Noam Chomsky Anti-Gun?

[The Man]

Well, I emailed him and he responded saying: I think it's a bit crazy for people to be running around with guns.. That upset me a bit :(

[Robespierre Richard]

Oh I thought this would be about the NC-3000, the Noam Chomsky Anti-Gun...

Yeah he's basically a liberal.

[GPDP]

I'm not a gun buff in the slightest, but anti-gun ownership positions basically boil down to the capitalist state having the sole say on who gets to have guns or not, the black market non-withstanding. And we all know how shit goes down when only the black market supplies stuff.

Besides, if Chomsky was any kind of materialist, he'd know the problem lies not in people having guns, but people being put into positions where having and USING guns for harmful purposes becomes encouraged.

So yeah, in a sense it's kind of like how Eddie Izzard says: Guns don't kill people, people do, even if the gun helps.

Edit: Then again, he may be referring to the batshit insane gun culture here in the States. A lot of gun nuts here are reactionary as fuck, and within such circles often lie breeding grounds for the far right. Again, I know not all gun owners or enthusiasts are that way, but you gotta admit there is something of a problem.

[Tim Finnegan]

Ah, so he hasn't fallen into the habit of fetishising unrestrained individual liberty that trips up so many anarchists? Good, good, knew he was a sensible chap.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Honestly, I don't see any argument for keeping handguns legal. They are not going to protect yourself any better than a normal rifle and they aren't even used in recreational activities (like hunting). The sole purpose of handguns are to commit crime...

[Salyut]

. Again, I know not all gun owners or enthusiasts are that way, but you gotta admit there is something of a problem.

Its self perpetuating. The anti-gun liberal position pushes the gun culture into the arms (lul) of the Right; who are more then happy to exploit this. I've seen it in action first hand.

[GPDP]

Honestly, I don't see any argument for keeping handguns legal. They are not going to protect yourself any better than a normal rifle and they aren't even used in recreational activities (like hunting). The sole purpose of handguns are to commit crime...

You do know that the only legal carriers of handguns would be the cops then, correct?

What would criminalizing the ownership of handguns accomplish, exactly? Criminals would still get them, as would the police. All you would be doing is expanding the power and reach of the state, and basically letting them know you are A-OK with them being the only legitimate carriers of firepower, even if they only banned handguns and nothing else. It's as much a psychological blow to workers as it is an emasculating one.

Sure, in an ideal world, guns would not exist (my opinion, though many here will of course say otherwise), or be used for harmful purposes. But we're living in the here and now, and advocating legislation to ban handguns in the here and now would do nothing but empower the bourgeoisie against us, if not in terms of firepower, then in terms of letting them know we accept them as our sole guardians and the only legitimate force of organized violence.

[Salyut]

They are not going to protect yourself any better than a normal rifle

Situation specific. You aren't going to be carrying a AR15 across a dark parking lot at 2 AM in the morning after your shift at work.


they aren't even used in recreational activities (like hunting)

Um. Yes they are.


The sole purpose of handguns are to commit crime...

They exist to make small bits of metal go very fast. Its pretty difficult for something that isn't human to commit a crime.

I have never seen any anti-gun person address how easy it is to fabricate firearms in a home workshop. It has been, and continues to be done - the instructions and tools are available to anyone who spends thirty seconds on Google. Explosives aren't difficult either - kids on youtube make ANFO and other things all the time.

[RedSonRising]

It is unclear whether he is referring to a post-revolutionary or empowerment-seeking community, OR a potentially dangerous reactionary (or criminally violent) community. The latter makes sense in terms of the risk, but I doubt Chomsky would criticize a social movement or political platform involving communities armed in self-defense with guns.

It would be interesting if he did indeed decide to touch on or delve into the subject.

[Luís Henrique]

You do know that the only legal carriers of handguns would be the cops then, correct?
And what would be the problem?

I don't expect to make a revolution without breaking any laws anyway.

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

What would criminalizing the ownership of handguns accomplish, exactly? Criminals would still get them, as would the police. All you would be doing is expanding the power and reach of the state, and basically letting them know you are A-OK with them being the only legitimate carriers of firepower, even if they only banned handguns and nothing else. It's as much a psychological blow to workers as it is an emasculating one.This really doesn't seem to pay any reference to any social reality which I'm aware of. Lord save us from the tyranny of groundless hypothesising...

[GPDP]

And what would be the problem?

I don't expect to make a revolution without breaking any laws anyway.

Hehe, I actually meant to put quote marks around the word legal. Obviously I have little respect for bourgeois legality. The point I'm trying to make is that advocating for the illegalization of weapons only serves to bolster the bourgeoisie's confidence to our detriment.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sounds about right. From the man who brought you Anarchists for John Kerry comes Anarchists for Regulation of Firearms Ownership by the Capitalist State.

* * *

"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.

* * *

The people making the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan so difficult are mainly using small arms.

Firearms were/are usually present in miners strikes in the coal fields (West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania) from the early days up until the 70's, 80's and even 90's. Ever see the documentary Harlan County U.S.A.? I have stories, friends and family with experiences, etc. that would surprise a lot of people, "leftist revolutionaries" included.

* * *

When you call for limiting gun ownership, for whatever reason you, you are arguing for the capitalist state to regulate our lives further, since that's the only force capable of regulating such a thing.

The bourgeois armed the proletariat when it needed it, and tried to reverse that when it didn't. Some countries went through mass revolutions involving huge swaths of the population. Others did not.

It should be mentioned that Switzerland has wide firearm ownership, and makes firearms training available to any boy or girl who wants it. All Swiss men enter boot camp around age 20 and remain a part of the militia until they reach 30. All those people keep their firearms (mostly Sig 550s) at home. After their militia term ends they're allowed to keep their firearms after having the autofire function removed. You need a permit to carry firearms.

There are some 3,000,000 firearms in homes across Switzerland. There are 7,600,000 people. There were 34 instances of gun violence in the entire country 2006. There were nearly twice as many instances of knife violence.

[GPDP]

This really doesn't seem to pay any reference to any social reality. Lord save us from the tyranny of groundless hypothesising...

You want to talk about reality? How about the fact that you are ignoring the actual material causes of violent and gun-related crime, instead choosing to put the blame on the tools used to cause the crimes, and even calling for a ban, which, unless I'm somehow reading you all wrong, implies you want the capitalist state to hold the final say on who gets to have them? How about the reality that in all likelihood, cops would continue to carry such weapons, as would criminals? Unless you somehow didn't realize it and have not carried your position to its logical conclusion, what that tells me is you trust the state and the police, but not your fellow workers.

[Robespierre Richard]

I think everyone should be handed out a handgun and a (semi-)automatic rifle. Anything less is siding with the revisionists and ultra-leftists.

Basically life should just be like this:

Pblj3JHF-Jo

[Tim Finnegan]

You want to talk about reality? How about the fact that you are ignoring the actual material causes of violent and gun-related crime, instead choosing to put the blame on the tools used to cause the crimes...
Because it's impossible to address these problems without supporting private gun-ownership? :confused:


...and even calling for a ban, which, unless I'm somehow reading you all wrong, implies you want the capitalist state to hold the final say on who gets to have them?In the short term? Sure. Nobody else is in much of a position to do so.


How about the reality that in all likelihood, cops would continue to carry such weapons, as would criminals?In the UK (outside of Northern Ireland), firearms are very rare, and only special police units carry them.


Unless you somehow didn't realize it and have not carried your position to its logical conclusion, what that tells me is you trust the state and the police, but not your fellow workers.Oh no, I am insufficient in my revolutionary zeal! Should I report to the commissariat for a formal tribunal, or will you just execute revolutionary justice here? :(

[GPDP]

Because it's impossible to address these problems without supporting private gun-ownership? :confused:

It isn't, but it's still a silly and even reactionary thing to do.


In the short term? Sure. Nobody else is in much of a position to do so.And I already said why doing such a thing would be harmful. You have yet to address why I am wrong other than mocking me and saying I'm hypothesizing too much.


In the UK (outside of Northern Ireland), firearms are very rare, and only special police units carry them.And I am sure crime is never committed there as a result, right?


Oh no, I am insufficient in my revolutionary zeal! Should I report to the commissariat for a formal tribunal, or will you just execute revolutionary justice here? :(When in doubt, mock and ridicule your opponent as a dogmatic purist.

[Raubleaux]

This would make sense. Chomsky is a liberal. Gun control is a typical liberal position.

As far as my own view, I grew up in the country in the South and I enjoy hunting. It's not something I've looked into a great deal, but in inner-cities I think you could probably justify limiting gun sales.

I don't think individual people owning guns is going to be the way a revolution is won. Any "revolution" that consists of a bunch of anarchists running around with personal firearms is going to be a comedy and a farce.

However, when it comes to the military, that is a crucial struggle. In order for us to ever have success in a revolutionary situation we will need to have communists in the military.

[Tim Finnegan]

It isn't, but it's still a silly and even reactionary thing to do.
"Reactionary"? In what sense?


And I already said why doing such a thing would be harmful. You have yet to address why I am wrong other than mocking me and saying I'm hypothesizing too much.The burden of proof is on you, not me. All I've said is that your hypothesis doesn't seem to reflect any actual implementation of such policies that I am aware of. (In particular, I'm puzzled by your insistence that the workers will be "demoralised" by gun legislation, as if such things are not generally the product of popular support? Do you really see the British public demanding the banning of handguns in the wake of the Dunblane massacre, only to turn around and go "shit, now we feel disempowered" a week later?)


And I am sure crime is never committed there as a result, right?I don't believe that I suggested as much.


When in doubt, mock and ridicule your opponent as a dogmatic purist.Fair point, fair point.


Yeah he's basically a liberal.

This would make sense. Chomsky is a liberal.
This seems like it could do with elaboration.

[Luís Henrique]

The point I'm trying to make is that advocating for the illegalization of weapons only serves to bolster the bourgeoisie's confidence to our detriment.

The movement for keeping guns legal in the United States seems to bolster the bourgeoisie's confidence quite well too, though.

Luís Henrique

[Comrade_Stalin]

I think everyone should be handed out a handgun and a (semi-)automatic rifle. Anything less is siding with the revisionists and ultra-leftists.

Basically life should just be like this:




Good one, but do note that we are the ones that call you revisionists here.

But before you ask me, I'm for public guns, meaning I'm for a draft.

[Robespierre Richard]

Good one, but do note that we are the ones that call you revisionists here.

But before you ask me, I'm for public guns, meaning I'm for a draft.

Hoxha basically made everyone in Albania have a gun, so if you disagree with that you are pro-revisionism.

Also, Lenin made workers being armed part of the RSFSR constitution.


(g) For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed, and that a Socialist Red Army be organized and the propertied class disarmed.

[Tim Finnegan]

Worth noting, of course, that there's a difference between the social ownership of firearms, which is to say workers' militias, and the private ownership of firearms.

[Geiseric]

why don't we replace all guns with tazers?

[GPDP]

"Reactionary"? In what sense?

Reactionary in the sense that it allows the state a carte blanche on what we can freely possess. It sets a dangerous precedent, is what I'm saying. I'm not one for slippery slopes, but what makes you believe they will stop at handguns?


The burden of proof is on you, not me. All I've said is that your hypothesis doesn't seem to reflect any actual implementation of such policies that I am aware of. (In particular, I'm puzzled by your insistence that the workers will be "demoralised" by gun legislation, as if such things are not generally the product of popular support? Do you really see the British public demanding the banning of handguns in the wake of the Dunblane massacre, only to turn around and go "shit, now we feel disempowered" a week later?)Perhaps I need to clarify this too. It's not so much that they feel disempowered as that they objectively WILL be, and the state will be bolstered in knowing they have this kind of power.

The fact that people respond to a massacre with a call to ban weapons is, in my view, a sign of low consciousness of the material causes for such tragedies, as well as the continuing legitimacy the state has in people's eyes. And unless I am mistaken, our job as socialists is to challenge the notion of the legitimacy of that very state.


I don't believe that I suggested as much.Indeed, but I still believe what is most important is to look at the SOCIAL causes of crimes rather than the most immediate. Let's say a man, equipped with a handgun, robs and shoots a gas station attendant. Upon looking at what just happened, one can say "well, there's a bullet in the attendant's chest, and that bullet could only have gotten there by way of a handgun, therefore the gun is to blame." The gun here is the immediate cause of the crime. But that ignores why a man would be compelled to consider robbing the gas station, buy a gun, go to the gas station, point the gun, and shoot it in the first place.

Banning handguns will only drive the process of acquiring the gun through to the black market. All it will do is make it slightly more inconvenient for the shooter, but where conditions encourage him to do so, he is very likely to find a way anyway. And again, it's still letting the state know they have sole legitimacy on firepower. To me, all banning the weapon does is make one feel good that at least they are "illegal," which again presupposes the legitimacy of current capitalist legality. They are still in the streets, but at least the state says they're not ok!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The movement for keeping guns legal in the United States seems to bolster the bourgeoisie's confidence quite well too, though.

So let's cheer on the capitalist state as it disarms millions of workers!

This really is the worst kind of apologism for the bourgeoisie. It's fucking disgusting.

[Luís Henrique]

So let's cheer on the capitalist state as it disarms millions of workers!

This really is the worst kind of apologism for the bourgeoisie. It's fucking disgusting.

In which country is the gun legislation more lax?

In which country is proletarian class counsciousness the weakest?

I think you will find they are the same country...

