Gun control and Socialism.

[Palingenisis]

I was rather shocked here to find that there were on this forum those who advocate gun control by the capitalist state (though the person who did so also believes that revolution is centuries away, as if the world could survive centuries more of capitalism but utopian ultra-leftists turning into reformist liberals is all part of the course...). Under a capitalist state I believe that gun control should be opposed in principle by socialists. Under a Proletarian or New Democratic state I believe that wide spread gun control through membership of local militias is a very good idea, and would serve as a bulwark against capitalist restoration. It would be interesting to hear other people's views on this.

[#FF0000]

If someone's living in an American city where gun violence is stereotypically common, it makes sense that they'd think like that. They see the proliferation of guns in urban centers the same way you see the proliferation of drugs -- as a thing that harms the working class by giving power to gangsters.

I'm not one of those people and I collect guns. But I see where they're coming from. And I don't think the "WE NEED GUNS FOR REVOLUTION" argument sticks because, well, people might be able to get their hands on a semi-auto Armalite but I am pretty sure stealth bombers, predator drones, Abrams tanks, and literally every other thing a military would have still wins out.

[Nolan]

If someone's living in an American city where gun violence is stereotypically common, it makes sense that they'd think like that. They see the proliferation of guns in urban centers the same way you see the proliferation of drugs -- as a thing that harms the working class by giving power to gangsters.

But much like the drugs issue, their fear of personal firearms betrays a lack of understanding of the situation and the social forces behind that violence. Advocating gun control by the capitalist state is a self defeating position.

[danyboy27]

i dont have a beef with people having weapons, but i think a society should take the necessary measures create a generation of responsable citizens.

Education about how weapon are stored and handeled is necessary.

For the sake of society i think it would be also important to restrict gun ownership for people who are mentally unstable.

That being said, some mental disorder can be stabilised, and if a people is properly medicated or is properly treated, i have no problem with firearm ownership for those peoples.

[Palingenisis]

They see the proliferation of guns in urban centers the same way you see the proliferation of drugs -- as a thing that harms the working class by giving power to gangsters.

Surely though if my memory serves me correctly those urban centers generally have the strictest gun control in the USA? Also here which has frighteningly restrictive gun laws gangsters have guns. Gun control effects strongest ordinary people...Gangsters will find ways to get them.

[Delirium]

I support the ownership of guns under a capitalist state. I think all revolutionaries should arm themselves if possible. How many people have been disappeared, rounded up, tourtured, and perhaps executed by security forces? Not saying that have a gun would be a deterrent, but i aint goin' to no fema camp without a fight.

In a post revoultionary society we should keep firearms, perhaps more on a collective basis like a militia. Especially in a decentralized society, we need arms to protect our revolutionary gains.

[#FF0000]

but i aint goin' to no fema camp without a fight

:mellow:

[Delirium]

:mellow:

A joke, i hang out with wingnut libertarians alot. :rolleyes:

[Sasha]

I was rather shocked here to find that there were on this forum those who advocate gun control by the capitalist state (though the person who did so also believes that revolution is centuries away, as if the world could survive centuries more of capitalism but utopian ultra-leftists turning into reformist liberals is all part of the course...). Under a capitalist state I believe that gun control should be opposed in principle by socialists. Under a Proletarian or New Democratic state I believe that wide spread gun control through membership of local militias is a very good idea, and would serve as a bulwark against capitalist restoration. It would be interesting to hear other people's views on this.


wow that must be the best intentional misintrepetation of my position ever, have a cookie....

for people intrested in my actual position: http://www.revleft.com/vb/gun-control-split-t147898/index.html
hint, i support gun control in the same way i support car control, people should take an safety exam and just as blind people shouldnt get behind the wheel it might be an good idea not to give guns to paranoid psychotics...
and yes, i know how to shoot and i might even aply for an licence soon, i'm for gun possesion, responsible gun possesion that is...

[L.A.P.]

I don't see how anyone could fully trust the state to be the only ones with ownership of firearms. We've learned from alcohol prohibition that prohibition only leads to an even more violent and more corrupt capitalist market, and if you think the black market of alcohol was bad then a black market of firearms would be worse than imaginable. So in a nutshell; Liberals are stupid.

