Should civilians be allowed to have firearms?

[Dogs On Acid]

Please present:

Reasons why they should.
Reasons why they shouldn't.
Reasons you don't care.

[bcbm]

an armed populace is a free populace

[Octavian]

They should be allowed to have arms but should be taught fire arm safety. If the only people allowed to have firearms are the government then how can we defend ourselves in a time of need.

[Dogs On Acid]

Isn't it dangerous? I mean, gun crimes are quite high in the U.S....

And when we're pissed off we tend to act on emotion.

[Ocean Seal]

Of course. Civilians should be allowed firearms ESPECIALLY outside of an anarchist/communist society. Perhaps when anarchy/communism is achieved firearms shouldn't be that necessary since a classless and stateless has been achieved but certainly owning guns is absolutely necessary under capitalism. While guns don't necessarily bring about revolution they offer a certain degree of protection from its most intolerable abuses. The Black Panthers are a good example of how guns can be used for progressive purposes.

[Ocean Seal]

Isn't it dangerous? I mean, gun crimes are quite high in the U.S....

And when we're pissed off we tend to act on emotion.
I would say that is a problem, but that its not so much related to guns but to capitalism itself and the fact that we have this individualist/isolated mentality about here.

[Octavian]

Isn't it dangerous? I mean, gun crimes are quite high in the U.S....

And when we're pissed off we tend to act on emotion.
Most of the gun crimes in the USA are a result of gang wars which are of course a product of capitalism driving people to extremes just to survive.

[bcbm]

cars kill more people than guns

[Dogs On Acid]

Cars are necessary, more people have cars than guns, and cars are actually useful in any situation.

That's a terrible argument.

[RedSquare]

Again it's something of a double edged sword.

While I do agree to some extent that firearms can contribute to a freer society, and equip the masses with the ability to defend itself against oppression, they can also be used for crime but if more people (non-criminals) were armed, perhaps there might be an increased deterrent to violent crime.

With technology what it is today, I would favour less-than-lethal alternatives becoming the choice for self-defence/personal safety of ordinary citizens, especially in a socialist society. Tasers, rubber bullets, batons, pepper spray, etc. can disable attackers without the need to kill them.

[Hivemind]

I think any society should have people with access to guns. As it has been said in this thread, an armed populace is a free populace. If the entity who has guns is the government, then the people are fucked in times of trouble.

All in all: if the common people are armed, they can defend themselves from tyranny.

[thesadmafioso]

There is no reason for a population to be armed, regardless of ideology present. In a capitalistic society, you will see the fringes of the right wing go to excess in their hoarding or arms, something obviously not desirable for the left given the history of right wing militia organizations and their treatment of individuals of our political alignment.

And in a communist society post revolution, they simply cease to have purpose in the hands of a civilian population.

[Dogs On Acid]

Guns are made for killing, why would anyone have to be killed in a communist society by the hands of a civilian and not the militia?

[Kuppo Shakur]

I want a gun so I can shoot beer cans and get a boner in the process.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Machine guns and grenades in every household, Switzerland-style.

[Geiseric]

The guns used for killing people will be there either way, people will always find ways to get them. The best thing to do is have the working class armed in the case of a revolution so the police don't come crashing down like the Cossacks during the russian revolution.

[Dogs On Acid]

Machine guns and grenades in every household, Switzerland-style.

They aren't allowed to use them unless there is a conflict I think.

[Dogs On Acid]

The guns used for killing people will be there either way, people will always find ways to get them. The best thing to do is have the working class armed in the case of a revolution so the police don't come crashing down like the Cossacks during the russian revolution.

In Europe you will be lucky to find a hand gun where I live. And I know where to get one but the price is prohibitive and people over here see no need in getting a firearm.

So unless you know the right people you ain't getting anything.

[Post-Something]

I think that people should have access to firearms, not sure how powerful, but they do come in handy. I'm in Jordan and my Uncle is thinking of buying a gun right now. He says that when there are serious protests, the people who are loyal to the government come knocking on each door to cause trouble, a gun can stop something from getting too messy.

I do see the problem with having guns easily available, but a well armed country is a force to be reckoned with.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I'd like to see a world without guns, but we would hope that in a communist society, based on fraternity, mutual aid, solidarity and equal freedom over the means of production and the world's resources, then the need for guns in the way that they are needed now would diminish.

That's if we consider the alienation and isolationist aspects of capitalistic society the reasons behind many murders and what not. With that in mind, I can't really see the point of guns in a proper communist society, unless we say hunting. I can also understand why guns are prohibited in many parts of the world too, and I don't think this is right, yet I am quite glad that some parts of society don't have access to guns sometimes, but that is personal and not a materialistic view.

[Dogs On Acid]

I want a gun so I can shoot beer cans and get a boner in the process.

l0O3k04pxOQ

[thesadmafioso]

The guns used for killing people will be there either way, people will always find ways to get them. The best thing to do is have the working class armed in the case of a revolution so the police don't come crashing down like the Cossacks during the russian revolution.

The only issue with that being the fact that the entire working class does not always side with those looking to represent their best interests. They are not always capable of deciding where their allegiances lie in the form of deciding who to shoot at with their personal armaments. It is not as if an armed working class is going to shape the course of a revolution in any sort of significant way. In nations like the US, it would probably do the left much more harm than good if a situation of open disorder were to arise. In regards to this question, it would appear that you have a rather blunt understanding of the working class and its composition.

[Os Cangaceiros]

They aren't allowed to use them unless there is a conflict I think.

They're not allowed to use the weapons provided for the specific purpose of maintaining the militia, no. But private gun ownership is widespread in the country.

Regardless, what the example shows is that the mere presence of a lot of weaponry does not mean that people will go on rampages. Israel has fairly widespread gun ownership, too, with low crime...Jerusalem is safer than New York City, which is one of the safer large cities in the USA. The USA has higher violent crime rates because there's a pervasive culture of violence here that transcends guns and gun ownership.

[Os Cangaceiros]

brb gotta go lovingly caress my AR-15

[Dogs On Acid]

They're not allowed to use the weapons provided for the specific purpose of maintaining the militia, no. But private gun ownership is widespread in the country.

Regardless, what the example shows is that the mere presence of a lot of weaponry does not mean that people will go on rampages. Israel has fairly widespread gun ownership, too, with low crime...Jerusalem is safer than New York City, which is one of the safer large cities in the USA. The USA has higher violent crime rates because there's a pervasive culture of violence here that transcends guns and gun ownership.

The problem is the working-class can be right-wing and very violent toward the left. If the proletariat is divided then gun ownership will work against it's interests and possibly end up in a bloodbath while the bourgeoisie spectate.

[∞]

Because I trust my .357 more than I could ever trust a crooked politician.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The problem is the working-class can be right-wing and very violent toward the left. If the proletariat is divided then gun ownership will work against it's interests and possibly end up in a bloodbath while the bourgeoisie spectate.

If the uprising is based on who has the most firepower then we're doomed anyway. The military has submarines that can obliterate entire cities with complete invulnerability.

Luckily I don't view revolution in that manner.

[Dogs On Acid]

If the uprising is based on who has the most firepower then we're doomed anyway. The military has submarines that can obliterate entire cities with complete invulnerability.

Luckily I don't view revolution in that manner.

Put it this way, a revolution is most likely to occur in a poor country. Even if the workers were allowed to buy arms they wouldn't have enough money to do so in a quantity that made a difference to the outcome anyway. The military will always be stronger, and an armed proletariat only gives them a reason to fire back and kick the shit out the workers. That allied to right winged workers only fucks things up. Remember, America isn't going to be the country having a revolution any time soon. Plus the Soviet Union is gone so bye-bye to thousands of armed revolutionary peasants. They were the main suppliers to Guerrillas around the world.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Put it this way, a revolution is most likely to occur in a poor country. Even if the workers were allowed to buy arms they wouldn't have enough money to do so in a quantity that made a difference to the outcome anyway. The military will always be stronger, and an armed proletariat only gives them a reason to fire back and kick the shit out the workers. That allied to right winged workers only fucks things up.

Yes, this is why revolution is primarily waged on a social terrain, as opposed to a military one (which, even if somehow successfully completed by revolutionaries, would only lead into the same dynamics of power & control that initiated the revolt in the first place. Barracks communism.)


Plus the Soviet Union is gone so bye-bye to thousands of armed revolutionary peasants. They were the main suppliers to Guerrillas around the world.

And how well did that work out for the cause of international socialism? The same weapons they shipped out to Africa were later used by child soldiers.

[The Man]

When the guns are banned in certain countries, the country is one step closer to becoming a Fascist police state. I own a AK47 and an UZI and some WWII rifles that my grandfather had (Of course I have them legally), but I hold them very dear to my heart. But people think that gun-owners are violent, and I will tell you this: I have never been to jail, I have never committed a crime, and I will never commit a crime. When people hear that I am a Revolutionary Communist, they think of armed overthrow of the government. When I say I'm revolutionary I mean that I agitate, organize, and educate.

[thesadmafioso]

Yes, this is why revolution is primarily waged on a social terrain, as opposed to a military one (which, even if somehow successfully completed by revolutionaries, would only lead into the same dynamics of power & control that initiated the revolt in the first place. Barracks communism.)



And how well did that work out for the cause of international socialism? The same weapons they shipped out to Africa were later used by child soldiers.

That is essentially the point being made though, that an armed populace only makes the social aspect of the revolution more difficult to attain, thus it is undesirable.

[thesadmafioso]

When the guns are banned in certain countries, the country is one step closer to becoming a Fascist police state. I own multiple AK47s, UZIs, AR15s, and some WWII rifles that my grandfather had (Of course I have them legally), but I hold them very dear to my heart.

You would fit right in at a tea party rally with that rhetoric. Musing about the government taking away your guns and how such a terrible act would be tantamount to fascism.

[Dogs On Acid]

Ironic how the last few users that support gun laws actually own guns. Care to think outside the box for a minute or two?


When the guns are banned in certain countries, the country is one step closer to becoming a Fascist police state.

So the U.S.A. is a Libertarian Socialist state, because guns aren't banned.

[Os Cangaceiros]

That is essentially the point being made though, that an armed populace only makes the social aspect of the revolution more difficult to attain, thus it is undesirable.

I simply don't think that's the case at all, though. I don't think that the simple quantity of weapons in a given area has anything to do with the conditions necessary for a social revolution, tbh.

[Dogs On Acid]

Oh and let's not forget that if there's an armed revolution in some poor country, the bourgeois media in the rest of the world will condemn the workers as "armed, violent, chaotic and dangerous", effectively acting as counter-revolutionary in the International perspective.

[thesadmafioso]

I simply don't think that's the case at all, though. I don't think that the simple quantity of weapons in a given area has anything to do with the conditions necessary for a social revolution, tbh.

The quantity of weapons in a region has no notable effect on the economic preconditions necessary for revolution and I never said anything to the contrary. I was simply saying that when the quantity of weapons is increased that it has no effect on the circumstances demanded of revolution, and that in some situations it can actually be more of a potential threat to a proper marxist revolution in the implementation stage than anything else.

[Fulanito de Tal]

I know a reactionary that says that the US government will never be able to "take over" because we are allowed to carry firearms. I want to know what the 50 untrained people in his town, ages 18-60, with 9mm to assault rifles, are going to do against a battalion of Marines with air and artillery support, besides get annihilated. Fucking idiots. :lol:

[Dogs On Acid]

What frightens me the most is even if the armed revolution was successful then what would stop authoritarian and libertarian socialists from killing each-other?

[Psy]

Put it this way, a revolution is most likely to occur in a poor country. Even if the workers were allowed to buy arms they wouldn't have enough money to do so in a quantity that made a difference to the outcome anyway. The military will always be stronger, and an armed proletariat only gives them a reason to fire back and kick the shit out the workers. That allied to right winged workers only fucks things up. Remember, America isn't going to be the country having a revolution any time soon. Plus the Soviet Union is gone so bye-bye to thousands of armed revolutionary peasants. They were the main suppliers to Guerrillas around the world.
So Paris 1968 didn't happen and neither did Detroit 1967? The latter that only failed because revolutionary Vietnam vets that took up arms against the National Guard were alienated and didn't have a wide enough base amount workers. If the Vietnam vets in Detroit had the proletariat united behind odds are it would have caused huge splits in the US Army.

[~Spectre]

It's a very complicated issue.

1) In terms of having a consistent argument, you'd need to come up with a way to draw a bright line at guns, and not allow more powerful weapons

1a) Unless you take it to the absolute extreme, and say that you'd be willing to let an individual own a nuclear bomb if he/she had the means to acquire one.

2) Do they help? For some individuals they might. The sad reality is that whether increased access to guns will hurt or help you, probably depends on geography.

3) Rights? This concept is metaphysical and tends to blur into some confused invocation of property "rights"

4) Overthrow of the government. I find this least convincing. The overthrow of a powerful state seems unlikely to come from violent insurrection.

There are tons of other variables to consider. If you live in a society particularly in danger of invasion of occupation, increased gun ownership might make that a less attractive idea to the potential aggressors against your society, via threat of prolonged guerilla war, etc.

-Failed states where not even the basic bourgeoisie autocorrect ("safety") mechanisms work.

-Personal vendettas some might have against you.

-Being Omar Little.


ETC. There are no easy answers.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The quantity of weapons in a region has no notable effect on the economic preconditions necessary for revolution and I never said anything to the contrary. I was simply saying that when the quantity of weapons is increased that it has no effect on the circumstances demanded of revolution, and that in some situations it can actually be more of a potential threat to a proper marxist revolution in the implementation stage than anything else.

I don't think that it would be a threat. I think the only threat are those who would try to drown the revolution in blood (i.e. the state).

And to those who think the state needs an excuse (i.e. armed action on the part of the opposition) to use deadly force: think again. No excuse is needed.

[Dogs On Acid]

I know a reactionary that says that the US government will never be able to "take over" because we are allowed to carry firearms. I want to know what the 50 untrained people in his town, ages 18-60, with 9mm to assault rifles, are going to do against a battalion of Marines with air and artillery support, besides get annihilated. Fucking idiots. :lol:

Exactly, the military will only crush armed civilians (in a 1st world country atleast).

[Dogs On Acid]

I don't think that it would be a threat. I think the only threat are those who would try to drown the revolution in blood (i.e. the state, the counter-revolutionaries, the religious organizations and external powers).

Fixed.

[Psy]

Exactly, the military will only crush armed civilians (in a 1st world country atleast).

That assumes there is no split in the military, it also assumes the insurgency lacks imagination and won't use explosives available to them, for example miners using mining explosives to build tank mines to rip through M1 Abrams.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Fixed.

I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this argument, honestly. Ultimately it all boils down to state power, even if you're refering to a para organization like the AUC.

[~Spectre]

That assumes there is no split in the military, it also assumes the insurgency lacks imagination and won't use explosives available to them, for example miners using mining explosives to build tank mines to rip through M1 Abrams.


