche]

i'm an anarcho-communist not an individualist, i both support gun rights AND gun control.

nothing to do with contempt, everything to do with being happy to know that in all likelyhood the bulletproof vest i wear to work is most likely (if ever needed at all) only there to protect me against an knive, not an gun, let alone the kind of calibers and ammo US drunks might be walking around with. Not to mention the fact we had 1 school shooting till now, with an converted alarmpistol shooting .22 killing 1 teacher instead of massacared classrooms.

again, i'm all for gun rights, but like acces to other dangerous tools like heavy machinery, cars, explosives etc etc they need to be regulated and i think not giving them to paranoid schitzoid kids would be a good place to start.

Obvious liberal position is obvious.

If you can trust those "US drunks" with running their economy and workplaces themselves how can you then say they aren't responsible enough to own a gun? Its absurd, guns kill nowhere near as many people as economic mismanagement does.

[Sasha]

obvious strawman is obvious
i said drunks because my job is tossing out drunks (and sometimes getting physical with them), stop putting positions i my mouth i dont have. i'm for weapons possesion, now and in an revolutionary society, but it needs to be regulated. in an revolutionary society i would still believe that the community needs to be protected against those who act irresponsible with guns, the community would have every right to take away one members guns if he/dhe didnt keep them under lock and key, that keep them in kids reach, walk around with them drunk etc etc.
i think thats an sensible communist position, again, i'm not an indivudalist. while i think the individual rights should be as near unlimited as possible at the moment those rights trample of those of the community... sorry, the community prevails.

[Sosa]

Even some gun regulation is necessary. You have to keep them off the hands of those mentally unstable and children.

[The Douche]

obvious strawman is obvious
i said drunks because my job is tossing out drunks (and sometimes getting physical with them), stop putting positions i my mouth i dont have. i'm for weapons possesion, now and in an revolutionary society, but it needs to be regulated. in an revolutionary society i would still believe that the community needs to be protected against those who act irresponsible with guns, the community would have every right to take away one members guns if he/dhe didnt keep them under lock and key, that keep them in kids reach, walk around with them drunk etc etc.
i think thats an sensible communist position, again, i'm not an indivudalist. while i think the individual rights should be as near unlimited as possible at the moment those rights trample of those of the community... sorry, the community prevails.

Who gets this authority to enforce what will happen to my personal property?

[KurtFF8]

Who gets this authority to enforce what will happen to my personal property?

The ruling class (aka for socialism that would be the working class)

But I can see this discussion going very off topic very quickly.

[Tablo]

The ruling class (aka for socialism that would be the working class)

But I can see this discussion going very off topic very quickly.
Maybe a second thread to discuss gun rights should be started.

[Pretty Flaco]

We should melt all of the guns of the world down and use the metal to built houses.

But seriously. The US needs to start slowly adjusting gun regulation. We shouldn't let people with goddamn schizophrenia buy some heat from the wal-mart down the block...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

funny that the people rallying against any form of gun controll with an apeal on the constitution always fail to mention that "well regulated Militia" bit.

i mean, even if that wouldnt mean that the whole amendment is obselete ever since the US has an profesional army surely they should agree that the founding fathers for sure didnt mean every idiot should have an arsenal of assault rifles under his bed.

The "founding fathers" also proclaimed the equality of all men while millions were enslaved, women were openly oppressed, etc. Does that mean we should move backward from the advances of bourgeois revolutions or forward towards full freedom and the realization of humanity?

"Gun control" is an aspect of liberalism, bureaucratic control (of those who know what's best over the "unwashed masses"), etc. It has nothing to do with the revolutionary struggle to do away with all exploitation and oppression.

The First, Second and Third internationals up until Stalin's reign argued for the right to bear arms.

"...the disarming of the workers was the first commandment for the bourgeois, who were at the helm of the state. Hence, after every revolution won by the workers, a new struggle, ending with the defeat of the workers." - Engels

"Education of all to bear arms. Militia in the place of the standing army." - Eduard Bernstein

"No standing army or police force, but the armed people." - Lenin

"Every possibility for the proletariat to get weapons into its hands must be exploited to the fullest." - Guidelines on the Organizational Structure of Communist Parties, on the Methods and Content of their Work (Adopted at the 24th Session of the Third Congress of the Communist International, 12 July 1921)

Timothy McVeigh didn't need guns to level the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Aum Shinrikyo didn't need arms to launch the sarin gas attack in Tokyo. You can kill someone with any number of things, from cars to kitchen knives to explosives. Should they all be "controlled" too? Do countries in which gun ownership is more restricted not have murders, assassinations and violent attacks by rightists and people with mental issues?

Firearms aren't the problem.

[S.Artesian]

We should melt all of the guns of the world down and use the metal to built houses.

But seriously. The US needs to start slowly adjusting gun regulation. We shouldn't let people with goddamn schizophrenia buy some heat from the wal-mart down the block...

Who is the US you want to do this? The same US that practices violence on an unmatched level around the world?

The US that trains and arms death squads that operate in Latin America, in the Philippines?

The US that sells more armaments than any other country... than any 10 countries combined?

Is that the US you want to start "slowly adjusting gun regulation"?

Gun regulation has nothing to do with this.

[Kotze]

Yes, let's defend the right of Nazis to bear arms... :rolleyes:You know who else liked restrictive gun laws? :P

[Die Neue Zeit]

Soc-dems?

[NoOneIsIllegal]

The real working man fights hand-to-hand.
To the boxing ring, comrades!

[Tablo]

If the government can take away guns for tiny reasons they will eventually taking it away for even more reasons. Can't let those damned commies have guns or they will kill amurika!

[Sasha]

Timothy McVeigh didn't need guns to level the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Aum Shinrikyo didn't need arms to launch the sarin gas attack in Tokyo. You can kill someone with any number of things, from cars to kitchen knives to explosives. Should they all be "controlled" too? Do countries in which gun ownership is more restricted not have murders, assassinations and violent attacks by rightists and people with mental issues?

Firearms aren't the problem.