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

So let's cheer on the capitalist state as it disarms millions of workers!
In the UK, the only people who owned the sorts of guns criminalised in substantial numbers were paramilitaries and criminals. They're not the kind of "worker" I'm tripping over myself to defend.

(Seriously, what is it with Americans and this assumption that, left to their own devices, people will inevitably arm themselves to the teeth? Do you all live in a cowboy movie or something?)

[Summerspeaker]

Neither gun culture nor state control of weapons appeal to me. Though I appreciate the disdain for Chomsky, ey might be thinking of situation akin to the anarchist(ish) society in Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed where nobody carries firearms presumably out of collective choice.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Being a UK citizen, and having seen a lot of the crazy insane gun-related shit that goes on in the US, I can't say I disagree with the idea of a society that doesn't have general gun ownership.

It's unlikely that, even in a genuine revolution where the masses are highly class conscious, that it would be a good idea to give them all guns to go and defend the revolution with.

You can't make a peaceful society out of war. That's not a pacifist sentiment, it's a moral outlook and for me, an historical fact.

[Struggle]

I support gun ownership. Yes, indeed, it will cause more gun crime. However, it will also enable revolutionaries to arm themselves and put up serious resistance.

On another note, how do I go about emailing Mr Chomsky.

[The Douche]

Gun control threads on revleft help keep my list of "liberals I need to ignore" up to date.

[Tim Finnegan]

I support gun ownership. Yes, indeed, it will cause more gun crime. However, it will also enable revolutionaries to arm themselves and put up serious resistance.
No it won't. Western workers with civilian-grade handguns can not take on the US military.

...Unless you're proposing that military-grade armaments be made available to the general public?


Gun control threads on revleft help keep my list of "liberals I need to ignore" up to date.
What is it with you people and that word?

[∞]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ&feature=player_embedded

[The Douche]

What is it with you people and that word?

You people? Oh, you mean, communist revolutionaries?

[Tim Finnegan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ&feature=player_embedded
Wait, wait- could it be that this issue is, in fact, complex? :scared:


You people? Oh, you mean, communist revolutionaries?
I would say that calling yourself a "revolutionary" is incredibly generous, but, fine, if that's how you want to put it.

And, again, I ask you: what is it with you people and the word "liberal"? You do realise that it has an actual definition, don't you?

[∞]

I disagree with Chomsky, gangs and criminals attain their weapons from the black market, it is fair that we can have means to protect ourselves from them. Also, those people who shotgun their wives aren't a kind of people who have anything to do with guns being legal, they probably would have stabbed her.

One unfortunate thing is all the call of duty fanboys who get a boner from the mention of guns they never even fired.

The second amendment was also a reason why the Black Panther Party was so successful. They literally created an armed guard to protect the working class from the police.

[Zanthorus]

Noam Chomsky in liberal paternalist political stance shocker.


Ah, so he hasn't fallen into the habit of fetishising unrestrained individual liberty that trips up so many anarchists? Good, good, knew he was a sensible chap.

So now the entire workers' movement from Marx and Engels to the Communist International were Anarchists with a fetish for unrestrained individual liberty?


4. Universal arming of the people.- Marx and Engels, Demands of the Communist Party in Germay


To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party[i.e the petty bourgeois democrats], whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.- Marx and Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League


4. Abolition of standing armies and the general arming of the people;- The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier (Drafted by Marx)


3. Education of all to bear arms. Militia in the place of the standing army- The Erfurt Programme


12. Replacement of the standing army by universal arming of the people.- Programme of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party adopted at the Second RSDLP Congress


The bourgeois state apparatus with its capitalist army commanded by the bourgeois – Junker officers, with its police and gendarmerie, its gaolers and judges, its priests and civil servants is the strongest weapon the bourgeoisie possesses. The capture of state power must not mean simply a change of personnel in the ministries, but the elimination of the hostile state apparatus, the concentration of real power in the hands of the proletariat, the disarming of the bourgeoisie, the counter-revolutionary officers and the White Guard, and the arming of the proletariat, the revolutionary soldiers and the Red Workers’ Guard;- Platform of the Communist International

But yeah, I'm sure the first congress of the CI was packed to the brim with Anarchists.

[RadioRaheem84]

The second amendment was also a reason why the Black Panther Party was so successful. They literally created an armed guard to protect the working class from the police.


Bingo. :thumbup1:

[Tim Finnegan]

blahblahblah Militia blahblahblahblah
Key word, I'd say.

[RadioRaheem84]

Key word, I'd say.

Do you have something against the concept of a militia?

[Tim Finnegan]

Do you have something against the concept of a militia?
No, quite the opposite. My point was that the "universal arming of the workers" advocated by Marx, Engels, et al. took the form of social ownership through proletarian militias, not individuals stockpiling private firearms.

[The Douche]

I will repeat the same arguement that I always feel necessary to mention in threads like these.

As communists we believe that the working class is capable of running the entire world themselves, they can decide what needs to be produced, how to produce, how to distribute it, etc, they can solve the problems of poverty and hunger, that workers are intelligent and responsible enough to be free of the bosses and managers, both in business and in their social lives.

But some people won't trust them to own a gun in their home?:blink:

Isn't ownership of the means of production far riskier than ownership of a rifle or handgun?

[Obs]

No, quite the opposite. My point was that the "universal arming of the workers" advocated by Marx, Engels, et al. took the form of social ownership through proletarian militias, not individuals stockpiling private firearms.
Why? Are workers too stupid to keep their own guns? Will they perhaps start randomly shooting at people because that's just what people tend to do if they're given a firearm? Of course not.

And even if one individual does do that, they won't get particularly far until someone else shoots them back. You bet your ass an armed society is a polite society.

[PhoenixAsh]

Kind of defeats the purpose...if everybody owned guns everybody would be exactly so much armed as they are when nobody owns guns. Society will not be any more polite or not.

I think that actually teh argument proves that people should pronably be screened before they can or cant own a gun....if armament is necessary for a polite society...that means they need to threaten each other to be polite. Taht doesn't say much about the members of that society

;):D

That said....I am very much in favor of civilian owned fire arms. As well as both public schooling and private schooling in the use of them and the safest way to handle them.

However...I think its wise to screen people a bit before you hand them firepower.

[Tim Finnegan]

I will repeat the same arguement that I always feel necessary to mention in threads like these.

As communists we believe that the working class is capable of running the entire world themselves, they can decide what needs to be produced, how to produce, how to distribute it, etc, they can solve the problems of poverty and hunger, that workers are intelligent and responsible enough to be free of the bosses and managers, both in business and in their social lives.

But some people won't trust them to own a gun in their home?:blink:

Isn't ownership of the means of production far riskier than ownership of a rifle or handgun?

Why? Are workers too stupid to keep their own guns? Will they perhaps start randomly shooting at people because that's just what people tend to do if they're given a firearm? Of course not.

And even if one individual does do that, they won't get particularly far until someone else shoots them back. You bet your ass an armed society is a polite society.
I think that there may be some trans-Atlantic dissonance here. In the UK, very few people own guns or have ever owned guns; people don't want them, it's simply not part of the culture. Their legalisation would do nothing but put them in the hands of those who plan to use them for anti-social ends, be it criminality, terrorism, or what have you. In the US, it's apparently a more complex state of affairs.

[Obs]

I think that there may be some trans-Atlantic dissonance here. In the UK, very few people own guns or have ever owned guns; people don't want them, it's simply not part of the culture. Their legalisation would do nothing but put them in the hands of those who plan to use them for anti-social ends, be it criminality, terrorism, or what have you. In the US, it's apparently a more complex state of affairs.
I'm Danish.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm Danish.
And you think that Denmark would be a better place with more guns? :confused:

[The Douche]

I don't think the US would be "better" or "worse" with "more" or "less" guns. I think that I like to shoot guns, and I like to collect them, and I see no reason why some other instituion should be able to take them away from me.

I am a sane and rational person, why shouldn't I be able to participate in a hobby of my choosing?

[Obs]

And you think that Denmark would be a better place with more guns? :confused:
I don't think it'd be worse if workers were allowed to own their own guns rather than letting the state have a monopoly on gun ownership. By normalising people's relationship to guns, we might help to alleviate the rather immense problem my city has with the police using any chance they get to shoot people because they feel so much more powerful when they have a gun and no one else does.

[Psy]

No, quite the opposite. My point was that the "universal arming of the workers" advocated by Marx, Engels, et al. took the form of social ownership through proletarian militias, not individuals stockpiling private firearms.
The question is if a reserve army of armed people outside the workers militia/army and the answer is yes as it means you can have a smaller standing armed force when it comes to defense as you can quickly mobilize armed civilian defense force.

Lets take the military coup of Chile, if all the workers were armed and trained as a reserve civilian defense force before the coup do you think Pinochet's coup would have gone as smoothly? Do you think Pinochet could have easily rounded rounded up people if everyone had firearms and basic firearm training?

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't think the US would be "better" or "worse" with "more" or "less" guns. I think that I like to shoot guns, and I like to collect them, and I see no reason why some other instituion should be able to take them away from me.

I am a sane and rational person, why shouldn't I be able to participate in a hobby of my choosing?
I suppose that, again, we're back to the "trans-Atlantic dissonance". In the UK, the only people who are traditionally understood to want weapons for legitimate purposes are those with immediate safety concerns or those involved in hunting and sports, and both of those sets can still gain access to firearms. Simply wanting the potential to destroy another human being for its own sake is regarded with a degree of suspicion.


I don't think it'd be worse if workers were allowed to own their own guns rather than letting the state have a monopoly on gun ownership. By normalising people's relationship to guns, we might help to alleviate the rather immense problem my city has with the police using any chance they get to shoot people because they feel so much more powerful when they have a gun and no one else does.
Do you think that most Danes would actually wish to own guns if they had the opportunity? In the UK, when handguns were banned in 1997 it effected less than 60,000 people, less than 0.1% of the population. (And relatively few of them, if I understand correctly, of the ethnic or class backgrounds that tend to experience police harassment.)


The question is if a reserve army of armed people outside the workers militia/army and the answer is yes as it means you can have a smaller standing armed force when it comes to defense as you can quickly mobilize armed civilian defense force.

Lets take the military coup of Chile, if all the workers were armed and trained as a reserve civilian defense force before the coup do you think Pinochet's coup would have gone as smoothly? Do you think Pinochet could have easily rounded rounded up people if everyone had firearms and basic firearm training?
You seem to be suggesting something rather more comprehensive than the mere possibility of individual firearms ownership. That I could get behind, but it doesn't seem to be something that's on the table.

[L.A.P.]

Why would any Leftist want to make the state the only force with firearms? Look what a black market for alcohol did, and you want to do that with guns? I feel like the people on this forum are just getting dumber or we have way too many former Liberals.

[Obs]

Do you think that most Danes would actually wish to own guns if they had the opportunity? In the UK, when handguns were banned in 1997 it effected less than 60,000 people, less than 0.1% of the population. (And relatively few of them, if I understand correctly, of the ethnic or class backgrounds that tend to experience police harassment.)
I think we're discussing two different things here. I'm discussing allowing everyone to own a gun, where you seem to be discussing forcing people to own guns.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think the US would be "better" or "worse" with "more" or "less" guns. I think that I like to shoot guns, and I like to collect them, and I see no reason why some other instituion should be able to take them away from me.

I am a sane and rational person, why shouldn't I be able to participate in a hobby of my choosing?

Fine, but then you don't need to mount a pseudo-political stance to defend your hobby.

Liking guns is one thing; believing that personal ownership of guns is somehow a progressive issue is completely different.

Tim Finnegan is spot on: the arming of workers is a collective issue, not an individual one.

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

I think we're discussing two different things here. I'm discussing allowing everyone to own a gun, where you seem to be discussing forcing people to own guns.
I meant that your predictions of a more "polite" society assume the widespread adoption of firearms, which I'm not sure would be the case. Legalisation doesn't necessarily mean popularisation.


Why would any Leftist want to make the state the only force with firearms?
It's really more about preventing certain unsavoury non-state entities from obtaining them than a strict state exclusivity.


I feel like the people on this forum are just getting dumber or we have way too many former LiberalsThere's that word again... :rolleyes:

[∞]

There is one essential common element among anarchist and Marxist solutions, and that is to arm the working class.

Even if we're not prone to any revolution (at least here in the states), I would go gun.
After imagining both situations with and without guns, the changes are minimal. However, I would much rather have it so I have the freedom to choose whether I want to carry a weapon. The government may aid the people at times, but a general population of idiots may take your rights away in a bourgeoisie "democracy".

[RadioRaheem84]

Tim, that word is there and will continue to be used because liberal concepts have really seeped into leftist discourse. The gun position is def. one of them. I mean, giving the state the authority over firearms is ludicrous to a leftist.

[∞]

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.png



And as you can see from these statistics, gun-violence has remained constant before and after the banning of machine guns.

[Tim Finnegan]

There is one essential common element among anarchist and Marxist solutions, and that is to arm the working class.Yes, but as a class. Atomised individuals contribute nothing to class struggle simply because they have a gun in their hands. Without a mass movement, even explicitly revolutionary left-wing groups, like the INLA in Northern Ireland or the Red Brigades in Italy, will only ever serve to makes things worse.


Tim, that word is there and will continue to be used because liberal concepts have really seeped into leftist discourse. The gun position is def. one of them. I mean, giving the state the authority over firearms is ludicrous to a leftist.
Why is it "ludicrous"? Unideal, sure, but the same can be said of allowing the bourgeois state to levy taxes, nationalise industries or control key elements of the economic infrastructure. We have to deal in immediate necessities, not ideals.