Splits seem more likely to occur when you aren't shooting at the military.

The idea of IEDs isn't new nor novel. They have those in Iraq.

Dead Americans: aprox 4800
Dead Iraqis: over 1 million.

Marx warned against this type of fanciful thrill seeking type of thinking. The comparative advantage that workers have to militaries like the U.S. isn't ability to do violence. It's their numbers and relationship to the means of production. So let's fight through their. Educate, agitate, organize.

[thesadmafioso]

I don't think that it would be a threat. I think the only threat are those who would try to drown the revolution in blood (i.e. the state).

And to those who think the state needs an excuse (i.e. armed action on the part of the opposition) to use deadly force: think again. No excuse is needed.


I don't know if you are familiar with the typical right wing fringe type who has a penchant for weaponry, but I'm sure they would not be the sort of people to welcome a social revolution with open arms. And there is a notable amount of such individuals in certain regions of the US, enough to be considered a threat to a civil approach to revolution. Perhaps the threat would not be enough to cause such a hypothetical movement to falter, but either way their existence is still unnerving for any leftist with a decent grasp on history and who would like to minimize the shedding of blood.

[The Man]

So the U.S.A. is a Libertarian Socialist state, because guns aren't banned.

http://animediet.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/anoFacepalm.jpg

I also Lol'd at "Libertarian Socialist STATE"

[El Oso Rojo]

I'd like to see a world without guns, but we would hope that in a communist society, based on fraternity, mutual aid, solidarity and equal freedom over the means of production and the world's resources, then the need for guns in the way that they are needed now would diminish.

That's if we consider the alienation and isolationist aspects of capitalistic society the reasons behind many murders and what not. With that in mind, I can't really see the point of guns in a proper communist society, unless we say hunting. I can also understand why guns are prohibited in many parts of the world too, and I don't think this is right, yet I am quite glad that some parts of society don't have access to guns sometimes, but that is personal and not a materialistic view.

It naive to think, that reactionary will not be still around. I mean, it best to keep them just in case.

[xub3rn00dlex]

That assumes there is no split in the military, it also assumes the insurgency lacks imagination and won't use explosives available to them, for example miners using mining explosives to build tank mines to rip through M1 Abrams.

I agree with you that there will most likely be a split in military in case it ever comes to that. And I'm pretty sure there would be a rapid spread of information into homemade devices to counter their forces, ie. an M1 Abrams would be a sitting duck if you take out the treads.

What about self destructive nuclear annihilation though? Does anyone here ever wonder wether the bourgeoisie would adopt a "if we can't have it no one can" policy and literally nuke us all into oblivion? Seems counter productive, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

[The Man]

You would fit right in at a tea party rally with that rhetoric. Musing about the government taking away your guns and how such a terrible act would be tantamount to fascism.

I also fit in with the leftist rhetoric as well. Government taking away your guns is basically taking away your basic rights. What the hell are you supposed to do if a violent person breaks into your house? Call 911, and wait for a cop to magically appear right in front of you?

Gun confiscation is a part of Fascism. Italy did it. Germany did it too.

[Dogs On Acid]

http://animediet.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/anoFacepalm.jpg

I also Lol'd at "Libertarian Socialist STATE"

I was taking the piss.

You fail at sarcasm.

[thesadmafioso]

I also fit in with the leftist rhetoric as well. Government taking away your guns is basically taking away your basic rights. What the hell are you supposed to do if a violent person breaks into your house? Call 911, and wait for a cop to magically appear right in front of you?

Gun confiscation is a part of Fascism. Italy did it. Germany did it too.

Once more, you are simply falling back on the typical talking points of the far right. You would get along quite well in most tea party circles with that sort of stance, what with your irrational defense of your point through the use of baseless paranoia.

You do not have a basic right to shoot lead into your fellow man at your own whim, such is far too much power for most any individual to wield of their own accord.

[Dogs On Acid]

What the hell are you supposed to do if a violent person breaks into your house? Call 911, and wait for a cop to magically appear right in front of you?

Use non-lethal weapons you tool.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't know if you are familiar with the typical right wing fringe type who has a penchant for weaponry, but I'm sure they would not be the sort of people to welcome a social revolution with open arms. And there is a notable amount of such individuals in certain regions of the US, enough to be considered a threat to a civil approach to revolution. Perhaps the threat would not be enough to cause such a hypothetical movement to falter, but either way their existence is still unnerving for any leftist with a decent grasp on history and who would like to minimize the shedding of blood.

I most certainly do know about those folks, as I live in the USA and live in a rural area of a red state, no less! You'd think they'd be hiding behind every tree, but they're not. The right-wing survivalist paras have been greatly exaggerated by the media...it usually happens whenever a Democrat president is in office (or at least it certainly did under Clinton). Most of the actual survivalists out there just hate the government and want to be left alone. They're interested in carving out their niche, and most likely won't form Contra death squads or whatever in order to counter those darn commies.

But then the question arises: what if they did? They certainly wouldn't wait for us to fire the first shot, anymore than fascist paras in European countries like Spain or Germany did in the 30's. So either leftists would defend themselves, in which case the cover of "civil revolution" would be blown, and according to the OP we'd then face harsh state repression, or they'd be slaughtered as they preached pacifism. I'm not a pacifist at all, but I also don't think that armed action would be the primary driving force against reaction (as I've already said).

[Dogs On Acid]

I most certainly do know about those folks, as I live in the USA and live in a rural area of a red state, no less! You'd think they'd be hiding behind every tree, but they're not. The right-wing survivalist paras have been greatly exaggerated by the media...it usually happens whenever a Democrat president is in office (or at least it certainly did under Clinton). Most of the actual survivalists out there just hate the government and want to be left alone. They're interested in carving out their niche, and most likely won't form Contra death squads or whatever in order to counter those darn commies.

But then the question arises: what if they did? They certainly wouldn't wait for us to fire the first shot, anymore than fascist paras in European countries like Spain or Germany did in the 30's. So either leftists would defend themselves, in which case the cover of "civil revolution" would be blown, and according to the OP we'd then face harsh state repression, or they'd be slaughtered as they preached pacifism. I'm not a pacifist at all, but I also don't think that armed action would be the primary driving force against reaction (as I've already said).

Why is it all about America to Americans?

It's the last place revolution will occur.

[The Man]

Once more, you are simply falling back on the typical talking points of the far right. You would get along quite well in most tea party circles with that sort of stance, what with your irrational defense of your point through the use of baseless paranoia.

You do not have a basic right to shoot lead into your fellow man at your own whim, such is far too much power for most any individual to wield of their own accord.

I'm sure the far right would absolutely love my views on Capitalism and Nationalism :rolleyes:.

Who the fuck said I have a basic right to shoot lead into my FELLOW man? Is the Burglar, Rapist, and Murderer that I protect myself from my 'fellow man'?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I live in the USA, so I'm speaking to my own experience.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The key question for our leftist friends who join their liberal allies in the call for restricting firearms is who exactly is going to do the restricting? Who stands over "civilians" deciding when and how they can access firearms, and why?

Of course none of this has anything to do with the fight for a human community, for an end to exploitation and oppression and a world fit for human beings.

This has been discussed here many, many times before. I'll repeat what I've said in previous threads:

"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. Kim Dae-han didn't need arms to start a fire in the Subway in Daegu. You can kill someone with any number of things, from cars to kitchen knives to lighters 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.

[The Man]

I was taking the piss.

You fail at sarcasm.

I fail at sarcasm on the internet. I cannot detect your tone of voice through text.

[Dogs On Acid]

I'm sure the far right would absolutely love my views on Capitalism and Nationalism :rolleyes:.

Who the fuck said I have a basic right to shoot lead into my FELLOW man? Is the Burglar, Rapist, and Murderer that I protect myself from my 'fellow man'?

LOL @ Murderers and Rapists breaking in your house

Get real.

[thesadmafioso]

I most certainly do know about those folks, as I live in the USA and live in a rural area of a red state, no less! You'd think they'd be hiding behind every tree, but they're not. The right-wing survivalist paras have been greatly exaggerated by the media...it usually happens whenever a Democrat president is in office (or at least it certainly did under Clinton). Most of the actual survivalists out there just hate the government and want to be left alone. They're interested in carving out their niche, and most likely won't form Contra death squads or whatever in order to counter those darn commies.

But then the question arises: what if they did? They certainly wouldn't wait for us to fire the first shot, anymore than fascist paras in European countries like Spain or Germany did in the 30's. So either leftists would defend themselves, in which case the cover of "civil revolution" would be blown, and according to the OP we'd then face harsh state repression, or they'd be slaughtered as they preached pacifism. I'm not a pacifist at all, but I also don't think that armed action would be the primary driving force against reaction (as I've already said).

My point still stands, they are a dangerously unpredictable element of society with the capacity to engage in activities which could very well be disastrous to any sort of civil movement. I don't much trust religious hermits to the ownership of the means to enact their will upon society violently.

And with your whole 'what if' bit, it is irrelevant. In a society of strict gun control, this question would not emerge, and that would be preferable to actually having to deal with this notion. I would prefer to be a part of a peaceful workers movement without the threat of violent repression from right wing militias looming over the horizon, personally. I'm sure many others would as well.

[Psy]

Splits seem more likely to occur when you aren't shooting at the military.

Splits are more likely when you can repel the military. Since why would a solider defect when the other side can't deny access to the military?



The idea of IEDs isn't new nor novel. They have those in Iraq.

Dead Americans: aprox 4800
Dead Iraqis: over 1 million.

How many industries in Afghanistan use high explosives? The Afghanistan insurgency lacks industrial proletariat period let alone industrial proletariat that has access to high explosives.



Marx warned against this type of fanciful thrill seeking type of thinking. The comparative advantage that workers have to militaries like the U.S. isn't ability to do violence. It's their numbers and relationship to the means of production. So let's fight through their. Educate, agitate, organize.
While true no military has ever easily won against a massive domestic uprising thus you are underestimating how powerful the proletariat is when united as a revolutionary army.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You do not have a basic right to shoot lead into your fellow man at your own whim, such is far too much power for most any individual to wield of their own accord.

See, this is what you get. The majority of people (read: those stupid working masses) can't be trusted; they're animals; they need someone smart (bureaucrats, specialists, politicos, etc.) to tell them what they can and can't do, and keep 'dangerous tools' out of their hands. This is gun-control leftism.

[Psy]

I agree with you that there will most likely be a split in military in case it ever comes to that. And I'm pretty sure there would be a rapid spread of information into homemade devices to counter their forces, ie. an M1 Abrams would be a sitting duck if you take out the treads.

They are a bigger sitting duck if you take out their logistical tail as the M1 Abrams.



What about self destructive nuclear annihilation though? Does anyone here ever wonder wether the bourgeoisie would adopt a "if we can't have it no one can" policy and literally nuke us all into oblivion? Seems counter productive, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
The problem is the bourgeoisie does value their life.

[thesadmafioso]

I'm sure the far right would absolutely love my views on Capitalism and Nationalism :rolleyes:.

Who the fuck said I have a basic right to shoot lead into my FELLOW man? Is the Burglar, Rapist, and Murderer that I protect myself from my 'fellow man'?

Hence why I was speaking only to your views on gun control, as you are literally using the same points, word for word in many cases.

Oh, and you did.

"Government taking away your guns is basically taking away your basic rights"

Crime is largely a symptom of the ills created by the superstructure of capitalistic society, so yes, they are still your fellow man. The fact that they have been less fortunate than you does not lessen their worth as individuals or deprive them of their humanity.

For a communist you sure seem to have a rather reactionary view of humanity.

[Dogs On Acid]

While true no military has ever easily won against a massive domestic uprising thus you are underestimating how powerful the proletariat is when united as a revolutionary army.

OK first of all we have to compare proletarian uprisings against the military in past and present.

In the past the military and the people weren't as technologically divided as we are today. If you take the Russian Civil War, the Czarists weren't armed with much more than small-arms, horses and cannons, things that any revolutionary could of got his hands on.

Nowadays the military has UAVs, tanks, missiles, NBC weapons and robotic/unmanned weapons.

You think mortars, dynamite and ak-47's will make a difference?

[L.A.P.]

I don't quite understand the point the pro-gun control Liberals..I mean...Communists have in saying "we need gun control because the working class might not be on our side." So basically you want to restrict the working class of their ability to obtain firearms because you fear what they might do with the firearms? I'm trying to understand how that could be a position held by a Communist.


You would fit right in at a tea party rally with that rhetoric. Musing about the government taking away your guns and how such a terrible act would be tantamount to fascism.

And you would fit right in at the Democratic National Convention with your rhetoric.

[Os Cangaceiros]

My point still stands, they are a dangerously unpredictable element of society with the capacity to engage in activities which could very well be disastrous to any sort of civil movement.

They're not going anywhere, though, and neither are their weapons.


And with your whole 'what if' bit, it is irrelevant. In a society of strict gun control, this question would not emerge, and that would be preferable to actually having to deal with this notion. I would prefer to be a part of a peaceful workers movement without the threat of violent repression from right wing militias looming over the horizon, personally. I'm sure many others would as well.

If all the guns in the world magically disappeared, then we certainly wouldn't have to worry about it. But the fact stands that there are over two hundred million firearms in the USA, and they're not going anywhere anytime soon.

[The Man]

LOL @ Murderers and Rapists breaking in your house

Get real.

Bullshit. My cousin was murdered in his house when he was eating breakfast. Besides, I do shooting for sport.

[Dogs On Acid]

See, this is what you get. The majority of people (read: those stupid working masses) can't be trusted; they're animals; they need someone smart (bureaucrats, specialists, politicos, etc.) to tell them what they can and can't do, and keep 'dangerous tools' out of their hands. This is gun-control leftism.

Just because certain things shouldn't be permitted doesn't mean we should employ Leninist/Stalinist style control of the masses. Don't take things to either authoritarian extreme or libertarian extreme. There is a debatable balance between restriction and freedom comrade.

[~Spectre]

Splits are more likely when you can repel the military. Since why would a solider defect when the other side can't deny access to the military?

Because soldiers are human beings. Believe it or not, if you sent in the 82nd airborne to destroy New York City, not all of them would be cool with it. Where as when you come under fire, your new mindset is to kill whatever is trying to kill you. This is why conscripted armies are even possible.



How many industries in Afghanistan use high explosives? The Afghanistan insurgency lacks industrial proletariat period let alone industrial proletariat that has access to high explosives.

Iran provides explosives and training to various insurgencies in the region. In addition, after the fall of Saddam hundreds of thousands of tons of military grade explosives were looted from previously sealed facilities.

Mining explosives aren't going to be the downfall of the most powerful military the world has ever seen. It's simply masturbation to think otherwise.



While true no military has ever easily won against a massive domestic uprising thus you are underestimating how powerful the proletariat is when united as a revolutionary army.

If you managed to unite the proletariat so much so that you could make them into enough of an army to give the military trouble, you wouldn't need to fight in the first place. If work doesn't get done, the state and its protectors fall.