The number of gun crimes has been relatively constant in the three years that the report covers (1998-2000). There have been 30 crimes with firearms committed per 100,000 inhabitants. There are huge regional variations. In Amsterdam the rate was 72 per 100,000 people, while in the rural provinces of Drenthe and Zeeland the rates were 14 and 13 respectively. The big cities have much higher crime rates than rural areas, so the higher incidence of gun crimes is no surprise.
How does this compare to America? The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/01crime2.pdf) provide the answer. The UCR keeps track of gun use in three kinds of crime: murder, robbery and aggravated assault. There are 5.6 murders per 100,000 people in the US (page 19 of the linked PDF) with 63.4% involving firearms (table 2.9, page 23). Robberies run at 148.5 per 100,000 (p.32) with 42.0% involving guns (table 2.22, p.35). Aggravated assault occurs at a rate of 318.5 (p.36) with 18.3% gun use (table 2.24, p.38). This means that gun-related crime in the US runs at 124 per 100,000 people.
source: http://qsi.cc/blog/archives/000144.html

guns arent nescecarly the problem, but your gun culture is, we Dutch have quite a lot of guns around, i know canada has percent wise more guns than the US but by far lower figures. The problem indeed isnt guns but the way you handle your guns, and the NRA/2nd amendment rhetoric is very much key in that, a lot more than ganstarap i think.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

The problem is automated guns and handguns.

Wher'e I'm from it's only legal to own shotguns that can hold no more than two shells. Sure it would be nice to be able to own a hunting rifle, but you can't complain.
Hasn't been a murder here in over 20 years.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Switzerland has the most guns per capita and guarantees just like the Second Amendment, yet they don't have the retarded petit-bourgeois or self-employed gun culture of the US.

I really think class needs to be emphasized here:

Full, lawsuit-enforced freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association for people of the dispossessed classes, even within the military, free especially from anti-employment reprisals, police interference such as from agents provocateurs, and formal political disenfranchisement.

The expansion of the abilities to bear arms, to self-defense against police brutality, and to general self-defense, all toward enabling the formation of people’s militias based on free training, especially in connection with class-strugglist association for people of the dispossessed classes, and also free from police interference by the likes of agents provocateurs.



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, a demand 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 perhaps extending the concept of welfare towards gun ownership (“gun welfare” for workers as a slogan for action, 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 questions of civil disobedience and resistance towards police brutality are 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!

Of course, and pertaining more to the self-directional demand for freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association than to militias, much of the established Marxist tradition is hardly spotless when advocating the crude heuristic of something like “peaceful means where possible, and violent revolution when necessary.” When considering questions of civil disobedience and resistance towards police brutality, a more useful heuristic would be something along the lines of “legal means where possible, extra-legal and illegal ones when necessary, and with the non-worker authorities themselves determining the level of peace or violence.”



REFERENCE:

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

[The Douche]

I think the way that the pro-gun control side of this discussion is being so vague does a real disservice to them. What controls do you think should exist over a worker's right to own personal property and how should they be implemented?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Venezuelans that I have talked to about this (they got a new constitution a few years back) find the US constitution (and other western nations with ancient constitutions or legal systems) utterly mental. they don't understand how you can run a country with a document written over 200 years ago
Neither do I, not just Venezuelans.

[Tablo]

I think the way that the pro-gun control side of this discussion is being so vague does a real disservice to them. What controls do you think should exist over a worker's right to own personal property and how should they be implemented?
The only restriction should be that they make use of their person property. If they got an airplane provided to them by the community that they don't ever use, but others will make use of it then the community, I feel, has the right to take it back(if the individual made the plain by his or her self then it's a different story). It should be similar with guns. If they make use of the guns, practice firing the guns and enjoy the guns then why should we tell them what they can and can't own as far as guns go? The only limit on gun control should be based around what the gun making collective is willing to build.

If for some reason the individual's use of the firearm is endangering the community, then the community has the right to tell them that they are no longer to make use of the gun unless they want to no longer be provided with goods and services(practically a death-threat, but done in a way that does not violate the rights of the individual).

This is the only fair way to handle things without imposing upon individuals. If we make it so the community can unreasonably impose itself upon the individual then they could take away sex toys, violent video games, and literature they don't think is appropriate. I think Communism is inseparable from Anarchism in its fight for the rights of the individual as well as the working class as a whole.

[Sasha]

I think the way that the pro-gun control side of this discussion is being so vague does a real disservice to them. What controls do you think should exist over a worker's right to own personal property and how should they be implemented?

I'm far from being vague, like said already quite a few times guns should be controlled like cars, maybe a bit tighter, let's say like pilot licensing. (Note that offcourse the revolutionary community would have an locked up and protected arsenal for the militia.) Personal gun possession would have to be sanctioned by the community, in principal everyone would have the right but that's provided your not an danger to the community. So no kids, no people with mental health problems, people need to proof their ability to handle them safely, take regular practice etc etc. It will just be one of those countles things we will need to do to make our revolutionary society function. Just as there will be traffic rules and car licenses in post-revolution there should be checks an balances to guaranty responsible gun culture.

Surely you would agree with that if some drunk is waving a gun around he should be tackled and his gun taken from him (and in the case of serious danger to the community the militia might need to be brought in) just like I would take your car keys from you if you wanted to go drunk driving.
I really don't see what's vague about this, but why don't you tell us how you envision an Anarcho-communist society because I'm getting a bit mad-max images from your posts.

[x371322]

I live in the rural south, in the middle of this "idiotic" gun culture I've heard so much about. EVERYONE I know owns a gun (multiple guns usually). My 83 year old grandmother has a gun. And no one gets shot around here. Fuckin' ever. I've had several friends die from car accidents, drugs and what not, but no one I know has ever gotten shot, or even shot at. The people around here, are not idiots. They're decent, working class people, who like to hunt, shoot, target practice, and often just collect guns. The popular conception that the crazy rednecks just wanna get drunk and shoot bullets into the sky, is just fucking wrong (not that anyone on here has that notion of course, but I do get that vibe from a lot of "liberals"). I happen to be quite a "crazy redneck" myself, and I've never been drunk in my life. And I've certainly never shot anyone.