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.png



And as you can see from these statistics, gun-violence has remained constant before and after the banning of machine guns.
You need to provide a bit more information if you want this to make any sense.

[∞]

Yes, but as a class. Atomised individuals contribute nothing to class struggle simply because they have a gun in their hands. Without a mass movement, even explicitly revolutionary left-wing groups, like the INLA in Northern Ireland or the Red Brigades in Italy, will only ever serve to makes things worse.


I would like to know how exactly. Say a mass movement ensued post-gun-banning, how would they be able to utilize their size without some guns. Imagine the Black Panther Party of they weren't allowed to purchase rifles. Imagine how many more innocent negroes, latinos, and even working class white people would be beaten by a corrupt police. I want to be able to own a gun because we can only expect a civil society when they are given complete freedom and able to not go overboard with it. That I believe, is the premise of the radical left.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

In which country is the gun legislation more lax?

In which country is proletarian class counsciousness the weakest?

I think you will find they are the same country...Except that many of the most militant actions taken by workers in the United States involved and were possibly because of firearms: the Coal Creek War (where white miners freed black convicts); the Homestead Strike (when workers took over the city of Homestead, fighting off armed Pinkertons); Battle of Blair Mountain (the largest armed insurrection in the US after the civil war, when 15,000 workers marched on Logan County and battled gunthugs and cops); etc.

And that widespread firearm ownership largely resulted out of mass struggles, with millions enlisted in the American Revolution and Civil War, after which the bourgeoisie did not or could not immediately disarm the population -- not because of some nonsense about workers in the United States being reactionaries.

And that millions rely on hunting for food for themselves and their families each year.

And that even if all of this wasn't the case, it still wouldn't be grounds for calling for the capitalist state to be the only possessor of firearms.


I support gun ownership. Yes, indeed, it will cause more gun crime.No it won't. This has been proven wrong numerous times, including in this thread:

"There are some 3,000,000 firearms in homes across Switzerland. There are 7,600,000 people. There were 34 instances of gun violence in the entire country 2006. There were nearly twice as many instances of knife violence."

Crime is a result of social issues, not firearms.


It's unlikely that, even in a genuine revolution where the masses are highly class conscious, that it would be a good idea to give them all guns to go and defend the revolution with.Give them? Who is going to "give" anything to "them?" You're talking like you're a member of parliament.

* * *

In the end, the main thing is whether or not you are for working people controlling their own lives. The popularity of calls for regulation of firearms shows how tied into bosses and wannabee bosses leftism is. You know, we can't let "them" have guns! They'll go around killing each other! It'll be insane! :rolleyes:

[∞]

necessities, not ideals.


You need to provide a bit more information if you want this to make any sense.

More than what you have presented so far...

[Tim Finnegan]

I would like to know how exactly. Say a mass movement ensued post-gun-banning, how would they be able to utilize their size without some guns.
You think such a ban irreversible, or even impossible to circumvent? I'm suggesting workers' self-defence organisations as part of a mass communist movement, not simply the paramilitary wings of a vanguard party.


Imagine the Black Panther Party of they weren't allowed to purchase rifles. Imagine how many more innocent negroes, latinos, and even working class white people would be beaten by a corrupt police.We're talking about 2011, not 1966. I'm not preaching absolutes here.

[Edit: This was originally " I really don't think that the Black Panther Party were quite what you imagine them to be.", as Blackened Marxist quotes below, but I apparently ninja-edited, because it was, self-evidently, a trite and unhelpful comment.]


I want to be able to own a gun because we can only expect a civil society when they are given complete freedom and able to not go overboard with it. That I believe, is the premise of the radical left.And you really believe that, in contemporary capitalist society, simply legalising guns will offer "complete freedom"? That distribution and freedom of use of such weapons will not simply express existing class and ethnic divisions? Do remember all the shootings of looters (or, often, "looters") in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, the overwhelmingly committed by middle-class whites against working class blacks.


More than what you have presented so far...
I'm just asking for a bit of context. I can give you some numbers too, but if I don't tell you what they actually describe, it's no good to anyone.


No it won't. This has been proven wrong numerous times, including in this thread:

"There are some 3,000,000 firearms in homes across Switzerland. There are 7,600,000 people. There were 34 instances of gun violence in the entire country 2006. There were nearly twice as many instances of knife violence."

Crime is a result of social issues, not firearms.
Nobody's contesting that. What's being suggested is that private firearms allow these issues to be more damaging. Street violence exists whether criminals have cudgels or guns, but only in the latter case can they drop you from fifty feet.


In the end, the main thing is whether or not you are for working people controlling their own lives. The popularity of calls for regulation of firearms shows how tied into bosses and wannabee bosses leftism is. You know, we can't let "them" have guns! They'll go around killing each other! It'll be insane! :rolleyes:
Are you actually incapable of engaging in a debate without feeling obliged to denounce your opponents as counter-revolutionary shills? :confused:

[L.A.P.]

It's really more about preventing certain unsavoury non-state entities from obtaining them than a strict state exclusivity.

Yeah because those unsavory entities won't gain them from the black market. Also, as Leftists I thought we were more concerned with unsavory bourgeoisie state entities than have-nots who feel pushed in a corner because of the unsavory state entities. I'm assuming you support the legalization of at least certain drugs and I'm sure the use the same rhetoric for supporting legalization of drugs as I do supporting the legalization of guns, and this is why the anti-gun Liberals are hypocrites.


There's that word again... :rolleyes:

That's god damn right.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Gun control threads on revleft help keep my list of "liberals I need to ignore" up to date.

Yes, because everyone who opposes a general populace armed to the teeth is a 'liberal'. Get real and address the issues instead of dishing out cheap jibes.

[Luís Henrique]

Tim, that word is there and will continue to be used because liberal concepts have really seeped into leftist discourse. The gun position is def. one of them. I mean, giving the state the authority over firearms is ludicrous to a leftist.

And the defence of personal property of guns isn't a liberal position? What is it, then, a conservative, a socialist, a fascist position?

Luís Henrique

[∞]

[QUOTE]You think such a ban irreversible, or even impossible to circumvent? I'm suggesting workers' self-defence organisations as part of a mass communist movement, not simply the paramilitary wings of a vanguard party.

The fact is it would be difficult, and unnecessarily wasting the time of revolutionaries.



I really don't think that the Black Panther Party were quite what you imagine them to be.




And you really believe that, in contemporary capitalist society, simply legalising guns will offer "complete freedom"? That distribution and freedom of use of such weapons will not simply express existing class and ethnic divisions? Do remember all the shootings of looters (or, often, "looters") in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, the overwhelmingly committed by middle-class whites against working class blacks.


No, I was describing an ideal leftist society. Katrina is an issue, but if there weren't people killing each other with guns, they'd be killing each other with knives and baseball bats. Imagine for a second if people couldn't get guns in Katrina, some of those "blacks" or even whites would loot other people who cant defend themselves. It would result in an almost identical amount of aftermath related deaths.


I'm just asking for a bit of context. I can give you some numbers too, but if I don't tell you what they actually describe, it's no good to anyone.

[Luís Henrique]

"There are some 3,000,000 firearms in homes across Switzerland. There are 7,600,000 people. There were 34 instances of gun violence in the entire country 2006. There were nearly twice as many instances of knife violence."
But guns in Switzerland are not personal property, they are State property allocated to individual citizens in order to provide for a last resource guerrilla defence.

This, of course, any leftist can support. But it requires something previous, something that American leftists who like to call others "liberals" just like the pot calls the kettle black are waaaay tooooo liberallllll to stand up for:

A Frigging Conscript Army.

Luís Henrique

[RadioRaheem84]

And the defence of personal property of guns isn't a liberal position? What is it, then, a conservative, a socialist, a fascist position?

Luís Henrique

I didn't know leftists were against personal property in the forms of guns. I assumed the opposition to property was about the majority of the means of production and land being 9/10ths in the hands of a few.

Disarming workers and giving a liberal bourgouise state the full authority over firearms is not a leftist position.

[Tim Finnegan]

Yeah because those unsavory entities won't gain them from the black market.
Makes it trickier.


Also, as Leftists I thought we were more concerned with unsavory bourgeoisie state entities than have-nots who feel pushed in a corner because of the unsavory state entities.And whatabout the have-plentys who react in kind? For every PIRA there's a UDA.


I'm assuming you support the legalization of at least certain drugs and I'm sure the use the same rhetoric for supporting legalization of drugs as I do supporting the legalization of guns, and this is why the anti-gun Liberals are hypocrites.The rhetoric that you use for supporting private gun ownership has no bearing on the rhetoric I use for opposing it.


Disarming workers and giving a liberal bourgouise state the full authority over firearms is not a leftist position.
So the only left-wing party currently operating in the UK is the British National Party? Good to know. :p


The fact is it would be difficult, and unnecessarily wasting the time of revolutionaries.
We have time. The revolution hasn't exactly been scheduled for next week.


No, I was describing an ideal leftist society. Katrina is an issue, but if there weren't people killing each other with guns, they'd be killing each other with knives and baseball bats. Imagine for a second if people couldn't get guns in Katrina, some of those "blacks" or even whites would loot other people who cant defend themselves. It would result in an almost identical amount of aftermath related deaths.
Only if the knife-wielding vigilantes happened to be ninjas. It's one thing to sit on a roof with a rifle taking pot-shots, another to run around with a knife trying to stab folk.

[RadioRaheem84]

But guns in Switzerland are not personal property, they are State property allocated to individual citizens in order to provide for a last resource guerrilla defence.

This, of course, any leftist can support. But it requires something previous, something that American leftists who like to call others "liberals" just like the pot calls the kettle black are waaaay tooooo liberallllll to stand up for:

A Frigging Conscript Army.

Luís Henrique

But the difference is in the power. In the Swiss case, it is the bourgeois State regulating the use of firearms.

I believe this is turning more into a culture clash debate than anything else as most of the pro-gun control advocates seem to be from across the pond.

[Jose Gracchus]

I were had a radical movement really based in the rank-and-file and advocating socialism, I would like it to have along with other cultural institutions, gun clubs and rifle associations. It would important to not be 100% reliant on the defection of the Armed Forces rank-and-file, and a bridge toward the maintainence of law-and-order by the "armed people". I don't see what's wrong with Chomsky's remark. He's talking about individual petty firearm ownership in the context of arguments for unrestricted individual license (not liberty) whatever the pattern of gun ownership, community-control, etc. This is in the context of the real-world the petty bourgeois reactionary gun culture. Socialist gun culture looks like Switzerland with radical union locals and workers' councils, not Oklahoma and the NRA.

EDIT: A major subtext is that many U.S. leftists think by cherrypicking a petty bourgeois right-wing political platform like YEA GUNZ will somehow be yet another "magic fix" carrying them out of the Left Ghetto. These remarks should be understood in that context.

[RadioRaheem84]

So the only left-wing party currently operating in the UK is the British National Party? Good to know.


Ridiculous argument. You could've been more blunt by saying that the NRA in America is more radically leftist than any of us in here.

Point is, not the BNP nor the NRA would ever admit that the problem of crime is social and not because of increased firearms.

Their presupposed conclusions toward crime have more to do with genetic inferiority pseudo-science or religiously based "nature" arguments and thus we must all protect ourselves. That and that some "commie" might highjack the government and the "tree of liberty" must be soaked in the blood of patriots ramble.

Seriously, that argument was beyond the pale and reeks of a liberal (yes, there is that word again) analysis. One lacking at the root causes for gun support among the various anti-gun control group and lumping them all together as "extreme" positions, making pro-gun control advocates, the rational moral center.

[Obs]

I meant that your predictions of a more "polite" society assume the widespread adoption of firearms, which I'm not sure would be the case. Legalisation doesn't necessarily mean popularisation.
That likely has to do with the fact that Europeans generally don't have a relationship to guns, which itself is a result of the fact that they have been alienated from firearms because of the state monopoly on them. Eventually, as guns become more readily available, more people will feel comfortable arming themselves.

[Tim Finnegan]

Ridiculous argument.
It wasn't an argument, it was a snide remark. Don't read too much into it.


That likely has to do with the fact that Europeans generally don't have a relationship to guns, which itself is a result of the fact that they have been alienated from firearms because of the state monopoly on them. Eventually, as guns become more readily available, more people will feel comfortable arming themselves.
But most Europeans have never owned guns, even when they were allowed to. This isn't some new development.

[RadioRaheem84]

But most Europeans have never owned guns, even when they were allowed to. This isn't some new development.


Ah...so you did a study on this.

[Zanthorus]

So the only left-wing party currently operating in the UK is the British National Party? Good to know. :p

An amusing quip, or it would have been if the right to bear arms was not one of the planks of the CPGB (PCC)'s draft programme:


3.10. Militia

Communists are against the standing army and for the armed people. This principle will never be realised voluntarily by the capitalist state. It has to be won, in the first place by the working class developing its own militia.

Such a body grows out of the class struggle itself: defending picket lines, mass demonstrations, workplace occupations, fending off fascists, etc.

As the class struggle intensifies, conditions are created for the workers to arm themselves and win over sections of the military forces of the capitalist state. Every opportunity must be used to take even tentative steps towards this goal. As circumstances allow, the working class must equip itself with the most advanced weaponry available.