[Vanguard1917]

hint, i support gun control in the same way i support car control, people should take an safety exam and just as blind people shouldnt get behind the wheel it might be an good idea not to give guns to paranoid psychotics...
and yes, i know how to shoot and i might even aply for an licence soon, i'm for gun possesion, responsible gun possesion that is...

A position naive to the extreme. If the bourgeois state should be able to decide who can and cannot bear arms, what makes you think they're going to afford that privilege to communist activists?

This is not about campaigning for the rights of mental lunatics to carry guns. It's about rejecting state powers to disarm the masses -- something which is often done precisely under the guise of protecting the public from tiny minorities of 'irresponsible people', but is in reality first and foremost about denying citizens a most basic democratic right.

[Sasha]

you oppose car licenses? licising of other dangerous tools?

anyway, i'm all for gun possesion by responsible revolutionarys, i'm also all for handgrenade and bazooka possesion for responisible revolutionarys, but if i need to choose between no legal bazooka's and handgrenades for responsible revolutionarys and legal handgrenades and bazookas for everybody i prefer it we stick to molotovs and other impro weapons until our time comes.
you might not agree with me but i think that is by all means an acceptable position for an revolutionary leftist to have. dont like it? shoot me ;)

[Bud Struggle]

I support the ownership of guns under a capitalist state. I think all revolutionaries should arm themselves if possible. How many people have been disappeared, rounded up, tourtured, and perhaps executed by security forces? Not saying that have a gun would be a deterrent, but i aint goin' to no fema camp without a fight.

In a post revoultionary society we should keep firearms, perhaps more on a collective basis like a militia. Especially in a decentralized society, we need arms to protect our revolutionary gains.

I think something of the opposite--people shouldn't be allowed to have guns before the Revolution it if a Revolution is successful then everyone should be allowed to have guns. :D

Kidding a bit there. ;) But guns are a basic human right everyone competent should be allowed to own one if he/she desires.

[scarletghoul]

Under a Proletarian or New Democratic state I believe that wide spread gun control through membership of local militias is a very good idea, and would serve as a bulwark against capitalist restoration.
Very true. Its no coincidence that in the 2 remaining workers' states, Cuba and North Korea, the majority of the population is armed or has access to guns.

[hatzel]

But guns are a basic human right everyone competent should be allowed to own one if he/she desires.

Oh, you're sooooo American :laugh:

[#FF0000]

Very true. Its no coincidence that in the 2 remaining workers' states, Cuba and North Korea, the majority of the population is armed or has access to guns.

>>worker's states
>>North Korea
>>Cuba

:mellow:

[scarletghoul]

highly original and witty post bro
i sure am pwnd

[Widerstand]

I don't see how anyone could fully trust the state to be the only ones with ownership of firearms. We've learned from alcohol prohibition that prohibition only leads to an even more violent and more corrupt capitalist market, and if you think the black market of alcohol was bad then a black market of firearms would be worse than imaginable. So in a nutshell; Liberals are stupid.

Americans are so cute. According to this post I should be living in a civil war zone controlled by black market arms dealers or something.

[Palingenisis]

Americans are so cute. According to this post I should be living in a civil war zone controlled by black market arms dealers or something.

Me too...However Im sure that criminal gangs have access to guns in Germany as Im positive the state has too...So given that situation why shouldnt the average prole have access to guns?

[Unclebananahead]

Armed workers are good. Armed and organized workers are better.

[Widerstand]

Me too...However Im sure that criminal gangs have access to guns in Germany as Im positive the state has too...So given that situation why shouldnt the average prole have access to guns?

I come from a village with a populace of roughly 5000. In this village, there were some 4000 registered guns, rifles and other non-heavy (eg. bazooka, etc.) firearms.

I mean seriously.

In principal I agree with psycho, but not under capitalism. Under capitalism, any regulatory instance will be used in the ruling class interest when possible/necessary, and the regulation of arms possession certainly is not exempt from this.