[The Douche]

Surely you would agree with that if some drunk is waving a gun around he should be tackled and his gun taken from him (and in the case of serious danger to the community the militia might need to be brought in) just like I would take your car keys from you if you wanted to go drunk driving.


Well when I get off from work tonight I might go to the bar, I will probably get drunk, and then I will come home, where I have guns. I won't be waving them at anybody, but the chance is there in theory. So only at the point that the person actually violates the community trust, can anything be done, so all the regulations on it don't really matter. Are suggesting somegroup should have a sort of file of some sort on individuals to check and see if they are "upstanding citizens" and capable of gun ownership?


I'm getting a bit mad-max images from your posts.

Yeah, I managed to get 1400 posts and I think anarchy is like post-apocalyptic movies.:sleep:

[Tablo]

I live in the rural south, in the middle of this "idiotic" gun culture I've heard so much about. EVERYONE I know owns a gun (multiple guns usually). My 83 year old grandmother has a gun. And no one gets shot around here. Fuckin' ever. I've had several friends die from car accidents, drugs and what not, but no one I know has ever gotten shot, or even shot at. The people around here, are not idiots. They're decent, working class people, who like to hunt, shoot, target practice, and often just collect guns. The popular conception that the crazy rednecks just wanna get drunk and shoot bullets into the sky, is just fucking wrong (not that anyone on here has that notion of course, but I do get that vibe from a lot of "liberals"). I happen to be quite a "crazy redneck" myself, and I've never been drunk in my life. And I've certainly never shot anyone.
Speaking the truth. I'm also a gun owning southerner. Everyone owns guns around me and the only deaths I've even heard of invovling guns have been suicides. I don't know about some people, but when my dad gave me my first gun he taught me safety and responsibility with a firearm.

[Sasha]

Well when I get off from work tonight I might go to the bar, I will probably get drunk, and then I will come home, where I have guns. I won't be waving them at anybody, but the chance is there in theory. So only at the point that the person actually violates the community trust, can anything be done, so all the regulations on it don't really matter. Are suggesting somegroup should have a sort of file of some sort on individuals to check and see if they are "upstanding citizens" and capable of gun ownership?


not "somegroup" but yes, i think the community should have knowledge about gun proliferation in their community. This depending on the community offcourse; if your living in the mountains and have some shotguns? probably not. If your living in the city and own assault rifles? yes.
and if your known to be mentaly unstable, you should not have guns so i would say that guns will be only "sold" (brackets there because there might or there might not be any currency in place att) in specialised places who are bound to check with the neighboorhood "soviet" if this person should have acces to an weapon. Again, the principle should be yes imo, but there should be exceptions. And there could for example be some limitations on the calibre/amunition. To paraphrase that US general; "if you want to shoot assault rifles you should join the millitia" (although i could see community conroled shooting ranges in place where all citizens can get experience and skill with these kind of weaponry in an responsible surrounding).
And just as there will be sex-education in post-revolutionary society there should be safe gun use education, depending on the choices of the community maybe for everyone, maybe only for those willing to have/work with guns.
I understand some US have an emotional reflex when its about gun controll, so, since i already used the example of that other potential lethal tool the car ad nauseam maybe you can give your thoughts on car licensing post-revolution and we can leave the trenches and move this discussion forward.
also because this:
Yeah, I managed to get 1400 posts and I think anarchy is like post-apocalyptic movies.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/sleep.gif is not an answer to my question:

but why don't you tell us how you envision an Anarcho-communist society

offourse i dont think you want mad-max ANARKEEE! but i do have serious problems to how individualists envision post revolution and i never seem to get much answer at all on how insurectionsists see it, and since i have an feeling you are somehwere in those regions of the anarchist familly tree i would love an answer to my question, just because i'm honestly intrested

[x371322]

Speaking the truth. I'm also a gun owning southerner. Everyone owns guns around me and the only deaths I've even heard of invovling guns have been suicides. I don't know about some people, but when my dad gave me my first gun he taught me safety and responsibility with a firearm.

Exactly. I actually got my start, like a lot of kids, with a BB gun. I was 10 or 11 (and no I never shot my eye out :laugh: ). All my friends had their own real guns by that age though. So gun education starts pretty early around here. I even remember having the department of wildlife (I think it was them, someone anyway) come to my school when I young to teach us basic firearm safety.

It's funny because my family was never even a big "gun family." We didn't hunt, and really didn't even shoot much. But we still had about 5 guns in the house.

[S.Artesian]

Psycho-- What are you talking about? You're describing a make-believe fantasy world that requires socialization of the means of production to enable the "rationality" of your system to even exist, and then applying that "rationality" to an existing system that is antithetical to that socialization, to that communal organization.

You need to pay attention to how the real world works, how real governments work, how real laws and restrictions work. They work to serve power; to serve property; to maintain exploitation.

Doesn't matter what laws are passed, and what background checks are required, guns are a commodity. They are marketed, they are exchanged for profit. The "need" for guns is immaterial here. The need for accumulating value drives this process.

You want to do something to mobilize masses against profit-driven violence? Demand the end to US weapon sales to other countries. Demand the dismantling or all US overseas military bases, and missions.

[Sasha]

Psycho-- What are you talking about? You're describing a make-believe fantasy world that requires socialization of the means of production to enable the "rationality" of your system to even exist, and then applying that "rationality" to an existing system that is antithetical to that socialization, to that communal organization.

You need to pay attention to how the real world works, how real governments work, how real laws and restrictions work. They work to serve power; to serve property; to maintain exploitation.

Doesn't matter what laws are passed, and what background checks are required, guns are a commodity. They are marketed, they are exchanged for profit. The "need" for guns is immaterial here. The need for accumulating value drives this process.