To facilitate this we demand:

Rank and file personnel in the state’s armed bodies must be protected from bullying, humiliating treatment and being used against the working class.
There must be full trade union and democratic rights, including the right to form bodies such as soldiers’ councils.
The privileges of the officer caste must be abolished. Officers must be elected. Workers in uniform must become the allies of the masses in struggle.
The people have the right to bear arms and defend themselves.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1002575

[RadioRaheem84]

EDIT: A major subtext is that many U.S. leftists think by cherrypicking a petty bourgeois right-wing political platform like YEA GUNZ will somehow be yet another "magic fix" carrying them out of the Left Ghetto. These remarks should be understood in that context.



Attaching liberal positions to radical politics seems more like the magic fix of some US leftists to get out of the left ghetto.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But guns in Switzerland are not personal property

The point was that more firearms does not lead to more crime.

Secondly, as was already pointed out in this thread: "All Swiss men enter boot camp around age 20 and remain a part of the militia until they reach 30. All those people keep their firearms (mostly Sig 550s) at home. After their militia term ends they're allowed to keep their firearms after having the autofire function removed."

[Tim Finnegan]

An amusing quip, or it would have been if the right to bear arms was not one of the planks of the CPGB (PCC)'s draft programme:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1002575
Well, setting aside the fact that the CPGB (PCC) are not technically a political party, that's not really an explicit call for private firearms.


Ah...so you did a study on this.
I'm surprised that you find this observation a novelty.

[Obs]

EDIT: A major subtext is that many U.S. leftists think by cherrypicking a petty bourgeois right-wing political platform like YEA GUNZ will somehow be yet another "magic fix" carrying them out of the Left Ghetto. These remarks should be understood in that context.
I bet it has nothing to do with the fact that demanding that the people be armed has been part of the communist movement since, well, the emergence of communism itself.


I'm surprised that you find this observation a novelty.
Well, could you at least cite a study that shows this? You can't just expect us to address a point that has no merit without citation.

[Jose Gracchus]

Attaching liberal positions to radical politics seems more like the magic fix of some US leftists to get out of the left ghetto.

I called for supporting the Brady Campaign, where, exactly? I do think leftists should probably acquaint themselves more with AR-15s so if the Tea Party turns fascist openly, we're not all murdered in the first five minutes. Maybe you should stick to what I actually advocate. That doesn't mean parroting right-wing talking points, or supporting anti-social gun culture.

I don't understand the confusion. We need to build radical unions and radical parties that sponsor rifle clubs and gun associations for leftists and working people, not act as extra lefty marketing for the gun industry alongside Guns and Ammo. Social context determines everything. U.S. gun culture is about unrestrained power of property owners to shoot people who challenge their property.

[ChrisK]

I bet it has nothing to do with the fact that demanding that the people be armed has been part of the communist movement since, well, the emergence of communism itself.

Back when a rifle had power, yes this made sense. However, does anyone remember those guys in Montana who were armed with assault rifles who tried to take over part of Montana by claiming it had never been part of the United States? They claimed the federal government owed them back taxes, etc. It was so adorable! It took all of an hour of the government to bring in a tank.

Now unless people say we ought to arm ourselves with RPGs, Abrams M-1 tanks and some out-of-date F-14's, being armed is useless for a revolution.

[Rafiq]

Arming the proletariat is essential for revolution. Post Revolution though, I think specialized guns should be made, for the purpose of self defense, whilst use of the old guns, made for bourgeois militaries, slowly fade away.

[Obs]

Now unless people say we ought to arm ourselves with RPGs, Abrams M-1 tanks and some out-of-date F-14's, being armed is useless for a revolution.
We probably should try to do that in a revolutionary situation, y'know. In addition, I also support the right to arm oneself for self-defense, hobbies, etc... or, as The Inform Candidate so liberally puts it, anti-social gun culture.

[Tim Finnegan]

I bet it has nothing to do with the fact that demanding that the people be armed has been part of the communist movement since, well, the emergence of communism itself.
I would suggest that "people" and "the people" are two distinct concepts, and that private ownership of firearms serves to arm the former, not the latter.


Well, could you at least cite a study that shows this? You can't just expect us to address a point that has no merit without citation.To be quite honest, I don't have any citations. All I can offer is the deduction that, given the continued legality of certain firearms (hunting rifles, for example) in most of Europe but a widespread disinclination to attain them, it is culture, and not law, that prevents us from arming ourselves.

[Jose Gracchus]

We probably should try to do that in a revolutionary situation, y'know. In addition, I also support the right to arm oneself for self-defense, hobbies, etc... or, as The Inform Candidate so liberally puts it, anti-social gun culture.

This is really the core. Your gun advocacy has everything to do with unlimited individual license, nothing to do with principled leftism. You're essentially saying workers, students, farmers, should not in principle have the power to limit or qualify individual license to bear and use firearms in accordance with what they want for their community, even after the revolution. I am a student, why should students, instructors, workers have a right to limit or qualify gun ownership within the scope of their community, their workplace? Since when is personal individual hobbyism a plank of revolutionary leftism?

This isn't the politics of The Communist Manifesto. Its the politics of the Tea Party and National Rifle Association.

[Jose Gracchus]

Back when a rifle had power, yes this made sense. However, does anyone remember those guys in Montana who were armed with assault rifles who tried to take over part of Montana by claiming it had never been part of the United States? They claimed the federal government owed them back taxes, etc. It was so adorable! It took all of an hour of the government to bring in a tank.

Now unless people say we ought to arm ourselves with RPGs, Abrams M-1 tanks and some out-of-date F-14's, being armed is useless for a revolution.

How do we accomplish it then? Just hope to organize rank-and-file troops (and officers, in the case of combat aircraft and mechanized equipment?)? I do think a real left movement should have gun clubs and rifle associations, and try to train workers in basic marksmanship and principles of community self-defense. That was we have the raw material in the Revolution to seize police and National Guard armories, and defecting soldiers, NCOs, and officers can facilitate the immediate move toward establishing the self-rule, self-defense of the armed people moving toward communism.

[ChrisK]

We probably should try to do that in a revolutionary situation, y'know. In addition, I also support the right to arm oneself for self-defense, hobbies, etc... or, as The Inform Candidate so liberally puts it, anti-social gun culture.

We aren't talking a revolutionary situation. We are talking now. Further, a revolutionary situation will require part of the military be on our side. That is where we would get those from, not giving everyone an AR-15.

[ChrisK]

How do we accomplish it then? Just hope to organize rank-and-file troops (and officers, in the case of combat aircraft and mechanized equipment?)? I do think a real left movement should have gun clubs and rifle associations, and try to train workers in basic marksmanship and principles of community self-defense. That was we have the raw material in the Revolution to seize police and National Guard armories, and defecting soldiers, NCOs, and officers can facilitate the immediate move toward establishing the self-rule, self-defense of the armed people moving toward communism.

I see no problem with this. I've always figured we would have to get a portion of the military on our side. They help by seizing arms and giving the rest of us a crash course in defending yourself.

Gun clubs would not be a bad thing.

[Jose Gracchus]

I like how Mr. Tail-the-Tea-Party thinks "anti-social" is somehow a liberal term. :rolleyes:

[RadioRaheem84]

This isn't the politics of The Communist Manifesto. Its the politics of the Tea Party and National Rifle Association.


A bit much considering the opinions of leftists and the NRA are diametrically opposed to each other on the issue of gun control due to their opposed presumption on the causes of crime and defense.

Also, how do you support the use of firearms among gun clubs and rifle associations without also supporting the individuals rights to bear arms? How would that work legislatively in a liberal democracy? Are we talking post-revolution?


Now unless people say we ought to arm ourselves with RPGs, Abrams M-1 tanks and some out-of-date F-14's, being armed is useless for a revolution.


I'd rather be armed when facing the State than unarmed. What kind of conclusion is it that it's better to be unarmed, simply because we cannot go up against the massive military machine?

[RadioRaheem84]

I like how Mr. Tail-the-Tea-Party thinks "anti-social" is somehow a liberal term. :rolleyes:

It isn't tailing the tea party to be anti-gun control as the ideas behind the position are still different from that of the average NRA, Tea Bagger.

Again, no need to come to the defense of liberals when you or anyone else feels they've been unjustifiably maligned.

[Psy]

Back when a rifle had power, yes this made sense. However, does anyone remember those guys in Montana who were armed with assault rifles who tried to take over part of Montana by claiming it had never been part of the United States? They claimed the federal government owed them back taxes, etc. It was so adorable! It took all of an hour of the government to bring in a tank.

Now unless people say we ought to arm ourselves with RPGs, Abrams M-1 tanks and some out-of-date F-14's, being armed is useless for a revolution.
The Abrams M-1 has a very high ground pressure even for a tank thus one of the easiest tank to trap in tank traps. Thus combat engineers can deal with Abrams if they have time to dig tank traps, and camouflage them. The Abrams also lacks HE rounds thus not a significant threat to well trained fortified infantry, a Abrams can pound all day with HEAT and Sabots rounds and all it will do is annoy troops behind fortifications as both are armor piercing rounds that doesn't work against fortifications or even spread out infantry.

That is because the US land doctrine is still mostly geared towards fighting the U.S.S.R thus the Abrams is engineered to fight Soviet armor pouring through the Fulda Gap and not designed to fight fortified infantry where tank traps can be set up.

[Jose Gracchus]

Psy:

That's idiotic. Have you heard of the canister round? There's no way a light infantry ground force without support can decisively defeat combined-arms mechanized units with M1A2 tanks. I mean Jesus, the MOUT upgrade means Mobile Operations in Urban Terrain. But hey, what does the Pentagon know about killing insurgents in cities?

:rolleyes:


It isn't tailing the tea party to be anti-gun control as the ideas behind the position are still different from that of the average NRA, Tea Bagger.

Again, no need to come to the defense of liberals when you or anyone else feels they've been unjustifiably maligned.

I know you think LOL LIBERAL is the beginning and end of politics, but you're clueless. Supporting gun ownership on the basis and in the context of unrestricted individual license is right-wing politics, and is tailing the NRA and Tea Party. Clearly you're incapable of understanding how von Misean concepts of "freedom" and "liberty" as unrestricted individual license is down to its philosophical and practical political core property owners' politics.

[ChrisK]

The Abrams M-1 has a very high ground pressure even for a tank thus one of the easiest tank to trap in tank traps. Thus combat engineers can deal with Abrams if they have time to dig tank traps, and camouflage them. The Abrams also lacks HE rounds thus not a significant threat to well trained fortified infantry, a Abrams can pound all day with HEAT and Sabots rounds and all it will do is annoy troops behind fortifications as both are armor piercing rounds that doesn't work against fortifications or even spread out infantry.

That is because the US land doctrine is still mostly geared towards fighting the U.S.S.R thus the Abrams is engineered to fight Soviet armor pouring through the Fulda Gap and not designed to fight fortified infantry where tank traps can be set up.

And taking out an F-22? How about a cruise missile strike? Oooh how about stopping an AC-130 from destroying our fortified infantry areas?

The Iraqi military got creamed by the US military and they actually had tanks and aircraft.

[RadioRaheem84]

I know you think LOL LIBERAL is the beginning and end of politics, but you're clueless. Supporting gun ownership on the basis and in the context of unrestricted individual license is right-wing politics, and is tailing the NRA and Tea Party. Clearly you're incapable of understanding how von Misean concepts of "freedom" and "liberty" as unrestricted individual license is down to its philosophical and practical political core property owners' politics.


Of course I understand this and made it perfectly clear that I did when I thanked your post on the gun associations. The point was how would this be a viable option in a liberal democracy that cannot even fathom the distinction between the two. That is why I asked if you were talking about a post revolutionary society.

My only gripe was that it seemed like you were mis-characterizing people's position in here and linking it to right wing political groups. I don't think they're necessarily the same thing.

On the quip about liberal being the beginning and end of politics, for the US I tend to believe that the liberal and conservative share a remarkably similar concepts on personal private property.

[The Man]

Remember that thread about Socialists and Guns? Well I'm gonna post what I said there in here:

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, 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. These government twits 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.

[Psy]

Psy:

That's idiotic. Have you heard of the canister round? There's no way a light infantry ground force without support can decisively defeat combined-arms mechanized units with M1A2 tanks. I mean Jesus, the MOUT upgrade means Mobile Operations in Urban Terrain. But hey, what does the Pentagon know about killing insurgents in cities?

:rolleyes:


Canister rounds are obsolete, they pretty much do the same as a machine gun but less accurate. High Explosive rounds is what has been traditionally used against infantry and fortifications which the M1A2 tank doesn't fire, it also doesn't fire modern anti-personal rounds like White Phosphorus. The M1A2 also has problems working closely with infantry because of the backwash of its jet engine and having very poor fuel economy when moving slowly. The M1A2 is basically a tank killer and not really a real main battle tank. The Bradley only has a auto-cannon thus is also not a significant threat to fortified positions.

If the US brings out the Patton or Sheridan then they could easily overrun fortified positions but those are not currently used.

[Psy]

And taking out an F-22? How about a cruise missile strike? Oooh how about stopping an AC-130 from destroying our fortified infantry areas?

The Iraqi military got creamed by the US military and they actually had tanks and aircraft.
But the Iraqi military both times never really had any kind of organized defense. Remember the NVA and NLF were able to defeat the US military.

[Tim Finnegan]

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?
On no level does this analogy make sense.


Remember the NVA and NLF were able to defeat the US military.
You really think that the Vietnam War offers a useful parallel with hypothetical urban insurrection within the Western world?

[ChrisK]

But the Iraqi military both times never really had any kind of organized defense. Remember the NVA and NLF were able to defeat the US military.