[ar734]

I was rather shocked here to find that there were on this forum those who advocate gun control by the capitalist state (though the person who did so also believes that revolution is centuries away, as if the world could survive centuries more of capitalism but utopian ultra-leftists turning into reformist liberals is all part of the course...). Under a capitalist state I believe that gun control should be opposed in principle by socialists. Under a Proletarian or New Democratic state I believe that wide spread gun control through membership of local militias is a very good idea, and would serve as a bulwark against capitalist restoration. It would be interesting to hear other people's views on this.

Here is Marx's view on the subject:

"4. Universal arming of the people. In future the armies shall be simultaneously labour armies, so that the troops shall not, as formerly, merely consume, but shall produce more than is necessary for their upkeep."

From The Demands of the Communist Party in Germany, 1848.

[Vanguard1917]

you oppose car licenses? licising of other dangerous tools?

anyway, i'm all for gun possesion by responsible revolutionarys, i'm also all for handgrenade and bazooka possesion for responisible revolutionarys, but if i need to choose between no legal bazooka's and handgrenades for responsible revolutionarys and legal handgrenades and bazookas for everybody i prefer it we stick to molotovs and other impro weapons until our time comes.
you might not agree with me but i think that is by all means an acceptable position for an revolutionary leftist to have. dont like it? shoot me ;)

Yes, the capitalist state is going to hand out guns strictly to 'responsible revolutionaries' (whatever that phrase means)...

And no, gun control is actually not a legitimate revolutionary position at all. Look at the history of world-changing revolutionary movements and you'll see 'an armed people' is a most elementary revolutionary demand.

[scarletghoul]

hint, i support gun control in the same way i support car control
If political power grew out of cars, that would be a reasonable comparison.

[hatzel]

Quick question...why does it really make any difference? "It must be legal under the eyes of the state that we have guns, so that we can then use those guns to undertake actions considered illegal under the eyes of the state, namely, revolution, and the overthrowing of said state". I mean, seriously? I didn't know armed revolutionaries were supposed to be a bunch of law-abiding goody two-shoes. If you're desperately in need of a gun, why not just do as all the drug dealers do, and pick up some imported Kalashnikov from Ukraine or some shit? Sure, it will be illegal, according to the good ol' state, but why does it matter whether or not the acquisition of the gun is legal, if the intended use of said gun will be illegal? :rolleyes:

[scarletghoul]

Its much easier to get them legally, there are ways revolutionaries can use them legally, and when theyre illegal the state can take them away even when they have not been used.. more importantly, the masses of people should be armed so that when the time comes the state cant massacre them.. you seem to think this is just about some gun conspiracy for communists to seize power, when really its a more general point that the working class should have access to weapons.
+ most drug dealers dont carry kalashnikovs but whatever

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Neither i see why we should release on the gun-restrictions considering the situation of today. First we must increase the class consiousness and the organization, then guns might be topical. Besides a general strike will hit the system harder then any bullets.

[Lt. Ferret]

the general strike is the marxist version of judgement day.

[Jazzratt]

To be honest I think that guns should be as widely available as possible but it is a seriously good idea to require some basic training or licensing (much like cars do as was psycho's analogy.) if only because without such a system guns will end up in the hands of people who don't grasp even simple concepts such as trigger discipline. I really don't feel comfortable handing out guns to ignorant yahoos who will pose a threat to themselves and their immediate peers through negligent or accidental discharge. In short; access to as many people as possible but require training so that they don't blow their own bollocks off or kill/maim someone they didn't intend to.

[ComradeMan]

I don't support gun ownership- a farmer and a rifle okay, but not widespread gun ownership and armed police forces- however that would be in a perfect world- we are not in one. It is certainly true that an armed population is potentially a revolutionary one yet on the other hand Switzerland is probably the most armed and militarily trained country in Europe--- revolutionary?

At the same time, "free" ownership of lethal weapons is not really a wise move.

[Jazzratt]

I don't support gun ownership- a farmer and a rifle okay, but not widespread gun ownership and armed police forces- however that would be in a perfect world- we are not in one. It is certainly true that an armed population is potentially a revolutionary one yet on the other hand Switzerland is probably the most armed and militarily trained country in Europe--- revolutionary? It's not that being armed magically makes a population or person inclined toward being revolutionary - America would have gone communist ages ago if that were the case (they all carry wheelbarrows full of guns around in the US, right?) - it's that being armed makes it more difficult for the state to terrorise its people into placidity. Sure everyone being armed with personal firearms isn't going to do jack shit against a properly trained army with the luxury of armour, artillery and air support but it'll even the odds a little when the goon squads come knocking.