You want to do something to mobilize masses against profit-driven violence? Demand the end to US weapon sales to other countries. Demand the dismantling or all US overseas military bases, and missions.


wut? i'm clearly discussing an post-revolutionary society here. Your post doesnt make much sense to me but i hazzard an answer on the guess i'm making on what your talking about.

just like with drugs the answer to gun dangers is neither prohibition nor total liberty. Its responisble checks and balances resulting in an safe gun culture, like the people above here from the US south who learned from their parents responsible gun ussage we as an revolutionary society as an whole should make sure that we have an responsible gun culture. Just as we should have an responsible drug culture.
Dutch society isnt an gun culture but i do recognise the situation that above posters had with guns but then from an drug perspective. when i started doing drugs my parents sat me down and had an good talk with me and encouraged responsible drug use. And while i support legalisation of all drugs that doesnt mean i think anyone should be able to score H at the supermarket, just as they shouldnt be able to score assault rifles there.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think the left should support gun-restrictions (maybe regulation is OK depending on how it's set up) and unlike similar debates on drug use, I have never fired a gun and am not an enthusiast.

But I think gun-restrictions are a liberal issue because first of all it conflates the means of a violent act with the cause. Yes, mentally ill people probably shouldn't have access to guns... better yet, the US should fucking have decent places for people with emotional/drug/mental problems to go to!!!!

I was reading the Christian Science Monitor coverage of this story and they quoted teachers, students and an administrator at the Community College this guy went to and they all said that they were afraid he would come to class and shoot everyone up - the teacher asked the school to remove him and even the administrators though he was scary and tried to figure out a way to kick him out of school. Eventually they did because he made a youtube video criticizing the school!

Gee everyone around him thought he was going crazy, they don't have the facilities or the ability to deal with someone with mental problems so they remove him (probably adding to his social alienation and feelings of persecution) when, in a fucking rational society, there would be ways to care for people like him and help him! And if there were safe and decent places (not like the Sanitariums of the past in the US) then when other people see someone talking to themselves and unable to sit through a class without some creepy outburst about being persecuted, then maybe other people would feel like they could actually try and help him to get treatment.

All this being said, I think we should reject "gun-rights" on the basis of self-protection for home or shop-owners and being a "crime deterrent" because first of all it isn't and secondly, it actually compounds the problems of crime because many guns are "borrowed" from parents or are stolen anyway. We should also reject the idea that gun-rights "protect citizens" from tyrannical governments. The US can outgun the rest of the industrial world combined, some suburban anti-tax nut's private arsenal won't do anything.

[S.Artesian]

wut? i'm clearly discussing an post-revolutionary society here. Your post doesnt make much sense to me but i hazzard an answer on the guess i'm making on what your talking about.

just like with drugs the answer to gun dangers is neither prohibition nor total liberty. Its responisble checks and balances resulting in an safe gun culture, like the people above here from the US south who learned from their parents responsible gun ussage we as an revolutionary society as an whole should make sure that we have an responsible gun culture. Just as we should have an responsible drug culture.
Dutch society isnt an gun culture but i do recognise the situation that above posters had with guns but then from an drug perspective. when i started doing drugs my parents sat me down and had an good talk with me and encouraged responsible drug use. And while i support legalisation of all drugs that doesnt mean i think anyone should be able to score H at the supermarket, just as they shouldnt be able to score assault rifles there.

Well that was not clear to me at all. You never specify that, and moreover this discussion has included those who arguing for greater gun restrictions imposed by the current US government.

I think the phrasing of your comments suggests you are not distinguishing at all between a "post revolutionary society" and the current society. For example:


And while i support legalisation of all drugs that doesnt mean i think anyone should be able to score H at the supermarket, just as they shouldnt be able to score assault rifles there.That indicates to me that you would support tighter, more restrictive conditions on gun control in the US, if you don't, then that's my misunderstanding. Apologies.

My point was that gun control is a diversion, an attempt to deflect the responsibility from the vicious hatred, the endorsement of physical assaults and terrorism by the talking heads, the bankrolled talking heads of the bourgeoisie.

And guns are a commodity, produced and promoted for the accumulation of value. Regulation will have precisely zero impact on these sort of attacks.

[Sasha]

I see, well I would be lying if I wouldnt say I think that also in an pre-revolutionary society I would quite apriciate that paranoid schizophreniacs shouldn't be able to buy semi-authomatics so easily, if only to prevent them to become puppwts of that hateful system.

[Martin Blank]

funny that the people rallying against any form of gun controll with an apeal on the constitution always fail to mention that "well regulated Militia" bit.

There's always been confusion on this because, technically speaking, every adult in the U.S. is a member of a "Militia". A provision of the Militia Act of 1903 makes every man and woman a "ready reserve" to the National Guard or local militia in the event of an invasion or insurrection. Most federal court cases involving restriction of firearms, including the recent SCOTUS overturning of D.C.'s gun control laws, have looked to the cases that upheld the Militia Act as a point of reference.


i mean, even if that wouldnt mean that the whole amendment is obselete ever since the US has an profesional army surely they should agree that the founding fathers for sure didnt mean every idiot should have an arsenal of assault rifles under his bed.

Technically, the U.S. does not have a full-blown standing army. Most of the Armed Forces have to be renewed every two years, as per the Constitution. If Congress did not renew them, the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard would, in theory, have to disband. The Navy is excepted from disbanding, but its scope would then be limited to coastal defense.

Of course, all of the above are technicalities.

[Imposter Marxist]

Oh, "Liberalism" doesn't exist on revleft. Of course not.

I can't believe any sane leftist would call for the banning of the items that are NEEDED for revolution.

[The Man]

yeah... also;


funny that the people rallying against any form of gun controll with an apeal on the constitution always fail to mention that "well regulated Militia" bit.

i mean, even if that wouldnt mean that the whole amendment is obselete ever since the US has an profesional army surely they should agree that the founding fathers for sure didnt mean every idiot should have an arsenal of assault rifles under his bed.

In 1776, Noam Chomsky didn't invent linguistics yet, and "Well-Regulated" Meant something totally different from todays words. It used to mean "Well-Organized"

[The Man]

Oh and by the way, you can own grenades, machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, grenade launchers, and Sears that convert semi-autos to full auto in the U.S. (National Firearms Act 1934) And has there been one murder with one? NOPE.

Explain to me why when the UK banned Pistols, and anything that is Fully Automatic and Semi-Automatic why the crime rate went up 300%?