[thesadmafioso]

Bullshit. My cousin was murdered in his house when he was eating breakfast. Besides, I do shooting for sport.

One personal example does not indicate a trend or prove any substantial sort of point.

[The Man]

Hence why I was speaking only to your views on gun control, as you are literally using the same points, word for word in many cases.

Oh, and you did.

"Government taking away your guns is basically taking away your basic rights"

Crime is largely a symptom of the ills created by the superstructure of capitalistic society, so yes, they are still your fellow man. The fact that they have been less fortunate than you does not lessen their worth as individuals or deprive them of their humanity.

For a communist you sure seem to have a rather reactionary view of humanity.

So apparently rape is a product of a Capitalistic society, according to you. Taking away your basic right, is far different than shooting a bullet in to a innocent human. Some sick excuses of humans in the Red Army raped innocent women and children, and they lived under Socialism.

[Dogs On Acid]

Bullshit. My cousin was murdered in his house when he was eating breakfast. Besides, I do shooting for sport.

I guess most people get murdered and raped while eating their breakfast.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So again: The key question for our leftist friends who join their liberal allies in the call for restricting firearms is who exactly is going to do the restricting? Who stands over "civilians" deciding when and how they can access firearms, and why?

And if people can't be trusted to wield firearms on their own accord, how can they be trusted with cars, lighters, knives, rope, or anything else that can be used to kill? And further to the point, how can they run society??

[The Man]

I guess most people get murdered and raped while eating their breakfast.

What the fuck? He was eating breakfast in his own house. Your digging yourself a deeper hole. It's ironic that you call yourself an Anarchist while calling for Gun-Control. The catalonians carried guns everywhere like it was an extra arm.

[thesadmafioso]

They're not going anywhere, though, and neither are their weapons.



If all the guns in the world magically disappeared, then we certainly wouldn't have to worry about it. But the fact stands that there are over two hundred million firearms in the USA, and they're not going anywhere anytime soon.

I agree with you entirely on this point, I harbor no illusion that what I am advocating for is immediately relevant in a practical sense. It was more an exercise in theory than anything else.

[Dogs On Acid]

Taking away your basic right, is far different than shooting a bullet in to a innocent human. The some sick excuses of humans in the Red Army raped innocent women and children, and they lived under Socialism.

Why is having a gun a basic right, like having food, water or sanitation?

No offence, but your indoctrination pisses me off.

A basic right is anything that allow one to survive. All else is luxury.

[thesadmafioso]

So apparently rape is a product of a Capitalistic society, according to you. Taking away your basic right, is far different than shooting a bullet in to a innocent human. Some sick excuses of humans in the Red Army raped innocent women and children, and they lived under Socialism.

They lived under a system of developing socialism which still needed to rely on elements of capitalism. And the simple fact that they were fighting a war shows that communism had yet to be achieved in an international sense, an aspect which is necessary for its attainment. You seem to be making some incredibly lazy intellectual errors at this point, I shouldn't have to turn this into a lecture on Marxism 101.

[~Spectre]

Some sick excuses of humans in the Red Army raped innocent women and children, and they lived under Socialism.

No they didn't.

[Dogs On Acid]

It's ironic that you call yourself an Anarchist while calling for Gun-Control.

:cool:

[thesadmafioso]

So again: The key question for our leftist friends who join their liberal allies in the call for restricting firearms is who exactly is going to do the restricting? Who stands over "civilians" deciding when and how they can access firearms, and why?

And if people can't be trusted to wield firearms on their own accord, how can they be trusted with cars, lighters, knives, rope, or anything else that can be used to kill? And further to the point, how can they run society??

Civilians would call for this, it is not as if some malevolent military dictator would be demanding the passing of this policy.

Spare us the pathetically ineffectual use of false equivocation and factually flawed use of hyperbole. All of those items which you have listed are far less deadly than a firearm and have uses of a much greater degree of practicality. The comparative use value of a firearm is nonexistent when juxtaposed to that of an automobile.

[The Man]

One personal example does not indicate a trend or prove any substantial sort of point.

Oh, I'm sorry. Let me give you 'some substantial sort of point':

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/06/US_Violent_Crime_Rate.jpg/800px-US_Violent_Crime_Rate.jpg This is the murder rate of the U.S. from 1960 to 2005. 1960's was when gun control was really settling in. As you can see, the early 1990's had a substantial homicide increase. Please note that this was the same time as when the 'Assault Rifle Ban' was put into place.

Okay, lets now take a look at Switzerland, where it is mandatory to own a rifle. In 2008, 95 homocides were committed in Switzerland. None of them were killed by a government-issued rifle. In the U.S., 5,400 homicides were committed.

[Dogs On Acid]

Some sick excuses of humans in the Red Army raped innocent women and children, and they lived under Socialism.

Your definition of Socialism is quite perverted, my good sir.

[The Man]

Your definition of Socialism is quite perverted, my good sir.

Well yeah, from your point of view. Your an Anarchist.

[The Man]

No they didn't.

I'm not surprised you said that. All you do is negrep people for being 'Stalinist', and all you care about is Anti-Marxism-Leninism.

[Dogs On Acid]

Oh, I'm sorry. Let me give you 'some substantial sort of point':

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/06/US_Violent_Crime_Rate.jpg/800px-US_Violent_Crime_Rate.jpg This is the murder rate of the U.S. from 1960 to 2005. 1960's was when gun control was really settling in.

Okay, lets now take a look at Switzerland, where it is mandatory to own a rifle. In 2008, 95 homocides were committed in Switzerland. None of them were killed by a government-issued rifle. In the U.S., 5,400 homicides were committed.

Because in Switzerland there are government-issued guns for use in a national invasion.

In America you have wall-mart-issued guns for house invasion.

[The Man]

Because in Switzerland there are government-issued guns for use in a national invasion.

In America you have wall-mart-issued guns for house invasion.

What? So now your trying to point out the differences between guns? :confused:

Wal-Mart can't sell guns. They are not licensed FFL.

[~Spectre]

Oh, I'm sorry. Let me give you 'some substantial sort of point':

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/06/US_Violent_Crime_Rate.jpg/800px-US_Violent_Crime_Rate.jpg[img] This is the murder rate of the U.S. from 1960 to 2005. 1960's was when gun control was really settling in.

Okay, lets now take a look at Switzerland, where it is mandatory to own a rifle. In 2008, 95 homocides were committed in Switzerland. None of them were killed by a government-issued rifle. In the U.S., 5,400 homicides were committed.


Multiple variable fail. For starters, that's the violent crime rate according to the link, not the murder rate, nor specifically the gun murder rate. Next,

-Gun control =/= lack of access. Even in states with harsher gun controls, there is easy access to guns, which undermines your claims.

-From the 70s onward the United States began dismantling their industrial base and exasperating wealth disparities. Further on, you get the development of "the war on drugs" which escalates a cycle of violence and incarcerates more people than even the Soviet Union under Stalin did. Jail also tends to make people more violent.

[thesadmafioso]

Oh, I'm sorry. Let me give you 'some substantial sort of point':

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/06/US_Violent_Crime_Rate.jpg/800px-US_Violent_Crime_Rate.jpg This is the murder rate of the U.S. from 1960 to 2005. 1960's was when gun control was really settling in.

Okay, lets now take a look at Switzerland, where it is mandatory to own a rifle. In 2008, 95 homocides were committed in Switzerland. None of them were killed by a government-issued rifle. In the U.S., 5,400 homicides were committed.

The scale here is hardly large enough for you to base such a sweeping trend in it. You do realize that if I just alter the numbers on the Y axis a bit that I can make a perfectly straight line, right? It also would appear that it fails to account for others factors which could of impacted this trend, meaning that this is very likely just a simple case of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, if we are to ignore the striking error of scale for just a moment.

What you have provided is nothing more than poorly veiled propaganda which does nothing to serve your position.

[bcbm]

Cars are necessary, more people have cars than guns, and cars are actually useful in any situation.

That's a terrible argument.

no cars are horribly inefficient, cause untold death and injury every year and fill our skies with co2 that is warming our planet.

guns are good family fun.

[Dogs On Acid]

Well yeah, from your point of view. Your an Anarchist.

Because Stalin allowed democratic control of the means of production by the workers themselves and not a hand-full of bureaucrats.

:laugh:

[~Spectre]

Well yeah, from your point of view. Your an Anarchist.


I'm not surprised you said that. All you do is negrep people for being 'Stalinist', and all you care about is Anti-Marxism-Leninism.


I think it's time to drop the shovel. Or at least stop hitting yourself in the face with it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Wal-Mart can't sell guns.

They absolutely can and do.. Not every store in every state does, but a large number of them do.

[The Man]

Multiple variable fail. For starters, that's the violent crime rate according to the link, not the murder rate, nor specifically the gun murder rate. Next,

-Gun control =/= lack of access. Even in states with harsher gun controls, there is easy access to guns, which undermines your claims.

-From the 70s onward the United States began dismantling their industrial base and exasperating wealth disparities. Further on, you get the development of "the war on drugs" which escalates a cycle of violence and incarcerates more people than even the Soviet Union under Stalin did. Jail also tends to make people more violent.

I apologize. I forgot that we were talking about rape as well. Your right on one point, that in states with harsh gun control it is easy to access guns.. Because Gun-Control doesn't work. They banned pistols in the U.K. and if I remember correctly the crime rate tripled. Criminals will always find ways to get guns.

[Dogs On Acid]

no cars are horribly inefficient, cause untold death and injury every year and fill our skies with co2 that is warming our planet.

guns are good family fun.

Maybe we should replace public transportation with public shooting ranges.

Much more efficient! :laugh:

[Dogs On Acid]

Wal-Mart can't sell guns.

You don't even know what your talking about. And I'm European :laugh:

This thread is the lulz

[bcbm]

Maybe we should replace public transportation with public shooting ranges.

Much more efficient! :laugh:

a car is different than public transportation

[The Man]

Because Stalin allowed democratic control of the means of production by the workers themselves and not a hand-full of bureaucrats.

:laugh:

He was trying to allow it atleast... Hell, before he died, he wanted to abolish the post of General Secretary.

[thesadmafioso]

I apologize. I forgot that we were talking about rape as well. Your right on one point, that in states with harsh gun control it is easy to access guns.. Because Gun-Control doesn't work. They banned pistols in the U.K. and if I remember correctly the crime rate tripled. Criminals will always find ways to get guns.

Oh great, some more cookie cutter NRA counterarguments.

That is only justification for more well developed policy of personal armament control. And is this crime rate referring to gun based crime? As you surely know, one does not need a gun to commit a crime. Even if it does though, it doesn't much matter due to the endless array of other potential factors which could of impacted that statistic.

[The Man]

You don't even know what your talking about. And I'm European :laugh:

This thread is the lulz

Oh, I thought you were talking about the Wal-Marts in Gun-Control states. We have a walmart that sells guns here. I have a store that sells machine guns ten minutes away from me. We've never had a problem.

[Dogs On Acid]

The poll is overwhelmingly pro-guns.

It's the people's choice!

[~Spectre]

Oh, I thought you were talking about the Wal-Marts in Gun-Control states. We have a walmart that sells guns here. I have a store that sells machine guns ten minutes away from me. We've never had a problem.

Like I said, whether access to guns hurts or helps you depends a lot on where you live. Some smaller towns with rifle stores are fine. But if you live in a neighborhood with drugs gangs, like say Baltimore that might suck.

The problem with the U.S. example is that states with weak gun control laws skew the data by providing the weaponry for harsher states, or harsher countries.

This is why Arizona's gun control policies really suck if you live in Juarez, Mexico.

[The Man]

Oh great, some more cookie cutter NRA counterarguments.

That is only justification for more well developed policy of personal armament control. And is this crime rate referring to gun based crime? As you surely know, one does not need a gun to commit a crime. Even if it does though, it doesn't much matter due to the endless array of other potential factors which could of impacted that statistic.

No it's not based on Guns, its based around Violent Crime, which we were talking about earlier. Plus, you wouldn't know how much times guns have saved people's lives.

OkS8mdbml0A

[Psy]

Because soldiers are human beings. Believe it or not, if you sent in the 82nd airborne to destroy New York City, not all of them would be cool with it. Where as when you come under fire, your new mindset is to kill whatever is trying to kill you. This is why conscripted armies are even possible.

That assumes they would be constantly under fire and 1/2 the deployed National Guard did defect after being pelted with rocks during the masses in the Great Railway Strike of 1877




Iran provides explosives and training to various insurgencies in the region. In addition, after the fall of Saddam hundreds of thousands of tons of military grade explosives were looted from previously sealed facilities.

Mining explosives aren't going to be the downfall of the most powerful military the world has ever seen. It's simply masturbation to think otherwise.

Not the same, explosives used in blast mining explosives are far more powerful then what a average American grunt has access to, you are talking about explosives meant to rip through solid rock (on a large scale) vs explosives meant to burn a small hole in steel.




If you managed to unite the proletariat so much so that you could make them into enough of an army to give the military trouble, you wouldn't need to fight in the first place. If work doesn't get done, the state and its protectors fall.
[/quote]
The problem is militaries have large stockpiles of dead labor.



OK first of all we have to compare proletarian uprisings against the military in past and present.

In the past the military and the people weren't as technologically divided as we are today. If you take the Russian Civil War, the Czarists weren't armed with much more than small-arms, horses and cannons, things that any revolutionary could of got his hands on.

Nowadays the military has UAVs, tanks, missiles, NBC weapons and robotic/unmanned weapons.

You think mortars, dynamite and ak-47's will make a difference?
Yes since UAVs have no defense against electronic warfare and there are civilians workers with the knowledge to jam their control signals which is why no serious army uses RF guided missiles any more. Tanks can be defeated by high explosives. NBC has the problem of causing splits in the military.

[xub3rn00dlex]

They are a bigger sitting duck if you take out their logistical tail as the M1 Abrams.

Clearly you are more knowledgable than me here =]



The problem is the bourgeoisie does value their life.

This is true, but what would they do if they come to terms with their lives ending? Would they concede power and give up the struggle calmly once that moment has arrived, or would they make the decision that if their lives were going to end, and their power too, the why not destroy the planet rather than let the proles run it?

[~Spectre]

That assumes they would be constantly under fire and 1/2 the deployed National Guard did defect after being pelted with rocks during the masses in the Great Railway Strike of 1877

I'm fine with rock throwing. Viva Palestina!



Not the same, explosives used in blast mining explosives are far more powerful then what a average American grunt has access to, you are talking about explosives meant to rip through solid rock (on a large scale) vs explosives meant to burn a small hole in steel.

The explosions are more powerful because they use much more explosive material per detonation. That doesn't mean having the explosives is more useful than having military weaponry.

Either way though, it seems from your thesis here that one would have to conclude that Iran would have been better off giving the insurgencies mining explosives instead of all the other shit they gave them. Then, the Americans would surely have been crushed!! Sorry, but that seems more than a tad unlikely.




The problem is militaries have large stockpiles of dead labor.