No, they got an invasion force to leave a jungle, not in an urban setting. Further, they beat America forty years ago. No AC-130's, cruise missiles, stealth bombers.

[RadioRaheem84]

You really think that the Vietnam War offers a useful parallel with hypothetical urban insurrection within the Western world?


Do we really have to go through all these hypotheticals in order to understand that an armed populace is beneficial to class struggle?

I liked the argument about how to arm people better and the methods to carry that out.

[RadioRaheem84]

No, they got an invasion force to leave a jungle, not in an urban setting. Further, they beat America forty years ago. No AC-130's, cruise missiles, stealth bombers.


But would the NLF be fighting with forty year old weaponry too?

[Tim Finnegan]

Do we really have to go through all these hypotheticals in order to understand that an armed populace is beneficial to class struggle?
So... Yes? No?


But would the NLF be fighting with forty year old weaponry too?
I'm pretty sure that the difference between a B52 and a AC-130 is greater than that between an AK-47 and a contemporary AR-15.

[ChrisK]

But would the NLF be fighting with forty year old weaponry too?

Yes. Well, maybe twenty year old at this point.

[Psy]

On no level does this analogy make sense.


You really think that the Vietnam War offers a useful parallel with hypothetical urban insurrection within the Western world?
Yes since in urban centers you have buildings thus you have lots of fortified positions. The US military had huge problem dealing with a handful of insurgence fortified in Fallujah, imagine the problem they would have if they find themselves in a Stalingrad scale urban battle with combat engineers setting up additional fortifications and defenses (like anti-tank mines and tank traps).

The Abrams is horrible for urban combat due to infantry not able to take cover behind it (due to jet exhaust) and poor fuel economy meaning with the slow movements in urban combat the Abrams will have to leave the battle long before diesel tanks that then can overrun US infantry once the Abrams leave to refuel.

[ChrisK]

Yes since in urban centers you have buildings thus you have lots of fortified positions. The US military had huge problem dealing with a handful of insurgence fortified in Fallujah, imagine the problem they would have if they find themselves in a Stalingrad scale urban battle with combat engineers setting up additional fortifications and defenses (like anti-tank mines and tank traps).

The Abrams is horrible for urban combat due to infantry not able to take cover behind it (due to jet exhaust) and poor fuel economy meaning with the slow movements in urban combat the Abrams will have to leave the battle long before diesel tanks that then can overrun US infantry once the Abrams leave to refuel.

AC-130.... cruise missile..... B-2....... ability to flatten a city with ease.....

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes since in urban centers you have buildings thus you have lots of fortified positions. The US military had huge problem dealing with a handful of insurgence fortified in Fallujah, imagine the problem they would have if they find themselves in a Stalingrad scale urban battle with combat engineers setting up additional fortifications and defenses (like anti-tank mines and tank traps).
There's a difference between fighting in "liberated" territory in front of cameras and fighting to defend the very existence of your regime. The US government can and will, if pressed, adopt the "well fuck you too" approach to urban warfare:

http://electrodes.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/hiroshima_aftermath__02.jpg

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes. Well, maybe twenty year old at this point.

Wow. Were the NLF fighting off the American military with WWII weaponry?

[ChrisK]

Wow. Were the NLF fighting off the American military with WWII weaponry?

No. They were using up-to-date USSR weaponry for the most part. I don't think you have any idea how much weaponry has advanced since the 70's.

[Psy]

AC-130.... cruise missile..... B-2....... ability to flatten a city with ease.....
They had the ability to flatten cities during Vietnam but since they NLF hid its bases the US air force bombing campaign mostly hit nothing.

The same would be true for cities, yes they would be able to destroy buildings, the Nazis did that in Stalingrad but that just creates rubble that still provides fortifications for infantry and infantry tend to be smart enough to wait out bombings underground (when they can) and cities have lots of places (i.e subways) that can be made into makeshift underground bases.

[RadioRaheem84]

No. They were using up-to-date USSR weaponry for the most part. I don't think you have any idea how much weaponry has advanced since the 70's.

Well I was under the impression that you meant that the Vietnamese beat the US forty year ago but couldn't do it again due to the advance of weaponry. All I asked is, well wouldn't the Vietnamese find updated weaponry too if the scenario were played out again today?

You answered no, they would be using twenty year old weaponry. So then I asked if that was the situation forty years ago that the Vietnamese were up against? You said no, they had updated Soviet weaponry.

I think I just mixed up what you were actually saying.

[ChrisK]

Well I was under the impression that you meant that the Vietnamese beat the US forty year ago but couldn't do it again due to the advance of weaponry. All I asked is, well wouldn't the Vietnamese find updated weaponry too if the scenario were played out again today?

You answered no, they would be using twenty year old weaponry. So then I asked if that was the situation forty years ago that the Vietnamese were up against? You said no, they had updated Soviet weaponry.

I think I just mixed up what you were actually saying.

Does the soviet union still exist? Does anyone exist who kept up the pace with the united states for developing weaponry? No. Where will they find these arms?

[ChrisK]

They had the ability to flatten cities during Vietnam but since they NLF hid its bases the US air force bombing campaign mostly hit nothing.

The same would be true for cities, yes they would be able to destroy buildings, the Nazis did that in Stalingrad but that just creates rubble that still provides fortifications for infantry and infantry tend to be smart enough to wait out bombings underground (when they can) and cities have lots of places (i.e subways) that can be made into makeshift underground bases.

Bunker busters..... AC-130.....

[RadioRaheem84]

Does the soviet union still exist? Does anyone exist who kept up the pace with the united states for developing weaponry? No. Where will they find these arms?

Well, they were questions I was asking. Considering there is no one that has quite the military capability and budget like the US military, it would be difficult for the Vietnamese to seek updated weaponry. China, might.

I really do not know much about military expenditures, which is why I was asking.

[Psy]

Bunker busters..... AC-130.....
Bunker busters requires the knowledge of where the enemy underground bases are.

[Obs]

I would suggest that "people" and "the people" are two distinct concepts, and that private ownership of firearms serves to arm the former, not the latter.

To be quite honest, I don't have any citations. All I can offer is the deduction that, given the continued legality of certain firearms (hunting rifles, for example) in most of Europe but a widespread disinclination to attain them, it is culture, and not law, that prevents us from arming ourselves.


This is really the core. Your gun advocacy has everything to do with unlimited individual license, nothing to do with principled leftism. You're essentially saying workers, students, farmers, should not in principle have the power to limit or qualify individual license to bear and use firearms in accordance with what they want for their community, even after the revolution. I am a student, why should students, instructors, workers have a right to limit or qualify gun ownership within the scope of their community, their workplace? Since when is personal individual hobbyism a plank of revolutionary leftism?

This isn't the politics of The Communist Manifesto. Its the politics of the Tea Party and National Rifle Association.
ITT seperate ideas are also necessarily contradictory. I suppose we can't both support LGBT rights and animal welfare, either.

I support arming both people and the people, which is why I use those terms loosely. I stand up both for the freedom of the working class, and the liberty of the individual workers. Those aren't mutually exclusive, and it's hilarious that you have to make them seem so to defend your silly liberal views.

[ChrisK]

Well, they were questions I was asking. Considering there is no one that has quite the military capability and budget like the US military, it would be difficult for the Vietnamese to seek updated weaponry. China, might.

I really do not know much about military expenditures, which is why I was asking.

China's military might is in sheer size. Tech wise they're very backwards. Last time I saw numbers was during the Bush administration. We were spending more than the rest of the world combined. Sorry, I thought you were using the questions rhetorically.

[ChrisK]

Bunker busters requires the knowledge of where the enemy underground bases are.

They know where the subways are. Guess what, they know where the buildings are too. AC-130....... US Navy.......

[Tim Finnegan]

I support arming both people and the people, which is why I use those terms loosely. I stand up both for the freedom of the working class, and the liberty of the individual workers. Those aren't mutually exclusive, and it's hilarious that you have to make them seem so to defend your silly liberal views.
Wait, what? You're the one advocating individual liberty at the expense of social liberty, and we're the liberals? :confused:

[The Man]

Going back to a part of this thread that I want to destroy a misconception about.


No it won't. Western workers with civilian-grade handguns can not take on the US military.

...Unless you're proposing that military-grade armaments be made available to the general public?


What is it with you people and that word?

This is a complete misconception that bugs me, time and time again. Military-Grade weapons ARE available to the general public in the United States. Any Machine gun, Silencer, Short Barreled Shotgun, Short Barreled Rifle, Destructive Device, and AOWs (Any other weapons, something that can't be defined such as a Cane Gun, or Pen Gun) Are 100% legal for individual ownership.

[Tim Finnegan]

Then, quite frankly, you people are mad. :blink:

[ChrisK]

Going back to a part of this thread that I want to destroy a misconception about.



This is a complete misconception that bugs me, time and time again. Military-Grade weapons ARE available to the general public in the United States. Any Machine gun, Silencer, Short Barreled Shotgun, Short Barreled Rifle, Destructive Device, and AOWs (Any other weapons, something that can't be defined such as a Cane Gun, or Pen Gun) Are 100% legal for individual ownership.

Where can I get my AC-130 and Abrams?

[Luís Henrique]

The point was that more firearms does not lead to more crime.

Secondly, as was already pointed out in this thread: "All Swiss men enter boot camp around age 20 and remain a part of the militia until they reach 30. All those people keep their firearms (mostly Sig 550s) at home. After their militia term ends they're allowed to keep their firearms after having the autofire function removed."

Yup. They are allowed. It is still State property, not personal property. They are of course moved to the reserves, but still are part of the military apparatus.

Using those firearms to protect their property or something like that is not legitimate.

On the other hand, the gun culture in the United States is explicitly directed at defending property (and, probably, keeping "niggers" under armed threat from Whites).

Luís Henrique

[The Man]

Where can I get my AC-130 and Abrams?

AC-130s are restricted to extremely registered civilians or SOTs (Special Occupational Taxpayer) that must give up their 4th amendment right. Abrams are up on the market once in a while though, Plus, you don't lose any of your rights.

[Luís Henrique]

How do we accomplish it then? Just hope to organize rank-and-file troops (and officers, in the case of combat aircraft and mechanized equipment?)?

Yes. Concerning combat aircraft, we count on sargeants and soldiers disabling them rather than officials diverting them from the State, though of course we will have some of the latter too.


I do think a real left movement should have gun clubs and rifle associations, and try to train workers in basic marksmanship and principles of community self-defense.

Maybe. I doubt it would be possible to keep this legal for too much time, but perhaps it would be worth a try.


That was we have the raw material in the Revolution to seize police and National Guard armories, and defecting soldiers, NCOs, and officers can facilitate the immediate move toward establishing the self-rule, self-defense of the armed people moving toward communism.

Seizing police and Army armories has never been a problem to actual revolutions, since they always split the military (and to a lesser degree the police). Seizing an Army armory is likely impossible with civilian guns, unless soldiers defending them defect to our side - in which case civilian guns will probably be unnecessary.

Personal property of guns isn't a requirement for a revolution; rank-and-file political work within the military (and, yes, the police) is.

Luís Henrique

[Obs]

You're the one advocating individual liberty at the expense of social liberty
How so?

[Luís Henrique]

I didn't know leftists were against personal property in the forms of guns. I assumed the opposition to property was about the majority of the means of production and land being 9/10ths in the hands of a few.

I don't necessarily oppose personal property of guns. I strongly disbelieve that supporting it is a leftist stance.

I like to drive. This is one thing. I don't think I have a God-given right to own a car, or that generalised personal properties of cars is a politically left-wing stance. Nor I would confuse more stringent regulation of automobile property with an attempt to reduce the mobility of the proletariat. If laws of that kind were to be imposed, I might oppose them out of personal interest; but I wouldn't use the name of my class in vain in an attempt to keep what is essentially a personal issue.


Disarming workers and giving a liberal bourgouise state the full authority over firearms is not a leftist position.

Workers are already disarmed, comrade.

Luís Henrique

[ChrisK]

AC-130s are restricted to extremely registered civilians or SOTs (Special Occupational Taxpayer) that must give up their 4th amendment right. Abrams are up on the market once in a while though, Plus, you don't lose any of your rights.

Cool. I'll just pull that out of my pay check.

[The Man]

Cool. I'll just pull that out of my pay check.

Here you go:

Sturmgewehr.com then press NFA boards
Subguns.com then press NFA boards

Oh and for your Abrams Tank:

Ordnance.com

[Tim Finnegan]

How so?
The proposition is that, at least in certain countries, such as the UK, the general public is more greatly liberated by the absence of (certain) firearms from public than by their presence. I can concede that other countries, such as the US, may be more complicated.

[Psy]

They know where the subways are. Guess what, they know where the buildings are too. AC-130....... US Navy.......
The New York Subway has 1,355 km of track and 468 stations, yhea that narrows it down a lot ;) And you have more tunnels under New York then just the subway system.

Plus combat engineers can quickly dig new tunnels using existing tunnels as a starting point. The NLF that were not very skilled combat engineered were able to put their bases right under US bases meaning they would have to drop bunker busters on their own bases to take out NLF underground bases.

[Luís Henrique]

The Abrams is horrible for urban combat due to infantry not able to take cover behind it (due to jet exhaust) and poor fuel economy meaning with the slow movements in urban combat the Abrams will have to leave the battle long before diesel tanks that then can overrun US infantry once the Abrams leave to refuel.

Tanks in general aren't good weapons in urban combat, but they are quite effective in surrounding a city, controlling roads, etc. Take a look of the dynamics of the fighting in Libya. Gaddafy cannot secure the cities with tanks, but he can isolate them from each others, and strangle them.