Watch this whole video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I&feature=channel

[The Douche]

Psycho, I guess I understand where you're coming from, in a sense of concern for who has access to dangerous items (like guns) but I think putting the power to decide in the hands of the beauracracy is the wrong answer, I suppose I rely more on the judgement of those selling weapons, and I would not be opposed to some sort of community decided written/practical test on firearms ownership.

I am not an "individualist" I consider myself a communist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I live in the rural south, in the middle of this "idiotic" gun culture I've heard so much about. EVERYONE I know owns a gun (multiple guns usually). My 83 year old grandmother has a gun. And no one gets shot around here. Fuckin' ever. I've had several friends die from car accidents, drugs and what not, but no one I know has ever gotten shot, or even shot at. The people around here, are not idiots. They're decent, working class people, who like to hunt, shoot, target practice, and often just collect guns. The popular conception that the crazy rednecks just wanna get drunk and shoot bullets into the sky, is just fucking wrong (not that anyone on here has that notion of course, but I do get that vibe from a lot of "liberals"). I happen to be quite a "crazy redneck" myself, and I've never been drunk in my life. And I've certainly never shot anyone.

Perhaps, but consider two distinct petit-bourgeois and self-employed gun cultures: the Deep South and Alberta, Canada.

In "redneck" Alberta, people own guns, but they use guns to hunt, shoot, target practice, etc. They vote Tory because they're pissed about the firearms registry. An old Tory professor of mine confided to me that he wants to see less gun control the further away you get from the city. It's a petit-bourgeois and self-employed position, but it's the consensus in this neck of the woods that even Albertans have a more responsible gun culture than NRA-supporting Americans.

Since other types of firearms are mentioned, we should have a debate on exactly what kind of firearms are OK to be NRA rednecks on, and what kind of firearms need to have "gun control" and other firearms regulation. I don't think, for example, that anybody is entitled to a so-called "Dirty Bomb" (suitcase with a primitive nuclear weapon that emits lots of radiation).

[x371322]

Perhaps, but consider two distinct petit-bourgeois and self-employed gun cultures: the Deep South and Alberta, Canada.

In "redneck" Alberta, people own guns, but they use guns to hunt, shoot, target practice, etc. They vote Tory because they're pissed about the firearms registry. An old Tory professor of mine confided to me that he wants to see less gun control the further away you get from the city. It's a petit-bourgeois and self-employed position, but it's the consensus in this neck of the woods that even Albertans have a more responsible gven my uncleun culture than NRA-supporting Americans.

Since other types of firearms are mentioned, we should have a debate on exactly what kind of firearms are OK to be NRA rednecks on, and what kind of firearms need to have "gun control" and other firearms regulation. I don't think, for example, that anybody is entitled to a so-called "Dirty Bomb" (suitcase with a primitive nuclear weapon that emits lots of radiation).

Oh yeah of course. The overwhelming majority of folks around here are heavily conservative, although I don't really know of many that are business owners, or even self employed. Most are working class and get jobs in the mines. Although even the union members around here tend to be very right wing. My uncle for example, who worked for the railroad for I guess 30 or 40 years, a good union job, just LOVES Sarah Palin and Fox News. I'll never understand it. I know religion has a lot to do with it, and of course the gun issues.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that absolutely no regulations should exist. I love guns and all, but there's really no denying that there should be some common sense, basic, conditions attached. I'm only trying to stick up for the people I consider, well... family. I get irritated with a lot of people living around here, but when push comes to shove I guess I'm a softy. :o

[Chicano Shamrock]

Perhaps, but consider two distinct petit-bourgeois and self-employed gun cultures: the Deep South and Alberta, Canada.

In "redneck" Alberta, people own guns, but they use guns to hunt, shoot, target practice, etc. They vote Tory because they're pissed about the firearms registry. An old Tory professor of mine confided to me that he wants to see less gun control the further away you get from the city. It's a petit-bourgeois and self-employed position, but it's the consensus in this neck of the woods that even Albertans have a more responsible gun culture than NRA-supporting Americans.

Since other types of firearms are mentioned, we should have a debate on exactly what kind of firearms are OK to be NRA rednecks on, and what kind of firearms need to have "gun control" and other firearms regulation. I don't think, for example, that anybody is entitled to a so-called "Dirty Bomb" (suitcase with a primitive nuclear weapon that emits lots of radiation).
What does that even mean? I am a NRA member and American. What is the problem with that?

Sure it would be dangerous for a civilian to have a dirty bomb but when the USSR and the USA had thousands of nukes ready to drop was that any less dangerous? So at what point are our own "theoretical" restrictions hurting us?

*Disclaimer*
I mean this to say that neither group should have these sorts of bombs and not that civilians should have them as well. I don't condone owning any kinds of explosives.

[Die Neue Zeit]

My apologies for stereotyping. :( I know some leftists who are in the NRA. I didn't mean any reference to them.

[ed miliband]

I don't really understand how people could respond to this story instantly with calls for gun control (not on this forum but a number of others). If Loughner had been wandering along strapped, spotted Giffords and decided to take shots at her it would perhaps make sense, but it seems that Loughner had been planning this shooting and wanted to go down in the process. Anybody who plots a shootout like this will find a way to get weapons whether they are illegal or not, and so I don't really see what difference a stricter gun law would make.

[Chicano Shamrock]

My apologies for stereotyping. :( I know some leftists who are in the NRA, I didn't mean any reference to them.
It's cool but I really wanted to know what is perceived to be wrong with it. I saw it come up several times in this thread.

The NRA is not Tea Baggers. The NRA does not promote literature or information that is over the top McCarthyist and whatnot like the tea baggers. It stays to facts about court cases involving the right to bear arms and what their lawyers are doing to fight the state over these issues on behalf of gun owning citizens.

[Martin Blank]

I don't really understand how people could respond to this story instantly with calls for gun control (not on this forum but a number of others). If Loughner had been wandering along strapped, spotted Giffords and decided to take shots at her it would perhaps makes sense, but it seems that Loughner had been planning this shooting and wanted to go down in the process. Anybody who plots a shootout like this will find a way to get weapons whether they are illegal or not, and so I don't really see what difference a stricter gun law would make.