And a larger stockpile of weaponry that is good for producing dead laborers. Doesn't matter though. With a prolonged national strike, the economy melts down.




Yes since UAVs have no defense against electronic warfare and there are civilians workers with the knowledge to jam their control signals which is why no serious army uses RF guided missiles any more. Tanks can be defeated by high explosives.

The Taliban have trained hackers that have tried to hack the drones. The most they ever accomplished was briefly tapping in to a video feed, once, with the aid of russian software. So far the drones in Pakistan have still killed over 1,500 people.

And look, every piece of equipment is destroyable. That doesn't mean said Army with said equipment is destroyable by a group of workers with bombs.

[thesadmafioso]

No it's not based on Guns, its based around Violent Crime, which we were talking about earlier. Plus, you wouldn't know how much times guns have saved people's lives.

OkS8mdbml0A

Once more, this is not nearly enough evidence to prove the massive point which you are trying to prove. Isolated and sporadic cases such as these are in no way indicative of trends on any sort of scale worthy of mention.

It is obvious that you have fallen victim to the corrosive sphere of right wing fear mongering which is used to fuel support for their positions. After all, if you have an insatiable paranoia towards crime, you will probably be quite likely to go to any lengths to quell such fears, false as they may be.

[Psy]

I'm fine with rock throwing. Viva Palestina!

The explosions are more powerful because they use much more explosive material per detonation. That doesn't mean having the explosives is more useful than having military weaponry.

It is useful if you general tactic is ambushes.



Either way though, it seems from your thesis here that one would have to conclude that Iran would have been better off giving the insurgencies mining explosives instead of all the other shit they gave them. Then, the Americans would surely have been crushed!! Sorry, but that seems more than a tad unlikely.

No I'm saying they would have been better off if the insurgence had access to miners and other industrial proletariat.



And a larger stockpile of weaponry that is good for producing dead laborers. Doesn't matter though. With a prolonged national strike, the economy melts down.

The military can still operate with no capital production as the military existed before capitalism, it is a insinuation capitalism inherited.





The Taliban have trained hackers that have tried to hack the drones. The most they ever accomplished was briefly tapping in to a video feed, once, with the aid of russian software. So far the drones in Pakistan have still killed over 1,500 people.

That is not electronic warfare, electronic warfare is building jamming broadcasting towers to create more background noise then the signal strength of the UAVs. There is no way to defend against electronic warfare, the only downside is no one can use radio frequencies yet that is no a problem for insurgents.

[Aspiring Humanist]

How would a popular revolution take place without the means to do it?

[Dogs On Acid]

How would a popular revolution take place without the means to do it?

All a worker's revolution needs is a majority.

[Zeus the Moose]

I support strict gun control.

For the bourgeoisie.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That's worth a laugh or two, comrade! :lol:

[Geiseric]

I meant to say that the murders will occur with or without guns

[ellipsis]

The second amendment keeps all the others safe.

I guess that meant more before Bush and Obama destroyed the constitution....

[LegendZ]

That assumes they would be constantly under fire and 1/2 the deployed National Guard did defect after being pelted with rocks during the masses in the Great Railway Strike of 1877Ok. Except the NG in the 1870s is far different from the NG's of today. Did the NG defect at Kent State? I doubt they'd defect today when you consider they deploy and are sent to the same war zones active duty soldiers are sent to.


Not the same, explosives used in blast mining explosives are far more powerful then what a average American grunt has access to, you are talking about explosives meant to rip through solid rock (on a large scale) vs explosives meant to burn a small hole in steel. I don't know if you mean using mining explosives as an offensive weapon or an area denial type weapon. Either way neither would work. The US military has tanks that can deploy bridges on the move that can support tanks. Second, The US military has tested the Abrams armor under weaponry that would've destroyed any tank in WW2. Including 2000lb bombs. No Abrams has every been "ripped through". The most that's happened is it's been destroyed, hauled back to the plant and, stripped for parts. No person has died in an Abrams to this day. Also with the day to day IEDs they would just put these bad boys in front.
nugdmJWcLZw
Not to mention the daily ritual of finding IEDs and disposing of them they won't be as effective as you think. That's if you're lucky enough to actually get a direct hit.



Yes since UAVs have no defense against electronic warfare and there are civilians workers with the knowledge to jam their control signals which is why no serious army uses RF guided missiles any more. Tanks can be defeated by high explosives. NBC has the problem of causing splits in the military.Umm. Yeah, they do. No one let's tanks lead convoys + Minesweepers and not to mention the US has upgraded their vehicles to cancel out cell phone signals so that cellphone IEDs no longer work. Soldiers are trained often on NBC and how to not become NBC casualties.

[ellipsis]

They absolutely can and do.. Not every store in every state does, but a large number of them do.

This. I own a Wal-Mart gun. Wal-Mart is the largest gun retailer in the country.

[MattShizzle]

Yes. How else can we resist the Reactionaries and take on Capitalist governments? And in a Communist society it would be a way the people could resist invasion by enemies along with the military.

[ellipsis]

This is a friendly VERBAL WARNING to stop talking about explosives.

[Manic Impressive]

I meant to say that the murders will occur with or without guns
But less of them will be fatal if there are no guns involved :D

[∞]

Our best advocate for legalizing firearms.

livOU_WtQ9Q

aOlM1pPMNBc

[9]

an armed populace is a free populace

...really?

I voted "don't care" (I'm the only one, lol). What's really even the point in taking sides on issues like this? In the US, "gun ownership" is a completely petty hot-button dispute between two factions of the ruling class which is used to whip up all sorts of insane hysteria, and I'm not seeing its relevance to working class politics one way or the other.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Abortion is an issue used by the two parties of capital in the U.S. to whip hysteria, gain votes, pursue their agendas, etc. Does that mean we shouldn't be for universal access to all forms of birth control up to and including abortion, in opposition to both the wish-washy bourgeois liberals who go back and forth on the issue and limit it and the conservative bourgeois faction that wants to outlaw it outright?

How can you get behind the bourgeoisie and its bureaucrat-staffed state having a monopoly on firearms and at the same time fight for the working class to take control of all of society and construct a real human community built on foundations of cooperation and genuine freedom?

You're either for an end of the exploitation and oppression of the masses of working people or you're not. There really is no in between. You can't go out proclaiming the need for workers to take power and run things in their own interests and then turn around and say they're too stupid and inept to have potentially-dangerous tools like firearms.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Again, this wasn't even a question for the modern workers movement from its origins up until the time of Stalin.

"...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)

[9]

Abortion is an issue used by the two parties of capital in the U.S. to whip hysteria, gain votes, pursue their agendas, etc. Does that mean we shouldn't be for universal access to all forms of birth control up to and including abortion, in opposition to both the wish-washy bourgeois liberals who go back and forth on the issue and limit it and the conservative bourgeois faction that wants to outlaw it outright?

How can you get behind the bourgeoisie and its bureaucrat-staffed state having a monopoly on firearms and at the same time fight for the working class to take control of all of society and construct a real human community built on foundations of cooperation and genuine freedom?

You're either for an end of the exploitation and oppression of the masses of working people or you're not. There really is no in between. You can't go out proclaiming the need for workers to take power and run things in their own interests and then turn around and say they're too stupid and inept to have potentially-dangerous tools like firearms.

Wow, did I say any of those things? No, I didn't. I didn't "get behind" anyone, I said it wasn't a working class issue, and I don't think it is. I also don't think women being used as baby incubators for the ruling class is in any way analogous to people being unable to swing by walmart and pick up a firearm to go shoot some beercans in a field (the oppression!!!1), but hey, that's just me.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Civilians would call for this, it is not as if some malevolent military dictator would be demanding the passing of this policy.

Civilians will call for a banning of firearms for civilians? :confused:

What? How? Why?

No, for such a thing to work in practice you'd have to have some specialized armed enforcers to ensure that everyone else was disarmed. And on whose orders do they serve? Their own? Someone higher up? So again, who are these people and how do they fit into a classless society?


Spare us the pathetically ineffectual use of false equivocation and factually flawed use of hyperbole. All of those items which you have listed are far less deadly than a firearm

"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." (me, earlier in this thread)

"Of the 839 homicides in England and Wales in 2005, 29% involved sharp instruments including knives, blades and swords. Firearms account for just 9% of murders in Britain." (wiki)

"YOKOHAMA (Kyodo) The Yokohama District Court sentenced a 24-year-old man to 16 years in prison Thursday for killing two high school students and injuring seven others with his speeding car last October in the city." - http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20060714a9.html

"Tokyo's Akihabara district, a popular shopping area for consumer electronics, was still in shock on Monday following a killing spree by a 25-year-old man who plowed a rented truck into an intersection full of pedestrians, then began stabbing bystanders at random." - http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1812808,00.html

"The Daegu subway fire was a mass murder suicide attack on February 18, 2003 which killed at least 198 Koreans and injured at least 147. An arsonist set fire to a train stopped at the Jungangno Station of the Daegu Metropolitan Subway in Daegu, South Korea. The fire then spread to a second train which had entered the station from the opposite direction a few minutes later." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu_subway_fire


and have uses of a much greater degree of practicality. The comparative use value of a firearm is nonexistent when juxtaposed to that of an automobile.

Who says? You? Is a Peoples Commission on Practicality and Comparative Value going to be established to calculate a "usefulness to dangerousness" ratio through which the Politburo will decide what items are "safe" for regular people to have?

Firearms have uses. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist. Hunting, shooting sports, defense, etc.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Wow, did I say any of those things? No, I didn't.

By saying it's not an issue for workers, you're saying you're fine with the status quo (i.e. the capitalist class regulating firearm ownership, a trend which continues to increase).


I didn't "get behind" anyone, I said it wasn't a working class issue, and I don't think it is.

It's not a working class issue that the bourgeoisie wants to wield its state to keep firearms out of the the hands of workers in order to maintain a monopoly on them itself?

I disagree. So did Marx, Engels, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd internationals and countless workers who have or will have to defend themselves on picket lines, in councils, etc.


I also don't think women being used as baby incubators for the ruling class is in any way analogous to people being unable to swing by walmart and pick up a firearm to go shoot some beercans in a field (the oppression!!!1), but hey, that's just me.

You just changed the argument. Your original point was that factions of the bourgeoisie use the issue of firearms to whip up hysteria and score political points, so it can't be a working class issue. My point was that they do this with a number of things, including the issue of abortion. It doesn't make it any less of a working class issue (and we are not limited solely to the positions of the factions of the bourgeoisie: one faction says some birth control, sometimes.. we say full birth control on demand up to and including abortion; one faction says certain guns are OK to own by certain people, we say 'education of all to bear arms, arm the workers!').

[9]

By saying it's not an issue for workers, you're saying you're fine with the status quo (i.e. the capitalist class regulating firearm ownership, a trend which continues to increase).

Yes, I pretty much am fine with the status quo re gun ownership insofar as I'm completely indifferent to the entire question and don't think its of any real importance at all.



It's not a working class issue that the bourgeoisie wants to wield its state to keep firearms out of the the hands of workers in order to maintain a monopoly on them itself?

and yet...




Wal-Mart can't sell guns.
They absolutely can and do.. Not every store in every state does, but a large number of them do.

but whatever, dude. maybe its poor debate etiquette, but I've honestly got better things to do with my time than get in an internet argument over such a completely irrelevant issue.

[Psy]

Umm. Yeah, they do.
UAVs doesn't have defense against electronic jamming as none exist. If the enemy raises the back ground noise above the single strength then it is impossible for anything to see the control signal as you are overloading antennas again this why radio control missiles become obsolete as by the 1960's it was child's play to have any vehicle to have a jammer powerful enough overload any antenna in a missile.

This is why during cold war armies still had field phones as they knew in real war radios wouldn't work as both sides would be jamming and no one could use radios.

[~Spectre]

UAVs doesn't have defense against electronic jamming as none exist.

1) UAVs are capable of preprogramed flight patterns and routes. No signal required.

2)Sure they do. That's why UAVs get used against even professional militaries such as the Gaddafi loyalists. Electronic equipment and anti-air defenses don't do so hot when the Yanquis have navy ships with the pesky missiles parked in your neighboring body of water.

And that's why indulging your glorious fantasy scenario is starting to get a bit boring. You aren't thinking things through beyond step 1. I.E. you go:

OK THEY HAVE X, BUT LIKE IT'S POSSIBLE THAT Y>X IF USED ON X.

Without thought to any possible responses that they could have to shut down and mitigate your level 1 tactic with. This isn't how the real world works. It's like playing poker and not even bothering to consider what hand your opponent might have.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think that this issue boils down to the problem of people possessing firearms as private individuals. This connects with the political problem of the revolutionary organization of the armed forces, and cannot be discussed within the framework of American politics and its tradition.


Again, this wasn't even a question for the modern workers movement from its origins up until the time of Stalin.

"Education of all to bear arms. Militia in the place of the standing army." - Eduard BernsteinThis is best seen in this quote, which does not discuss the issue from the viewpoint of human rights enshrined in the Constitution. The thing is, not a single worker would need to possess a gun at home, at his/her disposal on a daily basis, in order to be a part of the armed and revolutionary working class. The same goes for the next quote, which would be quite different were it to pronounce "armed individuals".


"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)
I agree with this wholeheartedly. If there were a revolutionary situation, the power of the organized working class would most certainly depend, though not solely, on its potential for sheer force, and firearms play an important role here. This is why I wouldn't advocate an outright ban on private firearm possession within the confines of capitalist society
But the thing is, I would advocate such a ban when it comes to a hypothetical revolutionary society. That does not translate into support for the standing army at the expense of "the armed people", the militia, but rather emphasizes the fact that firearms should be held in common, unlike items for direct consumption such as toothbrushes for instance.

I hope I made my point clearly. To reitarete, not a single worker should possess a weapon as a private individual, but should be granted access to it as a member of the armed working class, as a member of the militia.

[Threetune]

The working class ‘as a class’ should be armed, not every individual and defiantly not any other classes, or all “civilians” as the OP puts it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Also, I'd like to add that the poll is rather ill conceived since the options seem to connote personal, private possession of firearms. I voted "not sure", though I'm fairly sure that private possession would be completely unnecessary, and maybe even harmful in some instances.

[scarletghoul]

The Maoist position on this can be deduced by combing two of our slogans:

"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun"

"All power to the people"

;)

[Thirsty Crow]

The Maoist position on this can be deduced by combing two of our slogans:

"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun"

"All power to the people"

;)
You mean, all power to the bloc of four classes?

[scarletghoul]

Har har ..

Anyway I don't think its a coincidence that the only two remaining socialist countries (Cuba and Korea) both have a fully armed populace.

[Thirsty Crow]

Har har ..

So, no response to this attempt at pointing out the painful contradiction between the sloganeering and the actual political programme?

[scarletghoul]

So, no response to this attempt at pointing out the painful contradiction between the sloganeering and the actual political programme?No im just not gonna let another thread degenerate into stupid sectarian Trotshite. This debate has been done countless times, just check all the old Nepal threads.