At the same time, "free" ownership of lethal weapons is not really a wise move. With the obvious caveat outlined above (arming morons is a terrible idea because they will do moronic things) I'm not really sure that you can so boldly make this statement without any support or qualification.

[#FF0000]

(they all carry wheelbarrows full of guns around in the US, right?)

This is literally true 100%

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm sitting on a chair made of Ak-47s right now (cuz seriously, that's what any true socialist carries ;) ). My keyboard is bullets.

[Boboulas]

In a society that doesnt breed rampant crime and discrimination I cant see a use for such lax gun control. As an anarchist though I suppose its up to certain localities to decide.

To inner city dwellers in many places though im sure some feel the need to have one, legally or not. Not only is gun control a circumstancial one but also a cultural and social one. Its not simple as guns are bad as I used to belive, its complex, espcially for americans who have the strangest relationship with firearms, that I dont understand.

[Revolution starts with U]

Did you kinow that, in america, at the same time that violent crime rates were dropping in the 90s, coverage of violent crime was shooting through the roof.
Freakonomics prescribes the drop in violence to Roe v Wade. Others to the economy. But I can almost gaurantee you it wasn't harsher gun laws or less guns.

[The Man]

My opinion on gun-control. and response to the gun-control legislation:



In 1994, a mother named Susan Smith placed her two children into a 1990 Mazda Protegé, then rolled it into a lake, killing them.

Did anyone suggest banning Mazdas?

Car accidents injure 3,000,000 Americans every year, and kill 40,000 of them.

Does anyone seriously suggest banning cars for this reason?

No, car safety is all about training people to use cars safely.

Gun control should also be about training people to use guns responsibly, not taking them away from the subject people and making them a government monopoly.

The anti's sincerely believe that "cars have a legitimate purpose, guns are just for killing people". These folks need to pick up a book now and then. History is DEFINED by people killing people. How much history can you talk about that doesn't involve killing? What have we as a nation spent for the purpose of killing Al Qaida, Afghanis, Iraqis, Somalis, Vietnamese, Koreans, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Spaniards, Cubans....

Saving your own life is not only a "legitimate purpose" for gun ownership, it's the single most important legitimate purpose that a human being can have.

Why is it your right to have the incomes of other people stolen by the government to purchase insurance to pay doctors to save your life in case you get sick, yet you have no right to purchase the weapon of your own choice using your own money so that you can save your own life in case you're attacked by one of the many, many criminals, dopers, illegal aliens and sociopaths that live among us?

The legitimate purpose of the government is to regulate the BEHAVIOR of bad people, not to restrict the rights of people who have done nothing wrong. And the Feds have an even narrower mandate, since they have no general police power. This McCarthy twit wants to "regulate commerce" by using the force of law to take away objects which you and I have never misused, in the absence of evidence that we plan to misuse them in the future. That's fascism, not governing.

[Boboulas]

What it comes down to is do you want to live in a society where there are alot of guns? If protection is an issue then you need to understand what you need protecting from, and if a gun is the most effective way of dealing with the problem; history as you clearly stated, shows that guns are not the most effective way.

[Revolution starts with U]

I like nunchucks and bo staffs. I practice with them dilligently, and sometimes on the spur. I want to be able to carry them around.
Some people like guns...
protection shouldn't even be an issue, really. Gun regulation is lifestyle regulation.

[The Man]

What it comes down to is do you want to live in a society where there are alot of guns? If protection is an issue then you need to understand what you need protecting from, and if a gun is the most effective way of dealing with the problem; history as you clearly stated, shows that guns are not the most effective way.

It is the best way...

What am I going to do? Call the police, and make them take 15 minutes to get to my house, when someone is in here looking for me? Cops aren't going to magically appear in front of you and stop an attacker.