The calls for greater "gun control" are meant as a diversion from the real issue of the attempted assassination being an act of political terrorism, as is the focus on Loughner being crazy. The ruling classes want this de-politicized in order to ensure that the "mainstreaming" of the fascist Tea Party continues unabated.

[Martin Blank]

It's cool but I really wanted to know what is perceived to be wrong with it. I saw it come up several times in this thread.

The NRA is not Tea Baggers. The NRA does not promote literature or information that is over the top McCarthyist and whatnot like the tea baggers. It stays to facts about court cases involving the right to bear arms and what their lawyers are doing to fight the state over these issues on behalf of gun owning citizens.

It's not the NRA's membership that is the issue normally. But having spokespeople like Charleton Heston and Wayne LaPierre don't help the situation. Hell, Michael Moore is a member of the NRA, but I know he was willing to take on the leaders of that organization.

[Magón]

I liked it better when times were simpler, and people could own automatic firearms without having the problems that come along with them nowadays. When a couple of people could sneak into a National Guard Armory, take as many guns as they could carry, and haul ass to use them for whatever. (Bonnie & Clyde) When a regular everyday joe/jane could have a automatic gun, and so did their police counterparts. It just made everything simpler, and everyone had an understanding with each other.

Nowadays, the understanding has been crushed by these ridiculous laws that call for the banning of even a simple little .22 Pistol/Rifle! :sleep:

[Chicano Shamrock]

It's not the NRA's membership that is the issue normally. But having spokespeople like Charleton Heston and Wayne LaPierre don't help the situation. Hell, Michael Moore is a member of the NRA, but I know he was willing to take on the leaders of that organization.
Methinks you have watched a little too much Bowling for Columbine.

What is the need for taking on the leaders of the NRA? This is an organization that is fighting to keep the tools of personal defense in the hands of the working class.

[S.Artesian]

Methinks you have watched a little too much Bowling for Columbine.

What is the need for taking on the leaders of the NRA? This is an organization that is fighting to keep the tools of personal defense in the hands of the working class.

I have an idea, why don't we follow the cash, and find out where and from whom NRA gets its money-- and to whom it gives its money?

[Chicano Shamrock]

I have an idea, why don't we follow the cash, and find out where and from whom NRA gets its money-- and to whom it gives its money?
You could follow it right to my pocket...

Now can you guys stop with the vague liberal talking points about this and put something substantial?

[S.Artesian]

I've said nothing liberal. I've never endorsed gun control. I think it's a non-issue-- the bourgeoisie got the guns, they'll always be able to get more.

We should recognize that reality and be governed accordingly.

But if you want to not be liberal, and not argue from liberal positions about "rights" etc., then you need to know who's paying for what-- where the money is, where it's going, and what it's doing when it gets there.

I don't give a rat's ass about the NRA, except don't tell me that NRA doesn't have a specific ideology and as is usually the case, ideology is simple the manifestation of money talking and bullshit walking.

I wouldn't give NRA my money, because they're giving it to Republicans and Democrats.

[Salyut]

Two words: Blair Mountain.

I think that should settle the question nicely.

[Chicano Shamrock]

I've said nothing liberal. I've never endorsed gun control. I think it's a non-issue-- the bourgeoisie got the guns, they'll always be able to get more.

We should recognize that reality and be governed accordingly.

But if you want to not be liberal, and not argue from liberal positions about "rights" etc., then you need to know who's paying for what-- where the money is, where it's going, and what it's doing when it gets there.
The money is coming from gun owners around the country. It is going into court cases and lawyers fighting to keep handguns, rifles and shotguns in the hands of the citizens. It is fighting the want of the state to track ammunition sales with ID and thumbprint.

It is also going into Democrat and Republican pockets while lobbying. That's just how business gets done.


I don't give a rat's ass about the NRA, except don't tell me that NRA doesn't have a specific ideology and as is usually the case, ideology is simple the manifestation of money talking and bullshit walking.
It's not just bullshit though. The NRA is involved in very serious cases that benefit the working class. Likewise local NRA-like organizations will help you for free if the government is trying to bust you with a gun charge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago#McDonald_v._Chicago_as_compare d_to_NRA_v._Chicago

I am not trying to say that the NRA is some kind of revolutionary force or even always in favor of the people but what it does benefits US citizens.



I wouldn't give NRA my money, because they're giving it to Republicans and Democrats.
Taxes do the same thing except with that money the gov gives it to cops so they can stock up and bring cases against the public. Dealing with Reps and Dems is necessary if you are trying to get anything done. So is dealing with the courts.

Legalizing gay marriage or recreational drug use is no different. While we are waiting around for the revolution we can expand individual rights through dealing with these parties and the courts or we can decide to do nothing. That's up to the individual.

[Sasha]

You could follow it right to my pocket...

Now can you guys stop with the vague liberal talking points about this and put something substantial?


can the people who keep trowing "vague" and "liberal" around point out where i exactly have been vague or liberal in my views on progresive well regulated gun rights both pre- and post-revolution.

because i see a lot more "knee-jerk" "conservative" than "vague" "liberal" in this thread.

[S.Artesian]

Legalizing gay marriage or recreational drug use is no different. While we are waiting around for the revolution we can expand individual rights through dealing with these parties and the courts or we can decide to do nothing. That's up to the individual

Exactly, no different. I don't give money to the ACLU nor the legalize drug groups, nor any groups that make contributions to Republican or Democratic Parties.

For someone who criticizes others for being liberal, this:


Dealing with Reps and Dems is necessary if you are trying to get anything done. So is dealing with the courts.

is the catechism of liberalism.

So let's just drop all this bunk about "liberal and vague..."

I'm just saying...

[Chicano Shamrock]

Exactly, no different. I don't give money to the ACLU nor the legalize drug groups, nor any groups that make contributions to Republican or Democratic Parties.

For someone who criticizes others for being liberal, this:



is the catechism of liberalism.

So let's just drop all this bunk about "liberal and vague..."

I'm just saying...
Ehhh... It's not a popular discussion around these parts but it is the only way anything will be done around here right now. It's what will integrate gay people into society more. It will lessen the hate and the phobia of gays. Just like what rights did for African-Americans over time.