[Fopeos]

We socialists, communists, leftists should arm ourselves and arm ourselves well. The ruling class in most nations have sophisticated weapons systems that they won't hesitate to use on us. Let's not forget their civilian allies. The Right are armed to the teeth and some are organized into militias. Perhaps, when workers control the worlds' nation-states we can revisit the debate on whether or not we need guns.

[danyboy27]

we should all have the right to own gun.

Guns or not, people can and will kill eachother with deadly weapon if the social conditions make it likely.

if anything gun make situations more predictible and more easy to control.
Gun need ammo, ammo are something finite, its something that need to be stored, its a vulnerability.

On the other hand, homemade weapons are not easy to predict and verry hard to control.

Petrol bomb, chlorine bomb, nail bomb, homemade flamethrowers, homemade crossbow, blades covered with poisons etc etc.

between predictible wound from a rifle and an unpredictible wound from those homemade nasty thing, i take the bullet anytime.

[BeerShaman]

I deem guns necessary only under revolution conditions.
In a free and peaceful communist society they aren't needed. They would most possibly be a wound to society. One needing direct solving that might bring opportunities for authoritarian actions.

Don't forget that arms are power. And thus arms are danger. Either they must be well and carefully distributed (which is dangerous), or they must be prohibited. However, the matter is that the people will choose whether or not to prohibit them.

[danyboy27]

I deem guns necessary only under revolution conditions.
In a free and peaceful communist society they aren't needed. They would most possibly be a wound to society. One needing direct solving that might bring opportunities for authoritarian actions.

Don't forget that arms are power. And thus arms are danger. Either they must be well and carefully distributed (which is dangerous), or they must be prohibited. However, the matter is that the people will choose whether or not to prohibit them.


do you think the same of knifes, swords, spears, flammable materials, blunt object, nailboards, powertools, axes, machetes, chainsaws, hammers, blowtorch and car?

[chegitz guevara]

an armed populace is a free populace

This isn't really true. The populace was armed under Saddam Hussein. Many Latin Americans have guns. Training and logistics count for a lot.

[BeerShaman]

do you think the same of knifes, swords, spears, flammable materials, blunt object, nailboards, powertools, axes, machetes, chainsaws, hammers, blowtorch and car?
Well, chill out now...
If I want to kill you I can even do so by using a wooden stick or a spoon!
Though the matter is psychological! When I'm mad I won't say "grab my spoon sonny, there is a fella here we need to deal with"...
:tt2:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes, I pretty much am fine with the status quo re gun ownership insofar as I'm completely indifferent to the entire question and don't think its of any real importance at all.

Your position puts you at odds with the goal of human liberation.


They absolutely can and do.. Not every store in every state does, but a large number of them do. but whatever, dude.

A store sells guns to certain people in certain states. And this in a country where firearm access is looser than most others, for historical reasons. Of course that can and has changed. And large groups are prohibited from possessing firearms (for example felons across the U.S., who are disproportionately working class, black, Latino, etc.; or in NYC were workers and poor people can't get permits to own firearms, but the rich are given permits because they have a 'real material need' to 'protect themselves' and the police walk around the city with automatic machine guns).

And that's the U.S. In many countries it's virtually impossible to possess firearms unless you're a cop, soldier, spy, gun thug, etc.


maybe its poor debate etiquette, but I've honestly got better things to do with my time than get in an internet argument over such a completely irrelevant issue.

It's fine if you don't want to discuss it. But it's far from 'completely irrelevant' whether or not the bodies of the capitalist state have a monopoly on firearms; whether or not some 'specialists' who 'know better' should decide what working people are allowed to possess; whether or not the cops can kick in your door and throw you prison for 5 years for firearm possession because you stole $100 from a cash register at your job thirty years ago.

[danyboy27]

Well, chill out now...
If I want to kill you I can even do so by using a wooden stick or a spoon!
Though the matter is psychological! When I'm mad I won't say "grab my spoon sonny, there is a fella here we need to deal with"...
:tt2:

when peoples are mad they will use whatever mean they have at their disposal to kill and hurt other human being ; a car, an axe, a gun, anything.

banning gun wont change a damn thing about it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Again for those emphasizing the differences between social firearm possession (militias) and individual possession:

Why is it that working people cannot possess firearms as individuals (which were of course created by workers)?

Who should make that decision and on what basis?

Who should enforce it?

And, if workers are not capable of handling a simple tool, how can you possibly believe that they can run all of society?

[Dogs On Acid]

Again for those emphasizing the differences between social firearm possession (militias) and individual possession:

Why is it that working people cannot possess firearms as individuals (which were of course created by workers)?

Who should make that decision and on what basis?

Who should enforce it?

And, if workers are not capable of handling a simple tool, how can you possibly believe that they can run all of society?


In that case let there be RPG's for all! And landmines, or perhaps a tank for that matter. I mean, workers made them right?

Your argument is stupid, and of course there are people who don't have enough responsibility to handle a gun. By the way I don't consider guns "tools" because they aren't used to produce anything.

[Dogs On Acid]

when peoples are mad they will use whatever mean they have at their disposal to kill and hurt other human being ; a car, an axe, a gun, anything.

banning gun wont change a damn thing about it.

Your comments sound quite juvenile.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No, workers should only make weapons so that they can be used against them by armed bodies of the capitalist state. Because they obviously don't have enough responsibility to handle the things they made themselves. They need the more educated and responsible members of the higher classes to make sure they don't get their hands on such dangerous things.

So again, I ask: Who should determine what workers can and can't have? On what basis should they do so? Who and how should they enforce prohibition? Where and how does any of this fit into a classless society?


By the way I don't consider guns "tools" because they aren't used to produce anything. tool (n) - a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task.

See also: FightTogether

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tool

[danyboy27]

Your comments sound quite juvenile.

please feel free to adress my arguments any time now.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

In order to ensure the protection of the Proletariat and the emancipation of the Proletariat upon the Proletariat seeking to rise above the Capitalist State that continually exploits the Proletariat, the Proletariat must be armed in order to defend the interests of the Proletariat.


Your comments sound quite juvenile.

Dany's arguments are not juvenile as they are simply stating that if firearms to be restricted-- Those who seek to murder others will simply do so through different means. At this rate, the restriction of firearms will simply lead to a lack of self-defense and further abuse towards the Proletariat.

It is ideal for an armed mass to exist, as this mass is capable of promoting and encouraging self-defense.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yea the argument is pretty much dead on it's face. It does however reveal the mindset of the kind of people who make it.

"If you let average people get their hands on weapons they will kill people! If you let them have an RPG they'll blow up dozens of people!!"

Nonsense. Sane people don't commit murder just because they have the means to do so. People drive cars every day. They don't normally drive them into crowds of pedestrians just because they can. They use knives to cut up their food. They don't normally jam them into the necks of other people in the restaurant.

It's all about control; about those used to bossing and managing expanding that to every facet of life; about limiting possession of things like firearms used to expand the fighting abilities of individuals to those who 'know better' or who serve the rulers and exploiters and who do.

[danyboy27]

I would also like to indicate that the lack of gun in a society wouldnt stop, if the social conditions make it possible, for a group to takeover another one with homemade weapons.

if he got the tactics, the strategy and the numbers, a group of folks with less technological mean can overcome a more advanced opponent.

[W1N5T0N]

in an anarcho-communist society, who is a non-civilian?

[Dogs On Acid]

in an anarcho-communist society, who is a non-civilian?

Under international humanitarian law a civilian is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces or other militia.

[Dogs On Acid]

tool (n) - a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task.

See also: FightTogether

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tool

I take back what I said comrade.

[ColonelCossack]

No society, not even communist/anarchist society, can prevent people become CraZy and killing a load of people, because there's such a huge amount of factors that contribute to it, and you never know when someone's going to crack... although it would happen less in the kind of society all of us on here (that aren't trolls) are aiming for. I suppose it would be difficult to determine who would be allowed to own a firearm and who wouldn't, because you couldn't let everyone own a gun, but equally you can't judge people & their disorders, like that because ultimately, I think, we are all at least a bit volatile.

[ColonelCossack]

I would also like to indicate that the lack of gun in a society wouldnt stop, if the social conditions make it possible, for a group to takeover another one with homemade weapons.

if he got the tactics, the strategy and the numbers, a group of folks with less technological mean can overcome a more advanced opponent.

yes, but guns make it easier to kill people, otherwise they wouldn't have been invented.

[danyboy27]

yes, but guns make it easier to kill people, otherwise they wouldn't have been invented.

explosives are more deadly.

[Forward Union]

The question is always worded wrong. It can be formulated in a far better way;

"Should only the State and Criminal cartels be armed?"

[Psy]

1) UAVs are capable of preprogramed flight patterns and routes. No signal required.

And they will eventually run out of fuel and crash.



2)Sure they do. That's why UAVs get used against even professional militaries such as the Gaddafi loyalists. Electronic equipment and anti-air defenses don't do so hot when the Yanquis have navy ships with the pesky missiles parked in your neighboring body of water.

Since when was Gaddafi a major imperialist army?



And that's why indulging your glorious fantasy scenario is starting to get a bit boring. You aren't thinking things through beyond step 1. I.E. you go:

OK THEY HAVE X, BUT LIKE IT'S POSSIBLE THAT Y>X IF USED ON X.

Without thought to any possible responses that they could have to shut down and mitigate your level 1 tactic with. This isn't how the real world works. It's like playing poker and not even bothering to consider what hand your opponent might have.
The problem is that is easy to jam RF which is why you have wire guided missiles that you wouldn't use if you could defeat jamming as they easily get tangled up in obstacles and can hurt friendly infantry its path.

Thinking UAVs will be used in a revolution involving the industrial proletariat ignores that the American industrial proletariat has the means to jam the entire mainland USA as you can easily modify TV transmission towers into long rang jamming towers. You think the US would just strike every TV tower in the USA, that would be impressive considering how many there is in mainland USA and American workers could just build more faster then US military could blow them up.

[Dogs On Acid]

And they will eventually run out of fuel and crash.


Since when was Gaddafi a major imperialist army?


The problem is that is easy to jam RF which is why you have wire guided missiles that you wouldn't use if you could defeat jamming as they easily get tangled up in obstacles and can hurt friendly infantry its path.

Thinking UAVs will be used in a revolution involving the industrial proletariat ignores that the American industrial proletariat has the means to jam the entire mainland USA as you can easily modify TV transmission towers into long rang jamming towers. You think the US would just strike every TV tower in the USA, that would be impressive considering how many there is in mainland USA and American workers could just build more faster then US military could blow them up.

Idealism much?

[Psy]

Idealism much?
If every major US city is in the hands of workers do you think the productive force of the US industrial proletariat would be unable to jam mainland USA?

Encase you didn't know broadcast engineers are part of the proletariat so I fail to see how the US military would have any hopes in winning electronic warfare against the entire US proletariat.

[Thirsty Crow]

Again for those emphasizing the differences between social firearm possession (militias) and individual possession:

Why is it that working people cannot possess firearms as individuals (which were of course created by workers)?Why should they possess weapons as individuals? Is it really necessary to encourage such social climate when it would be perfectly possible from an organizational point of view to empower every working class woman and man by means of including them into the armed bodies of the class?


Who should make that decision and on what basis?Workers' themselves, assembled in workers' councils and territorial councils. The basis being proletarian democracy and open debate and discussion.


Who should enforce it?See above.


And, if workers are not capable of handling a simple tool, how can you possibly believe that they can run all of society?
Did I say that they are not capable of handling such a tool?

[CHE with an AK]

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/AK47.jpg

[Dogs On Acid]

Encase you didn't know broadcast engineers are part of the proletariat so I fail to see how the US military would have any hopes in winning electronic warfare against the entire US proletariat.

LOL!

Again you douse in idealism.

It's impossible for the entire US proletariat to be revolutionary.

[∞]

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/AK47.jpg


This thread has nothing to do with gun-fetishism.

[Psy]

LOL!

Again you douse in idealism.

It's impossible for the entire US proletariat to be revolutionary.

No, it is improbable, there is nothing stopping 100% proletariat revolting against the capitalist class. Also my point was that the proletariat have the means to out engineer and out produce the capitalist class as the capitalist class doesn't have any engineers within its class.

[Dogs On Acid]

No, it is improbable, there is nothing stopping 100% proletariat revolting against the capitalist class.

Idealism again. You're going to tell me it's possible that there are 0% reactionaries and conservatives in a whole country's proletariat? Please...



Also my point was that the proletariat have the means to out engineer and out produce the capitalist class as the capitalist class doesn't have any engineers within its class.

So a company owner can't be an engineer? :laugh:

[CHE with an AK]

This thread has nothing to do with gun-fetishism.
I don't "fetishize" guns ... I just realize that no class revolution is possible without them.

They aren't magical, they're just a potential tool for liberation if used correctly.

[danyboy27]

i think we are going away from the main topic.

this thread was about should the ''civilian'' be allowed to have firearms.

we should stick to that i think.

if there is any grievance about other things you guy could just start a thread you know.

[danyboy27]

i am still waiting for the OP to respond to my last posts.

[∞]

I don't "fetishize" guns ... I just realize that no class revolution is possible without them.

They aren't magical, they're just a potential tool for liberation if used correctly.

Well gee, AK-47 is on your sig, your avatar is an AK-47, your username is "CHE with an AK",and you posted a pic of an AK47 in response to if you think civilians should have guns, sorry for thinking your fetishsizing. I'm so ridiculous. :rolleyes:

[Psy]

Idealism again. You're going to tell me it's possible that there are 0% reactionaries and conservatives in a whole country's proletariat? Please...

Yhea it is called a post-revolutionary society. Also I admitted this is improbable in a revolutionary phase yet not impossible as there is nothing within capitalism to prevent it from happening. You can have 100% of the proletariat just decide that they don't like capitalism it is just improbable. Also it is the ruling class the empowers reactionaries on their own reactionaries are not more of a threat to revolutionary armies then a single ant is to a elephant.

A revolutionary army would actually have the problem easily being able to overkill reactionaries once they won against the bourgeoisie states.



So a company owner can't be an engineer? :laugh:
What good is being engineer to a capitalist? Capitalists hire many wage slave engineers as their time is better spend extracting surplus value from commodity production.

[Dogs On Acid]

What good is being engineer to a capitalist? Capitalists hire many wage slave engineers as their time is better spend extracting surplus value from commodity production.

Diversionary tactics detected.

Our debate wasn't if it's any good being an engineer if your a Capitalist, it was about you stating that there are no Engineers in the Capitalist class.

At least admit you're wrong, it looks so much better on you.

[Dogs On Acid]

Yhea it is called a post-revolutionary society.

In a post-revolutionary society there is no proletariat. Come on man you've been here since 2005...

[Psy]

Diversionary tactics detected.

Our debate wasn't if it's any good being an engineer if your a Capitalist, it was about you stating that there are no Engineers in the Capitalist class.