And even not being good weapons in urban combat, they are able to do a lot of mayhem, just by crossing the cities shelling things - houses, schools, mosques, hospitals, whatever.

You need to actually split the military, and to hamper the fighting will of the remaining part of it, if you want to have a successful revolution. Otherwise we loose.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

They know where the subways are. Guess what, they know where the buildings are too. AC-130....... US Navy.......

Sattelite photographs...

Luís Henrique

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Any "revolution" that consists of a bunch of anarchists running around with personal firearms is going to be R:blackA:AN

-

[Obs]

The proposition is that, at least in certain countries, such as the UK, the general public is more greatly liberated by the absence of (certain) firearms from public than by their presence. I can concede that other countries, such as the US, may be more complicated.
That's preposterous. You're saying people are liberated by denying them a right.

[RadioRaheem84]

I like to drive. This is one thing. I don't think I have a God-given right to own a car, or that generalised personal properties of cars is a politically left-wing stance. Nor I would confuse more stringent regulation of automobile property with an attempt to reduce the mobility of the proletariat. If laws of that kind were to be imposed, I might oppose them out of personal interest; but I wouldn't use the name of my class in vain in an attempt to keep what is essentially a personal issue.


We wont be ramming our cars into tanks. Cars in place of guns is a misleading example.

[Psy]

Sattelite photographs...

Luís Henrique
Will only show what we have on the surface of the planet and even then camouflage can be used to make it impossible to make out.

Or we can just do what was done in Detroit 1967 and set the city on fire so there is a thick black smoke preventing satellites from seeing anything.

[bricolage]

There is a big gun fetish on 'the left' and I don't believe revolution is decided by military means nor is just a matter of force. There's that slogan thrown around about insurrections being social not military but it makes sense. That being said calling on states that are currently bombing Libya, that have bombed countless countries to fuck, that have expressed the most barbaric forms of militarism we have ever seen to be guardians of who can and cannot use such force seems pretty fruitless. I think there is also some hypocrisy in anyone that says fuck the police then demands they have a monopoly on firearms.

You aren't going to bring about communism through amassing guns but then you are even less likely to bring it about by demanding the state holds them all. I think the whole thing is a bit of a distraction though.

[Psy]

Tanks in general aren't good weapons in urban combat, but they are quite effective in surrounding a city, controlling roads, etc. Take a look of the dynamics of the fighting in Libya. Gaddafy cannot secure the cities with tanks, but he can isolate them from each others, and strangle them.

And even not being good weapons in urban combat, they are able to do a lot of mayhem, just by crossing the cities shelling things - houses, schools, mosques, hospitals, whatever.

You need to actually split the military, and to hamper the fighting will of the remaining part of it, if you want to have a successful revolution. Otherwise we loose.

Luís Henrique
Light tanks like the Sheridan and PT-76 have proven very effective in urban warfare as they can move through buildings as they are only around 15 tonnes thus don't crash through floors like much heavier main battle tanks.

[Robocommie]

Here you go:

Sturmgewehr.com then press NFA boards
Subguns.com then press NFA boards

Oh and for your Abrams Tank:

Ordnance.com

This reminds me of the time I was hanging out with a friend of mine and he jokingly said he owned a jet fighter, and I asked him if he really did. He laughed and rolled his eyes and said, "Right, where am I going to buy a jet fighter?" "I dunno, E-bay?" So on a lark we went to his computer, and sure enough, E-bay had a 1960's Polish MIG jet fighter for sale.

We lol'd.

[Tim Finnegan]

That's preposterous. You're saying people are liberated by denying them a right.
No, I'm saying that the majority are liberated by denying an anti-social minority a "right". That should not be a novel proposition, given that, well, "RevLeft".

But, as I said, this is largely in reference to Britain, in which gun-ownership is not something that the majority have ever pursued. The US, again, is likely a more complex affair.


I think there is also some hypocrisy in anyone that says fuck the police then demands they have a monopoly on firearms.
I doubt that there is any substantial overlap between those two groups.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

There is a big gun fetish in RAAN, and also in The Raspberry Reich. I don't believe revolution is decided by avant garde gay porn films, nor is just a matter of RAANismo. There's that slogan thrown around about insurrections being social not military but it makes total RAAN. That being said calling on indie film directors, that have a critique that is maybe not grounded in RAANismo, to be guardians of who can and cannot use such force seems pretty fruitless. Like, as bad as giving that power to the state. I think there is also some hypocrisy in anyone that says fuck the police then criticizes RAAN.

You aren't going to bring about communism through amassing guns but then you are not RAAN. I think the whole thing is a bit of a distraction though.

-

[Jose Gracchus]

ITT seperate ideas are also necessarily contradictory. I suppose we can't both support LGBT rights and animal welfare, either.

I support arming both people and the people, which is why I use those terms loosely. I stand up both for the freedom of the working class, and the liberty of the individual workers. Those aren't mutually exclusive, and it's hilarious that you have to make them seem so to defend your silly liberal views.

Fine. I have no problem with people preferring on the basis of cultural values or preferences or whatever, different gradients of individual firearm rights and duties. What repels me is when people take that to be intrinsically an aspect of left-wing politics. Revolutionary leftism supports the arming of the revolutionary working-class as a class. Perhaps indirectly individual firearm rights has a peripheral relationship to that end, especially in a period of low intensity of struggle, but it is not a SUPPORT INDIVIDUAL GUNS OR YOU'RE A LIBERAL. As I said, gunlocks and such, restrictions on concealable handguns, I don't see what the problem is from a revolutionary left political perspective, intrinsically.

Its an outside argument.

I can't believe people think that the example of guerrilla wars "won" against U.S. tanks in the sense they are advocating. These groups always had base areas of their control, backing by foreign powers, and they outlasted our political will for foreign commitment. That's not going to be the case here. Furthermore, South Vietnam has been largely destroyed and is still all fucked up today. If it were successful, it'd be a Pyrrhic victory.

[Jose Gracchus]

-

What?

[Obs]

No, I'm saying that the majority are liberated by denying an anti-social minority a "right". That should not be a novel proposition, given that, well, "RevLeft".
I'm anti-social now. Sweet.

[Jose Gracchus]

BTW, someone asked about feasibility of workers' gun clubs and associations. I'm pretty sure that this was definitely a feature of KPD and SPD party "alternative culture" (where's DNZ?), throughout pre-Nazi Wiemar Germany. Of course by itself and reliant on only that is adventurism and not going to go anywhere: obviously it did not prevent the Nazi rise to power.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm anti-social now. Sweet.
I wasn't referring to you.

[Obs]

Well, I'm a liberal. We're all discovering new things about ourselves.
Nice.

Whoops, caught you before your edit. Who are you referring to, then? Since clearly people who wish to be armed are anti-social, and I belong in this category, you must have been referring to me, among others.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

BTW, someone asked about feasibility of workers' gun clubs and associations. I'm pretty sure that this was definitely a feature of KPD and SPD party "alternative culture" (where's DNZ?), throughout pre-Nazi Wiemar Germany. Of course by itself and reliant on only that is adventurism and not going to go anywhere: obviously it did not prevent the Nazi rise to power.

The first half of this post is awesome.
As for the second half - why blame the KPD's adventurism, and not the SPD, et al. for being too conservative? Maybe if more leftists had spent less effort criticizing "adventurism" and more on defeating the fascists in the streets . . .

[Tim Finnegan]

Nice.

Whoops, caught you before your edit.
Yeah, I realised that I was being kind of dickish there.


Who are you referring to, then? Since clearly people who wish to be armed are anti-social, and I belong in this category, you must have been referring to me, among others.That's not what I've actually said. The "anti-social minority" to which I refer are those would use the private ownership of weapons for anti-social ends, thus undermining the freedom of the majority- gun owners or otherwise.

[Obs]

That's not what I've actually said. The "anti-social minority" to which I refer are those would use the private ownership of weapons for anti-social ends, thus undermining the freedom of the majority- gun owners or otherwise.
Now why would they do that?

[bricolage]

I doubt that there is any substantial overlap between those two groups.
Fuck the police is a class demand.

[bricolage]

-
edHLDTA2B5E

[Tim Finnegan]

Now why would they do that?
Whatever point you're trying to make, wouldn't it be easier if you just did so?

[Edit: Yes, that first bit was in my original post, but I changed it because it was stupid. I seem to be doing that a lot right now. I should stop.]


Fuck the police is a class demand.
It is, out of the majority of mouths, juvenile posturing.

[Obs]

http://www.actualteam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/1246152606_15321242.jpg

Oh, gee, I have no idea.
No, I'm serious. A socialist system would certainly be capable of treating people's mental issues before they start shooting at random, wouldn't it? If so, this paranoia over spree killers is really rather irrelevant. If not, that's not any kind of socialism I'd advocate in this day and age.


Whatever point you're trying to make, wouldn't it be easier if you just did so?
But I feed on your frustrated tears. Do you want me to starve?

[∞]

Tim:
We have time. The revolution hasn't exactly been scheduled for next week.


Only if the knife-wielding vigilantes happened to be ninjas. It's one thing to sit on a roof with a rifle taking pot-shots, another to run around with a knife trying to stab folk.

But whenever a strike is eminent the workers need to be armed. There would be no other way besides the black market, you're dodging it here.

Killing someone with a knife is relatively easy, I could take down someone twice my size if I had the proper dagger. Anything can be used as a fatal weapon. Wielding a knife and wielding a firearm promote the same mentality. Knife and swords kill just the same as guns, look at history.

[Tim Finnegan]

No, I'm serious. A socialist system would certainly be capable of treating people's mental issues before they start shooting at random, wouldn't it? If so, this paranoia over spree killers is really rather irrelevant. If not, that's not any kind of socialism I'd advocate in this day and age.
If the post-revolutionary era is so pleasant and peaceful, then why would you need that sort of gun anyway? :confused:


But whenever a strike is eminent the workers need to be armed. There would be no other way besides the black market, you're dodging it here.
Wait, what? Why do we need guns to strike? :confused:


Killing someone with a knife is relatively easy, I could take down someone twice my size if I had the proper dagger. Anything can be used as a fatal weapon. Wielding a knife and wielding a firearm promote the same mentality. Knife and swords kill just the same as guns, look at history.
It's easier than killing them with a loaf of bread sure, but rather more difficult than doing so with a gun. That's sort of why we invented guns.

[∞]

edHLDTA2B5E

Huh?

[Obs]

If the post-revolutionary era is so pleasant and peaceful, then why would you need that sort of gun anyway? :confused:
Why would you forbid having a gun? Besides, even if one deranged individual does slip through the cracks of socialist society and ends up wanting to shoot up his home town, wouldn't the fact that the people around him are armed as well act as a deterrent?

[Tim Finnegan]

Why would you forbid having a gun? Besides, even if one deranged individual does slip through the cracks of socialist society and ends up wanting to shoot up his home town, wouldn't the fact that the people around him are armed as well act as a deterrent?
Wait, so now we're all going to have to obtain and carry weaponry, all the time? :confused: I'm not sure I like your vision of society very much. :(

[bricolage]

It is, out of the majority of mouths, juvenile posturing.
It is, out of the majority of mouths, not.
I was using fuck the police as general anti-police tendencies and most people that hate the police hate them because they get fucked over by them in their everyday lives, because they are an institution of class relations.
So my point being that if you are not saying fuck the police (in whatever terms you want) you aren't really on the right side of the barricades. If you are then saying the police should have a monopoly on guns you are being pretty contradictory .

[bricolage]

Huh?
I have no idea what he was on about in the raan post.

[Obs]

Wait, so now we're all going to have to obtain and carry weaponry, all the time? :confused: I'm not sure I like your vision of society very much. :(
What's wrong with carrying weaponry? At the risk of sounding cliché, I do it every day (knife, obviously, not a gun) and it has yet to scar me emotionally.

[∞]

I have no idea what he was on about in the raan post.

Oh, okay.

[Tim Finnegan]

It is, out of the majority of mouths, not.
I was using fuck the police as general anti-police tendencies and most people that hate the police hate them because they get fucked over by them in their everyday lives, because they are an institution of class relations.
I'm not sure these sentiments can be meaningfully reduced to a four-letter word, but ok.


So my point being that if you are not saying fuck the police (in whatever terms you want) you aren't really on the right side of the barricades. If you are then saying the police should have a monopoly on guns you are being pretty contradictory .Or perhaps I'm just not willing to put grandiose insurrectionist schemes above the immediate general welfare? Just a thought.


What's wrong with carrying weaponry? At the risk of sounding cliché, I do it every day (knife, obviously, not a gun) and it has yet to scar me emotionally.
I don't object to carrying weaponry, I object to a society in which people are obliged to carry weaponry.

[Obs]

grandiose insurrectionist schemes.
You mean revolution?

[∞]

It's easier than killing them with a loaf of bread sure, but rather more difficult than doing so with a gun. That's sort of why we invented guns.

People generally hesitate stabbing someone, if that person has a knife, people hesitate shooting someone, if that guy has a gun. People hesitate to whack someone with a loaf of bread, if the other person has loaf of bread.

[Tim Finnegan]

You mean revolution?
I would tend to think that revolution is more complex than that.


People generally hesitate stabbing someone, if that person has a knife, people hesitate shooting someone, if that guy has a gun. People hesitate to whack someone with a loaf of bread, if the other person has loaf of bread.
But when they have a gun, and you have a loaf of bread... :(

[bricolage]

Or perhaps I'm just not willing to put grandiose insurrectionist schemes above the immediate general welfare? Just a thought.
Except I never mentioned any 'grandiose insurrectionist schemes'...