Guns = less than 0.1 seconds.. Much less.
Police officers = 15 minutes

[Revolution starts with U]

You could clamly explain that you are glad to share in your abundance, as long as he can be respectful about it. Give him some food, a little cash, and an ear to talk to.
If that doesn't work, sure, you should have the gun.
But self-defense is a secondary issue to one's ability to choose their likes/dislikes.

[Boboulas]

It is the best way...

What am I going to do? Call the police, and make them take 15 minutes to get to my house, when someone is in here looking for me? Cops aren't going to magically appear in front of you and stop an attacker.

Guns = less than 0.1 seconds.. Much less.
Police officers = 15 minutes

Mabey working towards a society where there is little or no crime is the best way. And of all the people in the world that own a gun, how many of them do you really think have been involved in a robbery? It sounds like you either live in a rough area or have bought into some pretty interesting ideas about society and crime.

[Lt. Ferret]

Better safe than sorry.

[Vanguard1917]

require training so that they don't blow their own bollocks off or kill/maim someone they didn't intend to.

Is there any precedent for this (and i don't mean a handful of rare cases), or is it just a groundless fear, that such things will inevitably happen in significant proportion if the capitalist state did not set a bunch of bureaucratic prerequisites for gun ownership?

[Jazzratt]

Is there any precedent for this (and i don't mean a handful of rare cases), or is it just a groundless fear, that such things will inevitably happen in significant proportion if the capitalist state did not set a bunch of bureaucratic prerequisites for gun ownership? Not precise numbers on civilian deaths no. However in 2007 1 death and 16 injuries amongst American forces in Iraq were the result of negligent discharge, this amongst trained (if psychotic) individuals. Without training in gun safety I imagine those numbers would have been higher (which may be an argument for not allowing americans to train their troops in gun safety but I doubt it would fly :lol:).

That said calling what would amount to, at most, a short (2-3 day) course with a written test "a bunch of bureaucratic prerequisites" is a nonsense in the face of what the current requirements are which can include mental health examinations (which I don't support as long as rebelliousness can be classified as a disorder) and proof of need (which is what we have in Britain and, unsurprisingly, self-defence is considered insufficient need). By comparison making sure you can operate it safely without presenting undue risk to yourself and those around you, as we currently do with cars, forklifts, certain kinds of heavy machinery and a raft of other things, is incredibly reasonable.


Guns = less than 0.1 seconds.. Much less.
Police officers = 15 minutes Jesus christ there quickdraw McGraw :lol:. I mean, yeah a gun is somewhat faster than calling the cops even if they arrive promptly but I think that the time it takes to draw, aim and fire a weapon is somewhat more than that, unless physics has changed a little since I was at school and I didn't notice.

[Lt. Ferret]

"if psychotic" :rolleyes: stop with the petty stupid shit please.

[Jazzratt]

"if psychotic" :rolleyes: stop with the petty stupid shit please. If it's so petty you could be the bigger man and ignore it, surely. Do you have anything to add to the discussion by the way?

[Delirium]

Is there any precedent for this (and i don't mean a handful of rare cases), or is it just a groundless fear, that such things will inevitably happen in significant proportion if the capitalist state did not set a bunch of bureaucratic prerequisites for gun ownership?

I dont have any statistics but in the united states there are lots of gun related accidents. Without knowing how to safely use a firearm, it does become a danger to you and the people around you. If you own a gun, you need to be responsible with it. A safety culture for firearms needs to be promoted now and in a socialist society.

Piece Now, Peace Later: An Anarchist Introduction to Firearms (http://zinelibrary.info/piece-now-peace-later-anarchist-introduction-firearms) (pdf)

[#FF0000]

Is there any precedent for this (and i don't mean a handful of rare cases), or is it just a groundless fear, that such things will inevitably happen in significant proportion if the capitalist state did not set a bunch of bureaucratic prerequisites for gun ownership?

To be fair a lot of people are so fucking stupid when it comes to handling guns that it's unbelievable.

[Lt. Ferret]

If it's so petty you could be the bigger man and ignore it, surely. Do you have anything to add to the discussion by the way?


yeah. i have a handgun. i like it. it protects me. im responsible with it. the idea that someone can decide that i dont need it or that im too dumb to use it is generally ridiculous and id need a really dangerous scenario shown to me to convince me that i need to hand it over.