At least admit you're wrong, it looks so much better on you.
Practically there is not, yes there are a few among the petite-bourgeoisie but not the large bourgeoisie that have real power as engineering is not a discipline that is useful to capitalist since they can simply hire engineers.


In a post-revolutionary society there is no proletariat. Come on man you've been here since 2005...
That depends on a classless society immediately following the revolutionary phase. For example it is possible to have a society with zero reactionaries among the proletariat as you have a revolution that has established a dictatorship of the proletariat, all the proletariat is not against the capitalist class yet there really isn't a revolution against the capitalist class anymore and it is just before the proletariat cease existing as a class.

[LegendZ]

And they will eventually run out of fuel and crash.
You can program it to land?



The problem is that is easy to jam RF which is why you have wire guided missiles that you wouldn't use if you could defeat jamming as they easily get tangled up in obstacles and can hurt friendly infantry its path.lol. Why didn't they have a problem with them in Iraq? Besides that why use a missile when they can use a 25 mm cannon, 40mm Grenade Launcher, 105mm Tank cannon, 120mm Tank cannon, Patriot missile, MLRS, 155mm Howitzer, 120mm Mortar, AT-4, FGM-148, SMAW, or XM-25?



If every major US city is in the hands of workers do you think the productive force of the US industrial proletariat would be unable to jam mainland USA? :laugh: Ok back to the real world now. If the entire proletariat was revolting I wouldn't put far from the US to just carpet bomb everything into submission.


Encase you didn't know broadcast engineers are part of the proletariat so I fail to see how the US military would have any hopes in winning electronic warfare against the entire US proletariat.:lol:


LOL!

Again you douse in idealism.

It's impossible for the entire US proletariat to be revolutionary.no joke


No, it is improbable, there is nothing stopping 100% proletariat revolting against the capitalist class. Also my point was that the proletariat have the means to out engineer and out produce the capitalist class as the capitalist class doesn't have any engineers within its class.Seriously? I did not know that. Now what's the probability of having 100% of the proletariat revolt? Bring down the idealism levels please.


Idealism again. You're going to tell me it's possible that there are 0% reactionaries Hey you never know, maybe even the bourgeois will decide to be come proletariats.

Maybe.:rolleyes:

[Dogs On Acid]

hey you never know, maybe even the bourgeois will decide to be come proletariats.

Maybe.:rolleyes:

nothing is impossible.

[Psy]

You can program it to land?

Then there is the issue of it landing into enemy held territory, it is not like after is flew over spying on a worker held city and landed due to jamming that the workers would just let the military have it back.



lol. Why didn't they have a problem with them in Iraq?

The US military doesn't have any RF missiles and wire guided missiles have from time to time have gotten their wires broken by ground clutter.

As for why UAVs work in Iraq, it is because there are no broadcast engineers in Iraq trying to counter them. Iraq is not the USSR that had combat broadcast engineers that were units trained to counter enemy broadcasts be they communications, missiles or remote vehicles. Remote vehicles were invented way back in WWII by Nazi Germany yet Nazi Germany engineers quickly found RF even then was easily jammed so they resorted to using wire guided remote vehicles. Thus UAVs are not new technology but a comeback of failed technology of WWII.




Besides that why use a missile when they can use a 25 mm cannon, 40mm Grenade Launcher, 105mm Tank cannon, 120mm Tank cannon, Patriot missile, MLRS, 155mm Howitzer, 120mm Mortar, AT-4, FGM-148, SMAW, or XM-25?

Because missiles are better in some circumstances even if you have to guide them by wire.



:laugh: Ok back to the real world now. If the entire proletariat was revolting I wouldn't put far from the US to just carpet bomb everything into submission.

Okay without workers making new fuel that wouldn't last long, the US military would quickly have to prioritize who gets fuel then there is replacement parts that has been outsourced to the private sector that in this cause would be the very workers the US military would be trying to suppress. In other words the US military would have to ask the worker controlled industries to fix their vehicles (that they probably refuse) due to privatization of the US military that has gutted the US military internal means to support its own vehicles.



Seriously? I did not know that. Now what's the probability of having 100% of the proletariat revolt? Bring down the idealism levels please.

As I said it is improbable yet we have seen time and again it is not that improbable for most of the proletariat to become revolutionary including sections of the police and military.

[Dogs On Acid]

Then there is the issue of it landing into enemy held territory, it is not like after is flew over spying on a worker held city and landed due to jamming that the workers would just let the military have it back.

If it's not x then the issue is y, and if it ain't y then z might happen. And they are all very probable. :rolleyes:


Remote vehicles were invented way back in WWII by Nazi Germany

Soviet Red Army used remotely controlled teletanks during 1930s in the Winter War and early stage of World War II. There were also remotely controlled cutters and experimental remotely controlled planes in the Red Army.


Thus UAVs are not new technology but a comeback of failed technology of WWII.

The earliest attempt at a powered unmanned aerial vehicle was A. M. Low's "Aerial Target" of 1916.



Okay without workers making new fuel that wouldn't last long, the US military would quickly have to prioritize who gets fuel then there is replacement parts that has been outsourced to the private sector that in this cause would be the very workers the US military would be trying to suppress. In other words the US military would have to ask the worker controlled industries to fix their vehicles (that they probably refuse) due to privatization of the US military that has gutted the US military internal means to support its own vehicles.

The US isn't alone you know? There are workers in allied countries too :lol:


As I said it is improbable yet we have seen time and again it is not that improbable for most of the proletariat to become revolutionary including sections of the police and military.

Most of the proletariat isn't the whole proletariat in my dictionary.

[Psy]

If it's not x then the issue is y, and if it ain't y then z might happen. And they are all very probable. :rolleyes:

The point is if the UAV gets jammed over enemy territory landing will put on the ground in enemy territory.



Soviet Red Army used remotely controlled teletanks during 1930s in the Winter War and early stage of World War II. There were also remotely controlled cutters and experimental remotely controlled planes in the Red Army.



The earliest attempt at a powered unmanned aerial vehicle was A. M. Low's "Aerial Target" of 1916.

Point taken




The US isn't alone you know? There are workers in allied countries too :lol:

True but that would mean there would be revolutionary workers outside the USA that could at any movement join the fight against the US military as they succeeded in neutralizing the threat from their own bourgeoisie state.




Most of the proletariat isn't the whole proletariat in my dictionary.
True yet you are missing the point. There is this idea that a revolutionary war against bourgeoisie states can't be won, that somehow workers can't overpower capitalist armies regardless of the might of the revolutionary forces. I find this a self-defeatist attitude.

[LegendZ]

nothing is impossible.Keep on believing that.



The US military doesn't have any RF missiles and wire guided missiles have from time to time have gotten their wires broken by ground clutter. Of course they have. Missiles misfire, guns jam, and tanks lose tracks. It's really nothing new.





Because missiles are better in some circumstances even if you have to guide them by wire. Which they have?



Okay without workers making new fuel that wouldn't last long, the US military would quickly have to prioritize who gets fuel then there is replacement parts that has been outsourced to the private sector that in this cause would be the very workers the US military would be trying to suppress. In other words the US military would have to ask the worker controlled industries to fix their vehicles (that they probably refuse) due to privatization of the US military that has gutted the US military internal means to support its own vehicles. No. They have their own weapons maintainers. They can fix their tanks, helos, and weapons on the bases they are stationed. The US military is planning on shutting down the General Dynamics plant for 3 years to save money. What does that plant make? The M1 Abrams. They don't sound too strapped for parts. Even if they were they could just buy some from other countries since we sell them versions of our weapons as well. Also, won't they just BUY oil?



As I said it is improbable yet we have seen time and again it is not that improbable for most of the proletariat to become revolutionary including sections of the police and military.:confused: Most of the revolutions I can think of happened under a monarchy. That said the situation you are talking about is mainly under ideal situations.

[Dogs On Acid]

True yet you are missing the point. There is this idea that a revolutionary war against bourgeoisie states can't be won, that somehow workers can't overpower capitalist armies regardless of the might of the revolutionary forces. I find this a self-defeatist attitude.

It's very relative. Che Guevara stated in his book Guerilla Warfare:

"We consider that the Cuban Revolution contributed three fundamental lessons to the conduct of revolutionary movements in America*"

*(he was obviously referring to South America, the underdeveloped America )

"They are:

-Popular forces can win a war against the army.

-It is not necessary to wait till all conditions for making revolution exist; the insurrection can create them.

-In underdeveloped America the countryside is the basic area for armed fighting."

So in an underdeveloped country the revolutionaries are able to overpower the army using countryside guerilla tactics, which even under these circumstances is not an easy task.
Now if we take a highly developed country with a high-tech military that has access to things the bulk of the proletariat has never even seen before, that's a whole other story.
Plus we have to take into account if the State of a 1st world country would resort to mass violence against the massive proletariat in the first place. And it goes on and on...

We are travelling into our own imagination and this debate isn't at all productive.

Back to "there's no Capitalist engineers" then :lol:

[#FF0000]

I think it is a bad idea to allow the state to disarm the entire working class

[LegendZ]

True but that would mean there would be revolutionary workers outside the USA that could at any movement join the fight against the US military as they succeeded in neutralizing the threat from their own bourgeoisie state.He means there are workers in other countries who can make parts for the US military.




True yet you are missing the point. There is this idea that a revolutionary war against bourgeoisie states can't be won, that somehow workers can't overpower capitalist armies regardless of the might of the revolutionary forces. I find this a self-defeatist attitude.We aren't saying that. We are just saying it isn't as easy as doing X, Y, and Z. Sorry for not being more enthusiastic about an ideal situation that isn't very likely to happen. I prefer to plan for more realistic situations with roaming conservative mobs in gun trucks acting as militia rather than everyone just gaining class consciousness overnight. That's a situation I'd rather be prepared for more than unprepared.

[Psy]

It's very relative. Che Guevara stated in his book Guerilla Warfare:

"We consider that the Cuban Revolution contributed three fundamental lessons to the conduct of revolutionary movements in America*"

*(he was obviously referring to South America, the underdeveloped America )

"They are:

-Popular forces can win a war against the army.

-It is not necessary to wait till all conditions for making revolution exist; the insurrection can create them.

-In underdeveloped America the countryside is the basic area for armed fighting."

So in an underdeveloped country the revolutionaries are able to overpower the army using countryside guerilla tactics, which even under these circumstances is not an easy task.
Now if we take a highly developed country with a high-tech military that has access to things the bulk of the proletariat has never even seen before, that's a whole other story.
Plus we have to take into account if the State of a 1st world country would resort to mass violence against the massive proletariat in the first place. And it goes on and on...

We are travelling into our own imagination and this debate isn't at all productive.

Back to "there's no Capitalist engineers" then :lol:
If the it was that easy then why was France on the verse of collapse in May 1968? Why was the US unable to do much about the recent Arab springs?




Of course they have. Missiles misfire, guns jam, and tanks lose tracks. It's really nothing new.

My point is that the fact missiles have to be wire guided suggests the threat of jamming in the battlefield.




No. They have their own weapons maintainers.

Not for the Strykers which General Dynamics fixes them which is a test case for greater outsourcing of the military. They can fix their tanks, helos, and weapons on the bases they are stationed.




The US military is planning on shutting down the General Dynamics plant for 3 years to save money. What does that plant make? The M1 Abrams. They don't sound too strapped for parts.

The M1 Abrams is the lemon of tanks where most sit in depot as the military lack parts to run. Closing the plant makes sense since the M1 Abrams is also a fuel hog and working tanks sit in depot as they lack fuel to go out on missions.



Even if they were they could just buy some from other countries since we sell them versions of our weapons as well. Also, won't they just BUY oil?


That assumes other countries are not busy dealing with their own revolutions.



:confused: Most of the revolutions I can think of happened under a monarchy. That said the situation you are talking about is mainly under ideal situations.
SO i take it you missed the recent Arab uprisings that only didn't go farther because they lacked a revolutionary core to drive the revolutions to tear down capitalist relations. Or how in Paris May 1968 the French state was preparing to flee in surrender the means of production or how conscripted British troops in Asia had massive labor strikes after WWII that was a huge factor in the British ruling class yielding to the US ruling taking over their empire.



We aren't saying that. We are just saying it isn't as easy as doing X, Y, and Z. Sorry for not being more enthusiastic about an ideal situation that isn't very likely to happen. I prefer to plan for more realistic situations with roaming conservative mobs in gun trucks acting as militia rather than everyone just gaining class consciousness overnight. That's a situation I'd rather be prepared for more than unprepared.

You then don't understand dialectical-materialism, nothing happens overnight it just seems that way as societies are always in change even now capitalism is sowing the seeds of revolution.

[Hebrew Hammer]

I voted: Yes, in any society.

Of course the average citizenry should have arms, what kind of question is this on such a forum? Be kind of hard to have a revolution without arms being easily accessible to the proletariat and your average citizenry.

[dude6935]

Why should they possess weapons as individuals?

I think the burden of proof lies with those who believe that individuals should not possess a thing.

Is there no right to self defense? If we accept food and healthcare as a right because they are required for life, then surely defense is a right as well because it is required for life. And if we have a right to defense, then isn't it logical that society should provide the tools that produce defense just as it provides the tools to produce food?

You might argue that defense is not needed under stateless communism. That would be a utopian (unrealistic) view of communism. People will always seek to use aggression against one another.

[W1N5T0N]

Why does anyone need guns? the problem with giving guns to a small number of people is that, as there is a certain amount of psychopathic behaviour in any system and society, it may lead to them taking over control. (military junta)
And this could happen even in an-com society, you just need a small number of really frustrated or mentally deranged people (though they might now show it) to have control over all the guns and it all goes to hell. So yeah, i would suggest that ideally it would have to be all or none. The first carries with it a great transfer of power, with a potential internal crisis, and the latter poses a greater vulnerability to outside forces.

I sometimes really try not to hate people....

[Mr. Cervantes]

I see no reason why not.

[Tenka]

I think the burden of proof lies with those who believe that individuals should not possess a thing.

Is there no right to self defense? If we accept food and healthcare as a right because they are required for life, then surely defense is a right as well because it is required for life. And if we have a right to defense, then isn't it logical that society should provide the tools that produce defense just as it provides the tools to produce food?

You might argue that defense is not needed under stateless communism. That would be a utopian (unrealistic) view of communism. People will always seek to use aggression against one another.
Yes, and you want to make guns widely available. Sorry for the crass one-liner but I really don't see how possessing firearms for "self-defence" would benefit the working class outside of a revolutionary context. Reactionaries abound today, and I'd really like to reduce my risk of being shot by one of them as much as possible.
Sure, someone could kill with their bare hands if they were quite determined, but is it really disputed that guns make it a whole lot easier to kill?
Also, I don't see the right to food (means to life) and the "right" to having a firearm close at hand so that you can kill someone at a distance should you feel the need arise as being comparable.