Or we could pretend that the revolution is around the corner and that the gays don't need to be afforded the same lifestyle as the rest of us. They can wait while we sort out our soviets and plans.

[S.Artesian]

Ehhh... It's not a popular discussion around these parts but it is the only way anything will be done around here right now. It's what will integrate gay people into society more. It will lessen the hate and the phobia of gays. Just like what rights did for African-Americans over time.

Or we could pretend that the revolution is around the corner and that the gays don't need to be afforded the same lifestyle as the rest of us. They can wait while we sort out our soviets and plans.

Well, OK then if that's your view, do not criticize others for being no more liberal than you.

We might also point out that the civil rights struggle was triggered by the transformation of Southern agriculture during and after WW2, and the movement of African-Americans into cities and industrial production. It was, at core, a labor issue that encapsulated the pivotal role of black labor in every phase of US development. We cannot say the same for the NRA and anti-gun control lobbying.

And we might point out that since that labor core to the movement has been under assault-- ever since the strike wave in the US peaked in 1974, and with the Friedmaniac assaults of the Reagan-Bush era, those gains made through the civil rights struggle, the economic gains, have been drastically eroded, and the political gains are under increasing attack-- like disenfranchising black people every time an election roles around as was done in Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004. So much for passing legislation. Not that I didn't work in the civil rights movement. I did. It's how I came to all this.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You know who else liked restrictive gun laws? :P

Freedom-loving gun-toting conservative (white) Amuricans like California Govoner Ronald Regan as soon as Black radicals began arming themselves, that's who.


From Wikipedia,

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act#p-search)
The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panthers) marched on the California Capitol to protest the bill[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act#cite_note-huey_newton-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act#cite_note-black_panthers-1). The bill was signed by California Governor Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan) and became California penal code 12031 (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/12020-12040.html) and 171(c) (http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=142-181).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Methinks you have watched a little too much Bowling for Columbine.

What is the need for taking on the leaders of the NRA? This is an organization that is fighting to keep the tools of personal defense in the hands of the working class.

1. The NRA has actually help enact legislation that restricts access to firearms.

2. The NRA is tied in with sections of the exploiting and oppressing classes, works closely with the armed bodies of the state, etc.

3. The NRA does not defend firearms access for the working class, but rather promotes (limited) individual rights for firearms.

[Chicano Shamrock]

3. The NRA does not defend firearms access for the working class, but rather promotes (limited) individual rights for firearms.
The second half of this one would be a good reason to take on the NRA leaders.

I don't understand the first half. Maybe you can show some proof of your belief?

[Old Man Diogenes]

i never got why if you agree with that for an car you need an license, an exam testing your skill and safe behaviour, an test you are not blind etc etc not to mention the rule that you loose your license if your driving drunk or dangerous than why not support the same things for guns?

To me this seems like the most practical, rational and sensible conclusion. Just like a car people could learn to use a gun properly and safely at a certain age (say 17, 18, its 17 for driving lessons where I am) if they so wished.

I posted something on traffic regulations and Anarchism that might relate to this thread;
"I don't think traffic regulations are necessarily authoritarian and as you said a society could not function without them. In my opinion any traffic regulations are, or should be, a code of conduct for those using roads in order to keep all users safe. This is not contrary to the principles of Anarchism, providing the people have the ability to, through democratic decision-making, alter traffic regulations."

[Sasha]

not that i agree with everything in this article but its sure food for thought:

Friendly Firearms

Gabrielle Giffords and the perils of guns: How an armed hero nearly shot the wrong man.

By William Saletan
Posted Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2011, at 8:13 AM ETSee Slate's complete coverage of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting and arrest of Jared Lee Loughner (http://www.slate.com/id/2280612/).
http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2100252/2280281/2280793/110111_HN_Pistol_TN.jpg

Does the Tucson, Ariz., massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him. Look at the 1991 slaughter in Killeen, Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre), where 23 people died in a restaurant while a patron's handgun, thanks to a dumb law, was left outside in her car. Look at the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre), where 32 people died because under the university's naïve policy, nobody in the invaded classrooms was allowed to carry a firearm. Guns save lives. So the argument goes.



Now comes the tragedy in Tucson. And what do gun advocates propose? More guns. Arizona already lets people carry concealed weapons without requiring permits (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11guns.html). The legislature is considering two bills to expand this right, and as Slate's David Weigel reports, the Arizona Citizens Defense League is preparing legislation that would require the state to offer firearms training (http://www.slate.com/id/2280772/) to politicians and their staff. The bill is tentatively titled the Giffords-Zimmerman Act (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/10/arizona-civil-defense-league-wants-members-of-congress-staff-trained-in-firearms.aspx) in honor of the wounded congresswoman and her slain aide. "When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/10/20110110arizona-shooting-gun-politics-rhetoric.html)," argues the state's top pro-gun legislator. Beyond Arizona, at least two members of Congress say they'll bring guns (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/09/2011-01-09_gabrielle_giffords_shooting_leads_some_lawmaker s_to_say_theyll_carry_weapons_to_.html) while traveling their districts.
The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1101/10/cnr.01.html), and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment (http://libertyslifeline.com/2011/01/10/the-rush-to-judgement/). "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073921275131528.html)," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.
Advertisement


But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends (http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/01/10/one-of-the-men-who-subdued-loughner-had-a-gun-and-he-was-ready-to-use-it/). "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "
But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.
Zamudio agreed:

I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.
When Zamudio was asked what kind of weapons training he'd had, he answered: "My father raised me around guns … so I'm really comfortable with them. But I've never been in the military or had any professional training. I just reacted."
The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."
This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."
That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire). Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.
We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.
Like Slate on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/slate). Follow us on Twitter (http://http//www.twitter.com/slate). Human Nature's latest short takes on the news, via Twitter (http://twitter.com/saletan):


source: http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

[S.Artesian]

To me this seems like the most practical, rational and sensible conclusion. Just like a car people could learn to use a gun properly and safely at a certain age (say 17, 18, its 17 for driving lessons where I am) if they so wished.