[Revolution starts with U]

But that still doesn't address safety and mental testing to own one...
unless you consider yourself mentally unstable....
(btw, I'm on your side, the free aquisition of guns, tho I'm not absolutely against such requirements Jazz is talking about)

[Lt. Ferret]

well i mean me personally i deal with guns all day, so id like to think im pretty squared away. im not against things like classes for gun safety, but i'd like it better if it was purely voluntary.

edit: though im okay with restricting their access to people with a history of mental issues. im not even pro-restriction for felons, i had an idea once that if you were a felon, your gun restriction would be equal to the amount of time you served in prison ie if you served 2 years, your restriction lasts another 2 years. that could rightfully be considered arbitrary though.

[#FF0000]

itt: people advocate for greater power for the bourgeois state, and I get very confused by this

[Jazzratt]

itt: people advocate for greater power for the bourgeois state, and I get very confused by this Fun fact, in a large majority of countries changing the requirements for gun ownership to a simple aptitude test decreases the power of that immeasurably. As an example if I wanted to acquire a license for a shotgun I'd have to submit myself to a test of mental stability, provide a reason I need it and then have the fucking thing looked at on an annual basis (and if itsn't stored six and a half miles away from where it would be any practical use in an emergency it's confiscated) whilst submitting myself to reviews of the licence. That of course doesn't include the part where if I start getting treated for mental health issues I immediately lose the licence. If I want to (legally) own a rifle or a handgun my chances change from "ludicrously bureaucratic" to "hilarious."

The requirements I propose are similar to those required for owning a chainsaw.


But that still doesn't address safety and mental testing to own one...
unless you consider yourself mentally unstable.... I am diagnosed with a mental illness and there are certain definitions of mentally unstable that pathologies opposition to society as it stands. There is no way of not having a politicised test for mental stability. Sure this leaves things open for homicidal psychopaths to own weapons but the fun thing about homicidal psychopaths is that they are famously unwilling to give a fuck about that kind of thing and represent a negligible slice of population.

[ComradeMan]

With the obvious caveat outlined above (arming morons is a terrible idea because they will do moronic things) I'm not really sure that you can so boldly make this statement without any support or qualification.

From what I gather, it's easier for a young person in the US to buy a powerful gun than it is to buy a beer and then you arrive at situations with this disaffected teenagers going to school and shooting everyone. This has happened elsewhere I know, but these Colombine things do seem to happen more in the US.

To be honest I have mixed feelings, I can hear the argument on one side but on the other it seems like a lot of Americans do believe it is a fundamental human right and of course the US constitution does guarantee the right to bear arms if I am not mistaken.

It's a difficult one to call- but I am not keen on the idea. I can only imagine what free gun ownership might lead to here with the amount of shouting and aggression during rush hour traffic! :lol:

On a more serious note- I don't think universal gun ownership is the key to a better society but I can fully appreciate the motives as to why government does not want an armed society and I suspect they aren't so altruistic.;)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

sorry but i trust the capitalist state with guns more than i trust capitalist individuals with guns
outside the context of a mass workers movement it is nonsensical to wage an armed power struggle with the ruling class
it's laughable to pretend otherwise
of course im speaking of my circumstances
in the sixties in california for example the panthers used their freedom to arm themselves against police oppression
in principle however i dont think that the insecurity and murderous chaos that ensues from the wanton use of guns by civilians in places like unstable regions of africa and the united states is in the interest of workers
in the end, the revolution will not abide by the legality of the bourgeois state so it hardly matters whether it's illegal

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

to live in security without the fear of murder and violence is more important than you kids playing che

[hatzel]

...and all of a sudden Dr. Rosenpenis is my hero :laugh:

Okay, let's not get carried away here...:rolleyes:

[Lt. Ferret]

living free from fear of murder and violence is why i have a gun in the first place.


http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/smith_163460.jpg


i pack this heat.