[Red Hornet]

I agree with many of the pro-gun posts here,



Total murders 13,636 100.00%
Handguns 6,452 47.32%
Firearms (type unknown) 1,928 14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged) 1,864 13.67%
Edged weapons 1,825 13.38%
Hands, feet, etc 801 5.87%
Shotguns 418 3.07%
Rifles 348 2.55%




According to these FBI murders by weapon stats (table 20 for 2009, sorry can't post links yet), it makes 5x more sense to ban knives than it does any kind of rifle considering knives are used 5 times more to kill people than rifles. Even twice as many people are beaten to death (Hands, feet, etc) than murdered with any kind of rifle. That is for all rifles combined, including AR-15s and SEMI-automatic versions of the AK-47 (which by law, cannot be easily convertible to fully automatic), to bolt action hunting rifles.

If any kind of gun should not be allowed it should be handguns not rifles (not that I'm favor banning handguns either)

For those that don't know, FULLY automatic weapons have been strictly regulated since 1934 and no new civilian full autos have been made since 1986, full auto AK's start at thousands of dollars because no new ones can be made, and the procedure for buying fully automatic weapons includes paying a 200 dollar tax stamp and doing a background check (not to be confused with the NICS instant background check for standard gun sales) that can take 5-6 months, getting fingerprinted etc.


As for civilians owning firearms (especially rifles and shotguns), why the fuck not? Rifles are the least misused of all firearms.

[yobbos1]

Just thinking out loud here as I was mulling over this very idea today.
There are people who need guns in rural areas, very unfair to expect them to try control pests and aggressive predators without a gun.
Equality for all would indicate that if one man can own a gun for his needs then there should be the same right for all.
My thinking is now leaning toward the notion that with firm restrictions in place, all should be able to own a firearm. Example; one rifle only, providing you have never been convicted of a violent offense, no handguns, limited ownership of ammunition etc.
You have to admit, the idea that nearly everyone in the country is armed would sure keep the leadership honest.
Hey if the fascists hate gun ownership, how bad can it be?.

[danyboy27]

Just thinking out loud here as I was mulling over this very idea today.
There are people who need guns in rural areas, very unfair to expect them to try control pests and aggressive predators without a gun.
Equality for all would indicate that if one man can own a gun for his needs then there should be the same right for all.
My thinking is now leaning toward the notion that with firm restrictions in place, all should be able to own a firearm. Example; one rifle only, providing you have never been convicted of a violent offense, no handguns, limited ownership of ammunition etc.
You have to admit, the idea that nearly everyone in the country is armed would sure keep the leadership honest.
Hey if the fascists hate gun ownership, how bad can it be?.


fascist dont hate gun ownership, its something the american NRA made up.

Gun restriction where put in place back then by the weirmar republic, not nazi germany, and it was done in an effort to curb the rise of violent militias. we see now how it worked up.

[Dogs On Acid]

I agree with many of the pro-gun posts here,



Total murders 13,636 100.00%
Handguns 6,452 47.32%
Firearms (type unknown) 1,928 14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged) 1,864 13.67%
Edged weapons 1,825 13.38%
Hands, feet, etc 801 5.87%
Shotguns 418 3.07%
Rifles 348 2.55%





According to these FBI murders by weapon stats (table 20 for 2009, sorry can't post links yet), it makes 5x more sense to ban knives than it does any kind of rifle considering knives are used 5 times more to kill people than rifles. Even twice as many people are beaten to death (Hands, feet, etc) than murdered with any kind of rifle. That is for all rifles combined, including AR-15s and SEMI-automatic versions of the AK-47 (which by law, cannot be easily convertible to fully automatic), to bolt action hunting rifles.

If any kind of gun should not be allowed it should be handguns not rifles (not that I'm favor banning handguns either)

For those that don't know, FULLY automatic weapons have been strictly regulated since 1934 and no new civilian full autos have been made since 1986, full auto AK's start at thousands of dollars because no new ones can be made, and the procedure for buying fully automatic weapons includes paying a 200 dollar tax stamp and doing a background check (not to be confused with the NICS instant background check for standard gun sales) that can take 5-6 months, getting fingerprinted etc.


As for civilians owning firearms (especially rifles and shotguns), why the fuck not? Rifles are the least misused of all firearms.

Total murders 13,636 100.00%
Handguns 6,452 47.32%+
Firearms (type unknown) 1,928 14.14%+
Shotguns 418 3.07%+
Rifles 348 2.55%+

67.08% -> The majority of murders are caused by firearms.

Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged) 1,864 13.67%+
Edged weapons 1,825 13.38%+
Hands, feet, etc 801 5.87%+

32.92% -> There are more people killed with only handguns than all other non-firearm murders combined.

Thank you for your statistics, it's all I needed, to take a anti-firearms stance.

[Red Hornet]

Total murders 13,636 100.00%
Handguns 6,452 47.32%+
Firearms (type unknown) 1,928 14.14%+
Shotguns 418 3.07%+
Rifles 348 2.55%+

67.08% -> The majority of murders are caused by firearms.

Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged) 1,864 13.67%+
Edged weapons 1,825 13.38%+
Hands, feet, etc 801 5.87%+

32.92% -> There are more people killed with only handguns than all other non-firearm murders combined.

Thank you for your statistics, it's all I needed, to take a anti-firearms stance.



So all firearms should be banned because of that?! Even rifles?

Or just handguns?


Also there is no correlation between gun control and murder rates.


In Switzerlan*d the homicide rate is lower than both the UK and Ireland, even though Switzerlan*d has the highest gun ownership rate in all of Europe (3rd in the world), and yet they only have a murder rate of 0.71 per 100,000 people (and 0.3 homicide by firearm). The UK's is 1.28 per 100,000 people (probably the strictest gun laws in all of Europe) while Russia's murder rate is 13.0 per 100,000 people (very strict, and all handguns are banned). South Korea is VERY strict gun laws (even more so than the UK, as far as I know you cannot own a firearm and keep it at home) and their murder rate is 2.3, so clearly there is no correlatio*n.

Switzerlan*d homicide rate - 0.71 per 100,000 people (homicide rate by firearm is 0.3 per 100.000 people) - Lax gun control

United Kingdom homicide rate - 1.28 per 100,000 people - Strict gun control

Ireland homicide rate - 1.35 per 100,000 people - Strict gun control

Russia homicide rate - 13.0 per 100,000 people - Strict gun control

United States homicide rate - 5.0 per 100,000 people - Lax gun control

South Korea homicide rate - 2.3 per 100,000 people - Strict gun control

Czech Republic homicide rate - 1.94 per 100,000 people - Lax gun control

Japan homicide rate - 1.02 per 100,000 people - Strict gun control

Australia homicide rate - 1.3 per 100,000 people - Strict gun control

Brazil homicide rate - 27 per 100,000 people - Strict gun control




And that's true even here in the states, California has the strictest gun laws in the country yet their murder rate is 5.3 per 100,000 people and Maryland also has strict gun control with a murder rate of 7.7 per 100,000 people. While Vermont (where you don't even need a permit to carry a handgun) has 1.1 per 100,000 and New Hampshire has 0.8 per 100,000 people with lax gun control, that's slightly less than the UK and South Korea and Ireland which has strict gun control. While there's also Louisiana which has lax gun control and a murder rate of 11.8 per 100,000.


Ending the war on drugs would do far more to reduce the murder rate than banning guns ever would.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

In England four times as many violent crimes are committed with (not "caused by" as you idiotically claim -- how does a tool "cause" a death or a crime?) knives than firearms. So I guess you'll be calling for knives to be banned in England, right?

And oh wait, even with massive restrictions on firearms and knives: "Knife, like other violent crime, is suffered most by the young, the poor and the black and ethnic minority communities." - Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College, London.

Why is that?

Could it be that the mere existence of tools that can be used to harm people is not and has never been the root cause of crime and violent attacks? Could it be that people commit these acts for all sorts of reasons: environmental, economic, mental, etc.? Could that be why in Japan where weapons of all kinds are restricted there have been mass murders with cars, knives and gas? Could that be why in England where gun and knife possession is strongly regulated there are numerous knife and even bottle attacks? Could that be why "gun crime, particularly handgun crime, has more than doubled since Labour came to power - again despite legislation, in the form of a post-Dunblane ban on handguns"?

No, I'm sure that has nothing to do with it. It's that "civilians" are animals that can't be trusted with tools that can be used to harm people. Good thing for us then we have the capitalist state and leftist "comrades" like you to keep such things out of our hands in the name of "preventing crime." It's obviously working very well!

[Dogs On Acid]

(not "caused by" as you idiotically claim -- how does a tool "cause" a death or a crime?)

Well I apologize English being my 2nd language, you were an asshole.

I've had enough of this.

[The Man]

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/AK47.jpg

It's funny cause that isn't an AK-47. Stop with your stupid signatures as well.... You sound like one of those tankie Marxist-Leninists that play C&C Red Alert 3.. You give our movement a bad name.. If you truly owned an AK-47, you wouldn't be talking about it. If you were actually a gun-owner you would truly known to NEVER brag about your guns..

If you are so happy about your AKs.. Please learn about them and actually realize that the picture you just posted wasn't and AK-47, and go to the store at Dick's Sporting Goods and go buy an AK47 for $250... No one gives a shit... The most common bought gun in the United States is actually a Romanian AK47.. I have one, my neighbor has one, my parents have one, my brothers have one, all my friends have one; so therefore having an AK47 doesn't make you 'cool' or 'edgey'; It is a responsibility.

In conclusion, never talk about 'REVOLUTION WITH AN AK47'. If you say that shit, no one takes you seriously. Yes, I am a revolutionary communist and have guns, but does that mean I am going to go around and shoot government officials? No. So when Capitalism melts down, don't grab an AK-47.. Cause you will be the only one. Educate, Agitate, Organize.

[W1N5T0N]

fuck industrialized/personal killing machines. thats all i have to say.

[The Man]

fuck industrialized/personal killing machines. thats all i have to say.

I don't get it. Guns are inanimate objects. I really didn't know they could run around and kill people.

[thesadmafioso]

I don't get it. Guns are inanimate objects. I really didn't know they could run around and kill people.

Again with this rudimentary logic perpetuated in mass by the NRA. He was obviously referring to the concept of people having access to the means do so and how lax gun control policy allows for such a possibility.

[Psy]

Total murders 13,636 100.00%
Handguns 6,452 47.32%+
Firearms (type unknown) 1,928 14.14%+
Shotguns 418 3.07%+
Rifles 348 2.55%+

67.08% -> The majority of murders are caused by firearms.

Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged) 1,864 13.67%+
Edged weapons 1,825 13.38%+
Hands, feet, etc 801 5.87%+

32.92% -> There are more people killed with only handguns than all other non-firearm murders combined.

Thank you for your statistics, it's all I needed, to take a anti-firearms stance.
And banning guns will do what? Did the prohibition drugs get rid of drugs?

[#FF0000]

guys i agree only the government should be able to have guns

oh wait a minute

[W1N5T0N]

The problem with guns is that they are no more than another fucking commodity. A commodity that kills. Hey people, heroin doesn't "kill" anybody. So why the don't we go and sell it a the next best drugstore? Meth? Coke?

Industry produces guns to make money. Ultimately, this free-market access to firing arms leads to people and innocents being killed.

In the USA, this system is a joke. You can walk into a bank with a couple shells in your pocket, open a bank account and get a gun for free (and yes, I saw that on B4C). Whats stopping you from holding up the whole place? Or, for that matter, walking into the fucking street and shooting a kid in the face? As much as I love the anarchist idea of self-restraint, it's just not gonna work for some people. NOT saying anarchism won't work, but there is a certain psychopathic factor inherent, yes, INHERENT in society. Genetic, environmental, chemical....For that matter, psycho/sociopaths can and will kill, but if a child has matches, why give him dry wood?

[dude6935]

Why does anyone need guns?

To defend themselves, to hunt for food, to exterminate pests, to use for sport.



the problem with giving guns to a small number of people is that, as there is a certain amount of psychopathic behaviour in any system and society, it may lead to them taking over control. (military junta)
And this could happen even in an-com society, you just need a small number of really frustrated or mentally deranged people (though they might now show it) to have control over all the guns and it all goes to hell.

How would a small group of people get all the guns??? That is silly.

Everyone totally ignored the case that defense is a right that necessitates the provision of the tools to produce it.


In the USA, this system is a joke. You can walk into a bank with a couple shells in your pocket, open a bank account and get a gun for free (and yes, I saw that on B4C). Whats stopping you from holding up the whole place? Or, for that matter, walking into the fucking street and shooting a kid in the face?

Has that ever happened??? What is to stop a person from walking into the street and stabbing a kid in the face? Only morality and fear of retribution stand in the way of any crime.

Criminals attack the weak. Guns make anyone lethal instead of just the physically strong. They are the great equalizer. They are tools of piece. Criminals only get the upper hand if politics strip the weak of their weapons.

[The Man]

The problem with guns is that they are no more than another fucking commodity. A commodity that kills. Hey people, heroin doesn't "kill" anybody. So why the don't we go and sell it a the next best drugstore? Meth? Coke?

Industry produces guns to make money. Ultimately, this free-market access to firing arms leads to people and innocents being killed.

In the USA, this system is a joke. You can walk into a bank with a couple shells in your pocket, open a bank account and get a gun for free (and yes, I saw that on B4C). Whats stopping you from holding up the whole place? Or, for that matter, walking into the fucking street and shooting a kid in the face? As much as I love the anarchist idea of self-restraint, it's just not gonna work for some people. NOT saying anarchism won't work, but there is a certain psychopathic factor inherent, yes, INHERENT in society. Genetic, environmental, chemical....For that matter, psycho/sociopaths can and will kill, but if a child has matches, why give him dry wood?


1. Yes they are inatimate objects that run around and kill people.

2. Yeah, and look how great that is working. The gun crime rate is higher in New Jersey then Pennsylvania, and in Pennsylvania there is almost no gun laws.

3. Please tell me where a crime has ever been committed by a person who gut a gun from a bank.

4. First of all, there is a required background check that is required by BATFE and S.S. USC 922. So you can't go in there and 'take the gun'.

5. Nothing. That's why gun control sucks. Because if a guy did that, how would people defend themselves? A woman was nearly raped in her house as her ex-boyfriend was strangling her, and she shot him. A man broke into a woman's house with a crowbar and tried to kill her, but the woman shot him with a large 12 gauge slug in the chest. What are you going to do? Have protection that goes 1000 mph in your hand or protection that goes 80 MPH thats parked at the donut shop?

6. And a lot of those sociopaths have been stopped by gun-owners carrying openly or concealed.

[Salyut]

It's funny cause that isn't an AK-47.

That is a AKS-74. :laugh:

[CynicalIdealist]

Topic title, yes. Poll title, no, unless in a revolutionary situation.

[t.shonku]

Yes civilians should have guns because it will allow them to fight against the biggest criminal which is the GOVERNMENT !:D:D:D:D:D:D

[#FF0000]

The problem with guns is that they are no more than another fucking commodity. A commodity that kills. Hey people, heroin doesn't "kill" anybody. So why the don't we go and sell it a the next best drugstore? Meth? Coke?