[Obs]

I don't object to carrying weaponry, I object to a society in which people are obliged to carry weaponry.
You're free to not carry a weapon. No one's forcing you. Unless, of course, you think raving psychotics are waiting around every corner to open fire at some poor asshole who forgot to pack some heat before leaving the house.

[Tim Finnegan]

Except I never mentioned any 'grandiose insurrectionist schemes'...
You missed the last two pages of people arguing that workers with rifles can take on the US military, then?


You're free to not carry a weapon. No one's forcing you. Unless, of course, you think raving psychotics are waiting around every corner to open fire at some poor asshole who forgot to pack some heat before leaving the house.
"An armed society is a polite society", I believe you said. Doesn't that imply an obligation to arm myself, less I find myself on the sharp end of the imbalance which I have, in my hubris, created?

[bricolage]

You missed the last two pages of people arguing that workers with rifles can take on the US military, then?

There is a big gun fetish on 'the left' and I don't believe revolution is decided by military means nor is just a matter of force. There's that slogan thrown around about insurrections being social not military but it makes sense...
You aren't going to bring about communism through amassing guns but then you are even less likely to bring it about by demanding the state holds them all. I think the whole thing is a bit of a distraction though.
.

[Obs]

"An armed society is a polite society", I believe you said. Doesn't that imply an obligation to arm myself, less I find myself on the sharp end of the imbalance which I have, in my hubris, created?
Again, only if you assume you're going to be attacked.

[Psy]

Fine. I have no problem with people preferring on the basis of cultural values or preferences or whatever, different gradients of individual firearm rights and duties. What repels me is when people take that to be intrinsically an aspect of left-wing politics. Revolutionary leftism supports the arming of the revolutionary working-class as a class. Perhaps indirectly individual firearm rights has a peripheral relationship to that end, especially in a period of low intensity of struggle, but it is not a SUPPORT INDIVIDUAL GUNS OR YOU'RE A LIBERAL. As I said, gunlocks and such, restrictions on concealable handguns, I don't see what the problem is from a revolutionary left political perspective, intrinsically.

Its an outside argument.

I can't believe people think that the example of guerrilla wars "won" against U.S. tanks in the sense they are advocating. These groups always had base areas of their control, backing by foreign powers, and they outlasted our political will for foreign commitment. That's not going to be the case here. Furthermore, South Vietnam has been largely destroyed and is still all fucked up today. If it were successful, it'd be a Pyrrhic victory.
The US military is far more corrupt now then during the Vietnam war as the opportunists have driven out all the idealists out from the leadership that has resulted in the US occupation in the Middle East being one huge SNAFU after another.

Also a large workers uprising in a major industrial nation will have the means to produce its own heavy weapons and eventually out engineer the US military due to the lack of corruption. I seriously doubt a revolutionary army would be getting poorly engineered crap like the Stryker from liberated factories.

[Tim Finnegan]

Again, only if you assume you're going to be attacked.
Which is sort of mutually assured destruction works, yes.

[∞]

But when they have a gun, and you have a loaf of bread... :(

It could easily done by a knife...wanna ban those too?

[Tim Finnegan]

It could easily done by a knife...wanna ban those too?
I can run away from a knife.

Really, there's a distinction there I feel is not insignificant. Or do you feel that privately owned nuclear weaponry is also acceptable?

[∞]

I can run away from a knife.

Really, there's a distinction there I feel is not insignificant. Or do you feel that privately owned nuclear weaponry is also acceptable?

Not if someone sneaks up on you :ninja:. Seriously, its causes many deaths, minus the guns and it will cause the same amount of deaths.

Define privately, in someone's house? I like to see someone able to do that.
Private enterprise? It couldn't exist in this society and private companies that have nukes would never exist in socialism.

[Obs]

Which is sort of mutually assured destruction works, yes.
I don't expect to be assaulted, yet I carry a knife. It's not a matter of mutually assured destruction per se, it's just a little extra peace of mind that also happens to have a practical application in the unlikely scenario that need arises.

[The Douche]

Fine, but then you don't need to mount a pseudo-political stance to defend your hobby.

Liking guns is one thing; believing that personal ownership of guns is somehow a progressive issue is completely different.

Tim Finnegan is spot on: the arming of workers is a collective issue, not an individual one.

Luís Henrique

Please note that I am not politicising the issue of private gun ownership. I defend it based on the fact the individuals are mature enough to do so (providing they can prove this) and so there is no good justification to prevent them from doing so.

I do not believe that private gun ownership can do anything to prevent political tyranny.

I think individuals should be allowed to own rifles/handguns/shotguns, and that they should have access to machine guns and heavy weapons under an organized people's militia.

[Tim Finnegan]

Not if someone sneaks up on you :ninja:. Seriously, its causes many deaths, minus the guns and it will cause the same amount of deaths.
How do you figure?


Define privately, in someone's house? I like to see someone able to do that.
Private enterprise? It couldn't exist in this society and private companies that have nukes would never exist in socialism.
But should it be tolerated? Do you too draw the line at some point? There's an important distinction between a debate over what level of private weaponry is acceptable, and whether we have an innate right to whatever weaponry we choose.

[∞]

How do you figure?


But should it be tolerated? Do you too draw the line at some point? There's an important distinction between a debate over what level of private weaponry is acceptable, and whether we have an innate right to whatever weaponry we choose.

Guns don't seem to lie on "ban" margin.

[Tim Finnegan]

Guns don't seem to lie on "ban" margin.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Why do you draw the line there?

(Again noting that advocating restriction of certain firearms doesn't mean advocating the restriction of all firearms.)

[Jose Gracchus]

The first half of this post is awesome.
As for the second half - why blame the KPD's adventurism, and not the SPD, et al. for being too conservative? Maybe if more leftists had spent less effort criticizing "adventurism" and more on defeating the fascists in the streets . . .

I have no love for the SPD. I'm just pointing out the fact one cannot simply hope militants with guns without broad support in the public, and among workers-in-uniform, won't necessarily be some panacea.

[∞]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Why do you draw the line there?

(Again noting that advocating restriction of certain firearms doesn't mean advocating the restriction of all firearms.)

Because gun violence is higher now that gangs get guns from the black market and people are less able to defend themselves.

[Salyut]

No. They were using up-to-date USSR weaponry for the most part. I don't think you have any idea how much weaponry has advanced since the 70's.

You have the NVA and NLF confused. The NLF had to work with what they had locally (plenty of Japanese and French surplus to be had) or what could be hauled down from the North. Hell, there are rumors some Chauchats turned up at one point.

[Psy]

Please note that I am not politicising the issue of private gun ownership. I defend it based on the fact the individuals are mature enough to do so (providing they can prove this) and so there is no good justification to prevent them from doing so.

I do not believe that private gun ownership can do anything to prevent political tyranny.

I think individuals should be allowed to own rifles/handguns/shotguns, and that they should have access to machine guns and heavy weapons under an organized people's militia.

I mostly of agree, except that an armed population at least has a chance to defend itself thus if the people's milita/army is decapitated by a surprise bourgeoisie invasion an armed body has a chance to rebuild it as they have weapons at their homes and factories.

[Luís Henrique]

I doubt that there is any substantial overlap between those two groups.

Never doubt anything when it comes to the left... :laugh:

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

why blame the KPD's adventurism, and not the SPD, et al. for being too conservative?

Why not both?


Maybe if more leftists had spent less effort criticizing "adventurism" and more on defeating the fascists in the streets . . .

But fascists cannot be defeated in the streets in such way. On the contrary, this is their typical diversionary manoeveur - to drag the left into street battles, which evidently reinforce their links to the State repressive apparatus, while alienating the left from the working class.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Fuck the police is a class demand.

Disband and disarm the police is a class demand.

"Fuck the police" is just using heteronormative language to sound radical-chic.

Luís Henrique

[bricolage]

Disband and disarm the police is a class demand.
Same thing, different sensibilities.
Like I said I was talking in terms of fuck the police as a metaphor.
However if you want to say every kid on the estates going fuck the police is just 'radical-chic' then sure, but I think it makes you pretty detached from what's going on.


"Fuck the police" is just using heteronormative language to sound radical-chic.
'Fuck' isn't always about sex you know.
And like I said I don't you really understand who fuck the police really resonates with the most. I think it's understandable if you take it in terms of 'the left', but then again 'the left' has never meant anything to anything beyond itself so I don't really care about that.

[Luís Henrique]

Same thing, different sensibilities.

Nope.

Disband and disarm is a clear demand. "Fuck the police" means nothing.


However if you want to say every kid on the estates going fuck the police is just 'radical-chic' then sure, but I think it makes you pretty detached from what's going on.The "left" in the USA has no roots in the working class. Who is detached from what is going on?


'Fuck' isn't always about sex you know.Oh, yes, it is. Always about sex. Often about how sex is a bad thing, and often, very often, about how the female's position during a sexual relation is ridiculous.

That's why you shout "fuck the police": it means, "let's treat the police like a woman - like a woman under patriarchy".

Heteronormative language.


And like I said I don't you really understand who fuck the police really resonates with the most. I think it's understandable if you take it in terms of 'the left', but then again 'the left' has never meant anything to anything beyond itself so I don't really care about that.Here where I am the left means something not only to itself, but to those beyond itself.

Perhaps the problem is not with me, but with people who insist in using heteronormative language, in order to alienate the working class and pretend they are revolutionaries?

Luis Henrique

[The Douche]

I like how after decrying the politicization of gun ownership, certain anti-gun leftists are now politicizing gun ownership.

I have never, ever, seen a valid reason for the restriction of private firearm ownership in a post-revolutionary society. In a society where crime does not exist (except for anti-social aberations) obviously guns will not be used in crime. So what is the justification? You just don't like them? Thats fine, don't be around them.

[Tim Finnegan]

I have never, ever, seen a valid reason for the restriction of private firearm ownership in a post-revolutionary society. In a society where crime does not exist (except for anti-social aberations) obviously guns will not be used in crime.
That seems a rather utopian view. It'll take more than just a revolution to sufficiently rehabilitate the human race to the extent which violent crime is eliminated.

And, wait, if there's no crime, then why do you want them? We've already established that practical firearms (sporting, hunting, protection of livestock, etc.) are universally accepted, and that collective self-defence can be organised on a collective basis, so why do you need a gun under the pillow?

[The Douche]

That seems a rather utopian view. It'll take more than just a revolution to sufficiently rehabilitate the human race to the extent which violent crime is eliminated.

And, wait, if there's no crime, then why do you want them? We've already established that practical firearms (sporting, hunting, protection of livestock, etc.) are universally accepted, and that collective self-defence can be organised on a collective basis, so why do you need a gun under the pillow?

Crime has a material basis, it doesn't just happen because people are beasts.

Who said I wanted a gun under my pillow? Why are you painting me as a paranoid nut? What reason is there to prevent me from owning guns?

You, and other anti-gun people always ask "why do you need them? why do you need them? why do you need them?", I have said it allready, because I enjoy collecting and shooting guns. That is a perfectly valid reason. So now you have the responsibility of explaining why you should be able to take away my personal property.

[Luís Henrique]

That seems a rather utopian view. It'll take more than just a revolution to sufficiently rehabilitate the human race to the extent which violent crime is eliminated.

And, wait, if there's no crime, then why do you want them? We've already established that practical firearms (sporting, hunting, protection of livestock, etc.) are universally accepted, and that collective self-defence can be organised on a collective basis, so why do you need a gun under the pillow?

You don't understand the symbolic importance of a gun.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4Cpr9ZOqKa7KGRZ8fXMcBD6PLU-XUSfnlzB9-J_Q8y80MrQL-rA

Luís Henrique

[Summerspeaker]

Perhaps the problem is not with me, but with people who insist in using heteronormative language, in order to alienate the working class and pretend they are revolutionaries?

While I appreciate the language critique, the phrase "fuck the police" has a distinguished history on the street. When doing Copwatch, for example, it's often the best thing to say to clarify your intentions and assuage fears.

[Tim Finnegan]

Crime has a material basis, it doesn't just happen because people are beasts.
Of course it does, but just because you remove that material basis does not mean that its effects will evaporate. There will still be homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, racism, greed, and good old fashioned macho swagger encouraging people to do violence to each other. That's stuff we as a society, have to actively unlearn, not stuff that we can just forget.


Who said I wanted a gun under my pillow? Why are you painting me as a paranoid nut?It was meant in jest, I assure you.


What reason is there to prevent me from owning guns? You, and other anti-gun people always ask "why do you need them? why do you need them? why do you need them?", I have said it allready, because I enjoy collecting and shooting guns. That is a perfectly valid reason. So now you have the responsibility of explaining why you should be able to take away my personal property.Collective security, as determined democratically. Same way that the community could take away your anthrax, your machine gun, or your artillery piece- or does that make us "liberals" too?

Also, "anti-gun" is inaccurate. I've already explicitly stated that my opposition is to military/security grade weaponry as private property. Want a shotgun for keeping foxes out of the chickens? Go nuts. Want a sporting rifle? Why not! Want a collective arms cache for use by workers' militias? More power to you! The question is not, I would think, that I draw the line at all, that I draw on the other side of small arms than you do.

[bricolage]

Disband and disarm is a clear demand. "Fuck the police" means nothing.
It means fuck the police.
It means stop hassling me on the street.
It means stop evicting me.
It means stop arresting me.
It means stop breaking up my picket lines.
It means stop smashing my head in demonstrations.
It means stop shooting me.
And so on and so on...