[Revolution starts with U]

On another note; my second favorite weapon, the nunchaku, would never have been created without arms controls... so idk :lol:

[ComradeMan]

On another note; my second favorite weapon, the nunchaku, would never have been created without arms controls... so idk :lol:

Okinawan karate....! :lol:

[Delirium]

Here in the US you can buy any rifle or shotgun without your name attached to it. They just check your ID to make sure you are 18. As far as handguns you need to be 21 and pass a 3 day backgroundcheck, making sure you are not a felon or mentaly unstable.

In certain cases you can buy any firearm legally without the government knowing. This is either at a gunshow or with a person to person transaction. No paperwork other than a bill of sale if you want one.:) The state i'm in right now, you can even carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

I feel sorry for you all living in europe.

[hatzel]

Here in the US you can buy any rifle or shotgun without your name attached to it. They just check your ID to make sure you are 18. As far as handguns you need to be 21 and pass a 3 day backgroundcheck, making sure you are not a felon or mentaly unstable.

In certain cases you can buy any firearm legally without the government knowing. This is either at a gunshow or with a person to person transaction. No paperwork other than a bill of sale if you want one.:) The state i'm in right now, you can even carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

I feel sorry for you all living in europe.

Wow...I feel sorry for you all living in America :lol:

[#FF0000]

Here in the US you can buy any rifle or shotgun without your name attached to it. They just check your ID to make sure you are 18. As far as handguns you need to be 21 and pass a 3 day backgroundcheck, making sure you are not a felon or mentaly unstable.

In certain cases you can buy any firearm legally without the government knowing. This is either at a gunshow or with a person to person transaction. No paperwork other than a bill of sale if you want one.:) The state i'm in right now, you can even carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

I feel sorry for you all living in europe.

Depends on the state. In PA there is no waiting period. Background checks can be done in a few seconds.


Wow...I feel sorry for you all living in America http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Why?

[ComradeMan]

Depends on the state. In PA there is no waiting period. Background checks can be done in a few seconds.



Why?


Forgive us Europeans perhaps not used to such a gun oriented society- but was Delirium describes, well- it sounds like madness.

How can untraceable guns be sold to people like that?

[#FF0000]

Gunshows are the shadiest places on the fucking planet.

[Rottenfruit]

Why does the goverment have right to own guns but not you? How the hell does that makes sense? We all know how responsible governments agency´s are with weapons

[Psy]

What it comes down to is do you want to live in a society where there are alot of guns?

I don't see what the problem would be if a communist world had most workers armed. It would make counter-revolutionaries and opportunists think twice if there are billion of armed workers on Earth all with offered free firearms and training from communist societies. It also means there would be far less need for a army of armed workers thus making it easier for revolutionary armies to disband after a global workers revolution since enough workers would be armed to defend themselves.



If protection is an issue then you need to understand what you need protecting from, and if a gun is the most effective way of dealing with the problem

The bourgeoisie and those that side with them.



; history as you clearly stated, shows that guns are not the most effective way.

Guns are very effective which is why bourgeoisie states rely on them so heavily.

[AerodynamicOwl]

living free from fear of murder and violence is why i have a gun in the first place.


http://www.impactguns.com/store/media/smith_163460.jpg


i pack this heat.


^^^
Most impractical form of self defense ever.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It's not that being armed magically makes a population or person inclined toward being revolutionary - America would have gone communist ages ago if that were the case (they all carry wheelbarrows full of guns around in the US, right?) - it's that being armed makes it more difficult for the state to terrorise its people into placidity.


this doesn't hold true. maybe you should read up on how the US gov't dealt with internal dissent, the radical left, civil rights movement and so on. there was plenty of state terrorism. including against the heavily armed bpp.

making it easy for anyone to threaten anyone's life and kill whoever they please is not my idea of safety or revolution
it's by no means in the interest of the already vulnerable and disadvantaged proletariat. as someone who lives amidst extreme urban violence i can tell you that the poor and the workers are the ones most victimized by guns, rather than the rich and powerful who have the means to protect themselves.

[Red Bayonet]

Marx opposed gun control
Engels opposed gun control
The communists oppose gun control
I oppose ALL gun control
Nuff said
(Tell that to Peoples World, and see how quickly they edit out your comments!)