Yeah, but, until recently with the anti-immigrant assaults, drivers' licenses were not used as methods of political exclusion, isolation, and identification.

Nobody stops anyone of a certain age from taking a driver's test; nobody says-- oh you have a suspicious background, you can't have a license to drive a car.

So we have different issues here. Yeah, I'm all for teaching firearms safety like we should be teaching driver ed, and sex ed. Absolutely. And right, nobody who doesn't demonstrate firearms safety should be licensed to purchase a weapon.

The question is do we want the present government of the bourgeoisie making those other determinations, when in fact there is no such education and no such "political impartiality" in the processed proposed for gun control?

Which is why I think this is a non-issue for Marxists. They, the bourgeoisie, got guns. And plenty of them. They are not going to stop their agents, official and unofficial, from getting and using weapons. Be governed accordingly.

[The Douche]

not that i agree with everything in this article but its sure food for thought:


source: http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

This article does nothing to justify restriction of firarms ownership. That man, a regular citizen with no formal training was able to make the right choice. Was he lucky? Yes, just like a well trained soldier will tell you they were lucky that they made it through a firefight. Luck is always a part of combat.

See here you go again, now it seems you are supporting the notion that regular people should not have access to firearms, thats why you are being accused of "vagueness".

[Old Man Diogenes]

Yeah, but, until recently with the anti-immigrant assaults, drivers' licenses were not used as methods of political exclusion, isolation, and identification.

Is that really the licenses fault?


Nobody stops anyone of a certain age from taking a driver's test; nobody says-- oh you have a suspicious background, you can't have a license to drive a car.

Yes, people do stop some people a certain age taking a driving test, for example, ten year-olds aren't allowed to take driving lesson. What I was saying, if you misunderstood, was that there should be a minimum age at which to start learning to use a gun, similar to when you can learn to drive. And the bit about the background seems irrelevant, where did I mention driving license being handed out on the basis of your background?

[Old Man Diogenes]

The question is do we want the present government of the bourgeoisie making those other determinations, when in fact there is no such education and no such "political impartiality" in the processed proposed for gun control?

As to the present governments, no, but I was referring to a post-revolutionary society. Revolutionaries will need to defend themselves.

[S.Artesian]

Is that really the licenses fault?



Yes, people do stop some people a certain age taking a driving test, for example, ten year-olds aren't allowed to take driving lesson. What I was saying, if you misunderstood, was that there should be a minimum age at which to start learning to use a gun, similar to when you can learn to drive. And the bit about the background seems irrelevant, where did I mention driving license being handed out on the basis of your background?

What I meant to say, is that nobody stops a 16 or 18 year old, based on the state, from taking a driver's test. I pointed out how it's a mistake to draw an equivalent between driver's licenses, and gun licenses because of the different political issues attached to gun licenses, and the different requirements, and uses, a government will make of the different licenses.

Like I said, this for me is a non-issue. We know what the bourgeoisie has; we know that it arms its agents. With that information we can take the necessary precautions. Getting involved in a debate over gun-control does not have any "reward."

[Old Man Diogenes]

What I meant to say, is that nobody stops a 16 or 18 year old, based on the state, from taking a driver's test. I pointed out how it's a mistake to draw an equivalent between driver's licenses, and gun licenses because of the different political issues attached to gun licenses, and the different requirements, and uses, a government will make of the different licenses.

Like I said, this for me is a non-issue. We know what the bourgeoisie has; we know that it arms its agents. With that information we can take the necessary precautions. Getting involved in a debate over gun-control does not have any "reward."

I see what you mean now, but I'd like to add again I was talking about a post-revolutionary society when referring to the plan for gun-licenses with fire-arm safety education. Like you put quite aptly earlier...


So we have different issues here. Yeah, I'm all for teaching firearms safety like we should be teaching driver ed, and sex ed. Absolutely. And right, nobody who doesn't demonstrate firearms safety should be licensed to purchase a weapon.

As for present day, I do agree with you, all the necessary precautions based on our knowledge :thumbup1:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't understand the first half. Maybe you can show some proof of your belief?

It's not a belief. It's a fact. The NRA does not promote anything on a class-basis (besides indirectly, with their support of bourgeois politicians, law enforcement, spies, etc.).

And since you made the assertion, it's up to you to produce some evidence that they defend rights for "the working class."

In fact, you won't be able to produce a single shred, since they only promote (limited) individual gun ownership.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

BTW, as soon as you require licenses for firearms it becomes a privilege to have one.

[Sasha]

admit, only in the US:

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/0b506d2b-970c-467d-9f14-5ce7ddc73a69.jpg

[S.Artesian]

admit, only in the US:

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/0b506d2b-970c-467d-9f14-5ce7ddc73a69.jpg

You mean shooting at a fire doesn't extinguish it? Hey, good to know.

[bcbm]

You mean shooting at a fire doesn't extinguish it? Hey, good to know.

more lies from the liberal media

[Jose Gracchus]

The calls for greater "gun control" are meant as a diversion from the real issue of the attempted assassination being an act of political terrorism, as is the focus on Loughner being crazy. The ruling classes want this de-politicized in order to ensure that the "mainstreaming" of the fascist Tea Party continues unabated.

Has any evidence been firmly established that this was a Tea Party-motivated killing? I mean despite the rise of Tea Party neo-fascism, that doesn't mean that it is not possible a kook could still murder a congresswoman and it be co-incidental to the rise in neo-fascist agitprop.

OR, do you just mean this opportunity must be de-politicized so that Tea Party political violence and adulation of political violence is not discussed. Loughner thus maybe mentally ill, psychotic, paranoid, and possessed of violent fantasies, but his formalized de-politicization is part of running cover for the Tea Party intrinsically?

[L.A.P.]

Venezuelans that I have talked to about this (they got a new constitution a few years back) find the US constitution (and other western nations with ancient constitutions or legal systems) utterly mental. they don't understand how you can run a country with a document written over 200 years ago

I disagree, if the US constitution is revised then that gives way for any corrupt president to come in and edit out the 1st amendment when they please. There is no need to revise the US constitution because it is perfectly compatible with socialist policies by adding amendments.