The "left" in the USA has no roots in the working class. Who is detached from what is going on?I don't really understand what you are getting at here. I don't live in the USA and I don't consider myself a part of the 'left'.


That's why you shout "fuck the police": it means, "let's treat the police like a woman - like a woman under patriarchy".Aside from your assertions about fuck always being a sexist term, under a patriarchal society and in a subservient position, police exist in a dominant role to defend both class and patriarchal relations (amongst others). You are divorcing language from its social context.


Here where I am the left means something not only to itself, but to those beyond itself.I don't know where you live so I cannot comment.


Perhaps the problem is not with me, but with people who insist in using heteronormative language, in order to alienate the working class and pretend they are revolutionaries?Most workers would probably be more alienated by people telling them they can't say fuck than anything I have ever said here... But considering most of the people that say 'fuck the police' (in more or less terms) are working class people and have no intention of pretending to be any kind of revolutionary I don't really think you have much of a point.

[L.A.P.]

Makes it trickier.

Yes, it makes it trickier in the sense tha now you have police spending time and tax dollars going after people with firearm possession as well as drug possession thus filling the prison system even more. Oh and, buying a gun would still be just as easy.


And whatabout the have-plentys who react in kind? For every PIRA there's a UDA.

You honestly think the state is going to persecute the upper class for firearm possession a much as they'll persecute the working class? You're incredibly naive.


The rhetoric that you use for supporting private gun ownership has no bearing on the rhetoric I use for opposing it.

Um, no shit.

[The Douche]

Of course it does, but just because you remove that material basis does not mean that its effects will evaporate. There will still be homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, racism, greed, and good old fashioned macho swagger encouraging people to do violence to each other. That's stuff we as a society, have to actively unlearn, not stuff that we can just forget.

These things rarely manifest themselves in the form of gun violence. Especially when organizations for the collective defense of minority communities. And the process of revolution will only occur once these issues are largely broken down, and the process of revolution will generally destroy all but the slightest remnants of them.


It was meant in jest, I assure you.



Fair enough.


Collective security, as determined democratically. Same way that the community could take away your anthrax, your machine gun, or your artillery piece- or does that make us "liberals" too?


:rolleyes: Strawman.


The question is not, I would think, that I draw the line at all, that I draw on the other side of small arms than you do.

No I'm talking about small arms, like self loading rifles and handguns, the private ownership of which you seem to oppose. But thus far without realistic justifications.

[Tim Finnegan]

These things rarely manifest themselves in the form of gun violence. Especially when organizations for the collective defense of minority communities. And the process of revolution will only occur once these issues are largely broken down, and the process of revolution will generally destroy all but the slightest remnants of them.
Well, that's a debate in itself, I think. Post-revolutionary society is something we can at best sketch, so details like these are pretty much moot.


:rolleyes: Strawman.
Reductio ad absurdum, I would say.


No I'm talking about small arms, like self loading rifles and handguns, the private ownership of which you seem to oppose. But thus far without realistic justifications.
Exactly- it is not that you argue for some fundamental and universal right of access, but that you argue for a limited and controlled right of access, just a slightly broader one than I do. And yet, I'm a "liberal"?

[The Douche]

Reductio ad absurdum, I would say.


You think .22 caliber pistols are as dangerous as atomic bombs?


Exactly- it is not that you argue for some fundamental and universal right of access, but that you argue for a limited and controlled right of access, just a slightly broader one than I do. And yet, I'm a "liberal"?

So what is your justification? I oppose private ownership of devices designed to inflict mass casualties (machine guns, artillery, etc) but support access to them under the training and support of an organized people's militia. But support the ownership of personal weapons.

[Summerspeaker]

The potential for self-harm from easy firearm accessibility worries (and appeals to) me more than interpersonal violence. I had a former lover who serially grabbed almost every knife in the house and threatened to slash eir wrists with it. That would have been significantly scarier with a gun involved.

[Tim Finnegan]

You think .22 caliber pistols are as dangerous as atomic bombs?
They sit on a scale. Both are, fundamentally, designed to cause destruction, so if you want to cry "liberal" simply because I support the restriction of the former, you cannot but do the same for the latter.


So what is your justification? I oppose private ownership of devices designed to inflict mass casualties (machine guns, artillery, etc) but support access to them under the training and support of an organized people's militia. But support the ownership of personal weapons.My "justification" is that I see the general liberty as being increased by the absence of privately held small arms, you see the reverse. It's a difference of opinion, not some fundamental ideological divide.

[Summerspeaker]

There's a significant difference between opposing personal firearms and supporting state denying people access to them via the power of its arsenal.

[Agnapostate]

In the most straightforward sense, increased gun prevalence is associated with increased violence.

More Guns, More Crime (http://www.nber.org/papers/w7967)


This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual gun ownership rates at both the state and the county level during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven entirely by the impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain at least one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to non-gun homicides since 1993. I also use this data to examine the impact of Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation on crime, and reject the hypothesis that these laws led to increases in gun ownership or reductions in criminal activity.

Prohibition isn't likely to be an effective counter-measure; Pigovian taxation is more sensible.

[Tim Finnegan]

There's a significant difference between opposing personal firearms and supporting state denying people access to them via the power of its arsenal.
True. Honestly, this thread is so very muddled, I'm not even entirely sure what we're debating any more. As much as we're pretending it's "pro-gun vs anti-gun", it's really nothing of the sort.

[The Douche]

What is the difference between "opposing personal firearms ownership" and "supporting the state denying people access to them"?

Aren't you arguing that in you vision of a communist world, individuals will not be pertmitted to keep in their homes items like handguns and self loading rifles?

[Summerspeaker]

What is the difference between "opposing personal firearms ownership" and "supporting the state denying people access to them"?

One involves propaganda, persuasion, and perhaps direct action against gun availability. Refusing to live in environment full of weapons or destroying the weapons themselves strike me as appropriate anarchist responses. (I don't oppose guns nearly this much, but I can understand folks who would.) The other forcibly disarms people via the power of heavily armed minority groups known as the police and military.

[Tim Finnegan]

What is the difference between "opposing personal firearms ownership" and "supporting the state denying people access to them"?

Aren't you arguing that in you vision of a communist world, individuals will not be pertmitted to keep in their homes items like handguns and self loading rifles?
You don't think that there's a fundamental distinction between a democratic decision within communism to retain such weaponry only socially, and a legal obligation imposed by the bourgeois state to surrender any such weaponry? Even I, who as already been noted is perhaps a little too trusting of the bourgeois state in this regard, can see that.

I think that the greater general liberty demands the restriction of certain weaponry, which I am sure is not a position that nobody here disagrees with in itself. Under capitalism, we both assume that this restriction to be handled by the bourgeois state, which, much as we don't like it, are obliged by circumstance to desire to trundling along in something approaching working order. Under communism, we imagine that this restriction will be thoroughly democrat and, at least for the most part, voluntary. The only difference, really, is where we draw the line.


(I don't oppose guns nearly this much, but I can understand folks who would.)
I imagine that a lot of it is cultural. Guns are regarded rather differently in the US than in the UK, which influences both own own view of them, and, more objectively, the role they play in any given society. (Specifically that, in the UK, the general lack of inclination to own guns has always kept ownership levels too low produce the "polite society" which, I will concede, could be argued for in the US.)

[The Douche]

The other forcibly disarms people via the power of heavily armed minority groups known as the police and military.

Considering that they must use propaganda and direct action would they not be a minority group? Obviously if they were a majority they wouldn't need to resort to such tactics.


You don't think that there's a fundamental distinction between a democratic decision within communism to retain such weaponry only socially, and a legal obligation imposed by the bourgeois state to surrender any such weaponry?

Of course there is, but you're assuming that people will decide, in communism "I don't want my neighbor to be able to own a gun", but you haven't been able to elaborate why one would feel that way, even though you do in fact have those feelings. You want to take away my personal possessions, and you can't even tell me a real reason why.


You continue talking about "safety", but my guns have never killed anybody, at least, not since I have owned them. And I don't know anybody who has killed or shot someone outside of combat, certainly not on accident.

So I'm still asking here, what is you actual reason for being against personal firearms ownership, and why have you decided that shotguns or sporting rifles are somehow less dangerous or more appropraite than self loading rifles and handguns?

[Summerspeaker]

I imagine that a lot of it is cultural.

Definitely, though not everyone over here has experience with or affection for firearms. While my great grandmother allegedly kept a shotgun handy deal to with intruders, the only time I've ever had access to a weapon was when I bought a pistol as part of a suicide plot that fell through. (The fact that I can still go to the store and get another one whenever I feel like it says something about gun culture here.) My parents didn't believe in having guns in the house and I've never been shooting.


Considering that they must use propaganda and direct action would they not be a minority group? Obviously if they were a majority they wouldn't need to resort to such tactics.

Well, a majority could prevent gun possession through force as the state does, but that strikes me undesirable and potentially counterproductive. I envision a level of pluralism and likely ugly conflicts in a revolutionary society. I think the species can survive such disputes without naked coercion.

[Tim Finnegan]

You continue talking about "safety"...
Actually, the term I have been using is "general liberty", which is a more nuanced concept than safety alone. It is, in fact, the very same concept which you are appealing to you, you just argue that it will be increased by different means. I suggest that not merely the lessened threat of gun violence but the lessened emotional burden of that threat and the consequent behavioural modifications which are imposed and self-imposed as a result, is preferable for the majority of the population than what little benefit they would gain from being able to own a gun. But, as I've noted, I am speaking from a specifically British perspective; aside from anything else, what I suggest is that we don't bring fifty million-odd guns into the country, rather than, as in the US, trying to round up a proportional number which are already out there.

[The Douche]

I'm just saying, to tell people "no, you can't have this item" you need to have a damn good reason.

I know a lot of people who don't like combustion engines because of their harmful effects on the environment, does that mean we should consider a ban of them? Hell, cars even lead to more deaths per year in the US than guns do!

Now cars are certainly a dangerous item if you don't know how to operate one or your operate one with harmful intent, and thats why we license people to operate them. Which is what I am suggesting.

[Tim Finnegan]

Did you actually read anything I wrote, or...?

[Summerspeaker]

Now cars are certainly a dangerous item if you don't know how to operate one or your operate one with harmful intent, and thats why we license people to operate them. Which is what I am suggesting.

And you accuse other folks of liberalism? :) The working class has no need for bourgeois licenses!

[Tim Finnegan]

Cars are pretty bourgeois in themselves, I'd say. The revolution has need for such individualistic modes of transportation! ;)

[The Douche]

Did you actually read anything I wrote, or...?

Your argument would appear to be "guns aren't safe". And that since the guns are not safe, the threat posed by firearms in the hands of regular people represents a threat to the community.

I am confused why some guns are dangerous in your mind, but others are not. And I am confused why you think guns are inherently more dangerous than other items. You're not really supportting your arguements just saying that the ownership of firearms violates the freedom of people who are scared of guns.

[Tim Finnegan]

Like I said, a lot of it seems to be cultural dissonance. What I'm expressing here is pretty much the normal outlook on firearms in the UK.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

These threads seem to pop up a lot and people always respond the same way "yeah he's liberal". I don't understand why people get so hung up on this. Some things he says are irrelevant and reformist (like, "some people don't realise the differences in small changes" when he was advocating working through the parliamentary system) but nonetheless he still has many things to say that we can take from. It doesn't particularly help to have a well known intellectual who's associated with revolutionary ideas but I am still interested in hearing what he has to say about the recent arab world protests and other current issues he mostly talks soundly about.

[Rooster]

I think firearms would only be necessary when someone else is using them against you. Personally, I don't think owning a firearm to be any importance in any kind of political action unless the other people you're revolting again is using them. There may be a need for a people's army of sorts after a revolution if there was a possibility of an outside army invading but I don't see how people with no military training and just guns can fight off a well trained army. I'd rather attack the arms industry directly through industrial action, to be honest. Again, are private fire arms socially necessary in a society in a post-capitalist communist society?

[Magón]

I think firearms would only be necessary when someone else is using them against you. Personally, I don't think owning a firearm to be any importance in any kind of political action unless the other people you're revolting again is using them. There may be a need for a people's army of sorts after a revolution if there was a possibility of an outside army invading but I don't see how people with no military training and just guns can fight off a well trained army. I'd rather attack the arms industry directly through industrial action, to be honest. Again, are private fire arms socially necessary in a society in a post-capitalist communist society?

If you're someone who thinks shooting guns off for sport/fun, is fun, then yeah, why wouldn't they be necessary?

I for one, am one of those people.

[Psy]

I think firearms would only be necessary when someone else is using them against you.

What about for hunting and defense again wildlife? How about the fact wild life had to be liquidated in Chernobyl to prevent the spreading of radiation how were they suppose to do that without firearms?



Personally, I don't think owning a firearm to be any importance in any kind of political action unless the other people you're revolting again is using them.

Every bourgeoisie state is armed.



There may be a need for a people's army of sorts after a revolution if there was a possibility of an outside army invading but I don't see how people with no military training and just guns can fight off a well trained army.

If you have 1/2 million civilians all firing in the same general direction they will create a wall of flying lead and able to provide heavy surprising fire that a militia can exploit to try and outmaneuver the enemy.



I'd rather attack the arms industry directly through industrial action, to be honest. Again, are private fire arms socially necessary in a society in a post-capitalist communist society?
What would be the point of limiting access to firearms?