Honestly if it was legal a lot fewer people would probably die because addicts wouldn't be stuck in the underbelly of society anymore.


Industry produces guns to make money. Ultimately, this free-market access to firing arms leads to people and innocents being killed.

This isn't an argument. "X kills people thus is bad". I could come back with the inverse argument, that not having access to weapons will lead to peopled dying because you're denying people an effective way to defend themselves.


Whats stopping you from holding up the whole place? Or, for that matter, walking into the fucking street and shooting a kid in the face?

Uhhh, consequences, for one. In an armed society, knowing that everyone in the room has a gun too would be one powerful deterrent, I'd assume. And frankly if someone's so far gone to shoot a kid in the face or so desperate to rob a bank, then whether or not they have access to a gun isn't really an object to whether or not they're about to do some crazy shit.


As much as I love the anarchist idea of self-restraint, it's just not gonna work for some people. NOT saying anarchism won't work, but there is a certain psychopathic factor inherent, yes, INHERENT in society

So how will gun control work in an anarchist society? What privileged strata gets to decide who can and can't own guns?


Genetic, environmental, chemical....For that matter, psycho/sociopaths can and will kill, but if a child has matches, why give him dry wood?

If someone's going to commit a premeditated murder then whether or not they have a gun isn't really an object. You might as well every edged or blunt object that isn't wrapped in a protective layer of foam by this logic.

[#FF0000]

the problem with giving guns to a small number of people is that, as there is a certain amount of psychopathic behaviour in any system and society, it may lead to them taking over control. (military junta)
And this could happen even in an-com society, you just need a small number of really frustrated or mentally deranged people (though they might now show it) to have control over all the guns and it all goes to hell.

The BEST part of this is that this is EXACTLY what you're defending when you talk about how great gun control is.

[Tenka]

This isn't an argument. "X kills people thus is bad". I could come back with the inverse argument, that not having access to weapons will lead to peopled dying because you're denying people an effective way to defend themselves.
I don't know about elsewhere, but in the U.S. at least, it is mostly reactionaries who have guns (paranoid U.S. culture must contribute to this trend). It may seem logical that non-reactionaries should therefore arm themselves with guns -- and it may be logical, were we all expert marksmen and 100% sober and cool-headed 100% of the time, but that's clearly not the case. Guns are different from other weapons -- they allow one to kill at a distance, with minimal effort and an air of impersonality; guns may empower those too weak to cut it with, say, a knife, or some blunt heavy object, but they also make everyone far more potentially fatal if we're going to be having them close at hand all the time (which would be necessary for their efficient employment in "self-defence"). I'd much prefer guns to be prohibited, or at least regulated the fuck out of under present social conditions (I don't even think Cops should have guns, seeing as they're 99.99% reactionary and pretty damned trigger-happy...).
As for civilian use of firearms against the Capitalist State... that just wouldn't work unless we somehow got a significant part of the military on our side, or at least their best equipment.


Uhhh, consequences, for one. In an armed society, knowing that everyone in the room has a gun too would be one powerful deterrent, I'd assume. And frankly if someone's so far gone to shoot a kid in the face or so desperate to rob a bank, then whether or not they have access to a gun isn't really an object to whether or not they're about to do some crazy shit.
I don't think anything is a deterrent to people determined to do something "crazy", anyway, save for locking them up. And obviously the one who shoots first always has the upper-hand in a firefight; neither do we have super-acute quasi-magickal senses that can always tell us when someone's going to pull out a gun and shoot someone else (how crazy is that person? are they reaching for their gun or their wallet? oh fuck better point my gun at the bastard just in case...).


If someone's going to commit a premeditated murder then whether or not they have a gun isn't really an object. You might as well every edged or blunt object that isn't wrapped in a protective layer of foam by this logic.
The only point I'd like acknowledged is that the ability to kill someone at a distance, with very little effort, makes premeditated murder a lot easier to carry out than if we only had knives and heavy skull-crushing objects and such.

[#FF0000]

I don't know about elsewhere, but in the U.S. at least, it is mostly reactionaries who have guns (paranoid U.S. culture must contribute to this trend). It may seem logical that non-reactionaries should therefore arm themselves with guns -- and it may be logical, were we all expert marksmen and 100% sober and cool-headed 100% of the time, but that's clearly not the case. Guns are different from other weapons -- they allow one to kill at a distance, with minimal effort and an air of impersonality; guns may empower those too weak to cut it with, say, a knife, or some blunt heavy object, but they also make everyone far more potentially fatal if we're going to be having them close at hand all the time (which would be necessary for their efficient employment in "self-defence"). I'd much prefer guns to be prohibited, or at least regulated the fuck out of under present social conditions (I don't even think Cops should have guns, seeing as they're 99.99% reactionary and pretty damned trigger-happy...).

I don't think this is true, to be honest. The most reactionary motherfuckers in the country are most certainly extremely fucking loud about having their guns but here in PA, almost everyone I know owns at least one gun (usually more) and they're generally moderate, left-leaning, or a-political.

Owning a gun, I think, is really more about where you are than what one's politics are. If you live in the woods, there's a lot more reason to have a gun than just self-defense.


As for civilian use of firearms against the Capitalist State... that just wouldn't work unless we somehow got a significant part of the military on our side, or at least their best equipment.


Maybe. I think people underestimate how incompetent the US Military really is though.


I don't think anything is a deterrent to people determined to do something "crazy", anyway, save for locking them up. And obviously the one who shoots first always has the upper-hand in a firefight; neither do we have super-acute quasi-magickal senses that can always tell us when someone's going to pull out a gun and shoot someone else (how crazy is that person? are they reaching for their gun or their wallet? oh fuck better point my gun at the bastard just in case...).

Right, but this is kinda my point. There's no sure way to stop a crazy person either way but they can hurt people no matter what weapon they're using. People are just as likely to run away from a guy shooting as they are to run away from a guy stabbing someone in the middle of a shopping center.



The only point I'd like acknowledged is that the ability to kill someone at a distance, with very little effort, makes premeditated murder a lot easier to carry out than if we only had knives and heavy skull-crushing objects and such.

At the distance most murderers use guns at, they'd be better off using knives and heavy-skull crushing objects.

And keep in mind this entire "madman with a gun" scenario can be averted by just making sure people with a history of certain mental illness can't get a gun.

[Tenka]

At the distance most murderers use guns at, they'd be better off using knives and heavy-skull crushing objects.
I don't know, those generally require more effort on their part anyway than pulling a trigger (and a point-blank shot is generally pretty messy, isn't it?). I don't take any particular issue with the rest of your post.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't know about elsewhere, but in the U.S. at least, it is mostly reactionaries who have guns

So the answer to that is to keep it that way ... or to expand arms training and possession to "non-reactionaries?"

Anyway, it's kind of a weird statement. What class is a reactionary? Do you mean individuals who hold retrograde political positions at the current time, when reactionary politics predominate? But workers will still be in conflict with capital regardless of their individual political positions at any point in time. In the past, outwardly patriotic workers voted for no strike clauses en masse then turned around and went out on strike days later when they were forced into struggle.

"Marx believed that the conditions of life and work of the proletariat would force the working class to behave in ways that would ultimately transform society. In other words, what Marx said was: We’re not talking about going door-to-door and making workers into ideal socialists. You’ve got to take workers as they are, with all their contradictions, with all their nonsense. But the fact that society forces them to struggle begins to transform the working class. If white workers realize they can’t organize steel unless they organize black workers, that doesn’t mean they’re not racist. It means that they have to deal with their own reality, and that transforms them. Who were the workers who made the Russian Revolution? Sexists, nationalists, half of them illiterate.... That kind of struggle begins to transform people." - Martin Glaberman

Anyway, firearms are not currently held only or even mainly by the exploiters and oppressors in the United States. Many, many workers have firearms, for various reasons. You might find that you'll have a difficult time finding a coal miner from West Virginia or Pennsylvania who doesn't have one. You might also find that coal miners have historically been among the most militant:

"The Battle of Blair Mountain was one of the biggest civil uprisings in the United States history and the largest armed insurrection since the American Civil War. For five days in late August and early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, between 10,000 and 15,000 coal miners confronted an army of police and strikebreakers backed by coal operators during a struggle by the miners to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. Their struggle ended only after approximately one million rounds were fired, and the United States Army intervened by presidential order." - Wikipedia

Similar events have occurred elsewhere (Tennessee , Arkansas, etc.).

[Tenka]

Wasn't U.S. class consciousness higher in the 1920s though? And can't there be such a thing as a reactionary worker? I live in the deep south and, to be perfectly honest, I just don't want to get shot by some dumb-arse (and I don't buy that whole "gun as a deterrent so everyone should be armed to protect themselves" thing, it almost amounts to a sort of victim-blaming IMO...).
But Cops seriously should not have guns. Whether civilians should, I think depends on the context and individual under present social conditions (thorough background, mental health checks and training in safe use and storage at the very least, please).

[dude6935]

Victim blaming? That is grasping at straws. Supporting the right of individuals to have the tools of defense is not an indictment for being weak. Unarmed people will always be weak compared to criminals who wield banned weapons. That isn't their fault. It is the fault of the authoritarians who prohibited them needed tools.

And who will stop crime if the police are unarmed??? Would the military be unarmed too? Since some must be armed, all must have the option.

There are 2 policy choices here:

1. Effective weapons are banned. Only criminals are armed and are able to injure the law abiding.
2. Weapons are legal. All people who choose to wield weapons are on relatively equal footing.

Which option sounds best to you? And if you were in a criminal's position, which option would you be the most uneasy with?

Additionally, concealed weapons confer a sort of herd immunity. Criminals lose the ability to identify who is weak and who is strong because anyone could be secretly armed. So only a fraction of the population needs to carry concealed to reduce crime against everyone. The is also a self regulating deterrent. As crime rises, carrying rates rise. Once more people are armed, crime will fall. As crime falls, fewer people will feel compelled to carry (thus reducing accidents and saving resources for other goods and services).

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Victim blaming? That is grasping at straws. Supporting the right of individuals to have the tools of defense is not an indictment for being weak. Unarmed people will always be weak compared to criminals who wield banned weapons. That isn't their fault. It is the fault of the authoritarians who prohibited them needed tools.

And who will stop crime if the police are unarmed??? Would the military be unarmed too? Since some must be armed, all must have the option.

There are 2 policy choices here:

1. Effective weapons are banned. Only criminals are armed and are able to injure the law abiding.
2. Weapons are legal. All people who choose to wield weapons are on relatively equal footing.

Which option sounds best to you? And if you were in a criminal's position, which option would you be the most uneasy with?

Additionally, concealed weapons confer a sort of herd immunity. Criminals lose the ability to identify who is weak and who is strong because anyone could be secretly armed. So only a fraction of the population needs to carry concealed to reduce crime against everyone. The is also a self regulating deterrent. As crime rises, carrying rates rise. Once more people are armed, crime will fall. As crime falls, fewer people will feel compelled to carry (thus reducing accidents and saving resources for other goods and services).

Nonsense. Unquantifiable amounts of nonsensical drivel.

People with guns will never be on equal footing. Would giving everyone a nuclear device also work? Everyone having guns does not deter, nor decrease crime, nor does concealed carry, not only does that absurd travesty ignore social- and material realities relating to the rise of crime, but also betrays gun fetishism and absurd nonsense like spouted by the NRA that somehow guns would solve crime (which is as absurd as thinking no guns would stop crime).

Is crime stopped by shooting the criminals? Are the criminals not able to keep up in the arms race? Their victims have weapons; do you fancy it is beyond the ability of criminal elements to adapt? Would there be any crime at all in the countries with the laxest gun laws and the most widely available weaponry if they were that thoroughly incompetent? Just like criminal elements will adapt to a lack of access to weaponry, so they will to an abundance and paranoia.

The problem with abundance of weapons is not that there are lots of guns; whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the culture surrounding guns; the gun culture of the United States is machoistic and relies on some romance for rustic defence against the evil wilderness, with through and through propertarian aspect, where the patriarch is supposed to be responsible for defending his family and their property against the evil thieves and 'scum of society' which seeks to violate their right to land and property.

When the gun culture relies on this paranoid, individualist self-defence mentality, it does in no way foster revolutionary spirit and sentiment; for it is by and large a fundamental every person for themselves-situation; nor is it in and of itself in any way progressive.

[dude6935]

People with guns will never be on equal footing. Would giving everyone a nuclear device also work? Everyone having guns does not deter, nor decrease crime, nor does concealed carry, not only does that absurd travesty ignore social- and material realities relating to the rise of crime, but also betrays gun fetishism and absurd nonsense like spouted by the NRA that somehow guns would solve crime (which is as absurd as thinking no guns would stop crime).

Why? You have given zero evidence or reasoning. All you have stated are bare assertions.

And it is funny you bring up nuclear weapons. The only two nuclear attacks in history occurred when only 1 country possessed them. Now 9 countries have nuclear weapons. But they haven't been used in more than 60 years. MAD and nuclear weapons lead to decades of peace between the nuclear nations. Your example only serves to prove my point.

And I don't think any gun policy will eradicate crime. Sure criminals will adapt. They might resort to sneaky thievery rather than armed robbery. That would be an improvement.

Sure criminals can keep up in the arms race. I never said they couldn't.

Do people have a right to self defense or not? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

[Psy]

Additionally, concealed weapons confer a sort of herd immunity. Criminals lose the ability to identify who is weak and who is strong because anyone could be secretly armed. So only a fraction of the population needs to carry concealed to reduce crime against everyone. The is also a self regulating deterrent. As crime rises, carrying rates rise. Once more people are armed, crime will fall. As crime falls, fewer people will feel compelled to carry (thus reducing accidents and saving resources for other goods and services).
Yet it also means criminals could see it as acceptable risk that they are not carrying a firearm. Concealed weapons also take longer to draw.

[A Marxist Historian]

Victim blaming? That is grasping at straws. Supporting the right of individuals to have the tools of defense is not an indictment for being weak. Unarmed people will always be weak compared to criminals who wield banned weapons. That isn't their fault. It is the fault of the authoritarians who prohibited them needed tools.

And who will stop crime if the police are unarmed??? Would the military be unarmed too? Since some must be armed, all must have the option.

There are 2 policy choices here:

1. Effective weapons are banned. Only criminals are armed and are able to injure the law abiding.
2. Weapons are legal. All people who choose to wield weapons are on relatively equal footing.

Which option sounds best to you? And if you were in a criminal's position, which option would you be the most uneasy with?

Additionally, concealed weapons confer a sort of herd immunity. Criminals lose the ability to identify who is weak and who is strong because anyone could be secretly armed. So only a fraction of the population needs to carry concealed to reduce crime against everyone. The is also a self regulating deterrent. As crime rises, carrying rates rise. Once more people are armed, crime will fall. As crime falls, fewer people will feel compelled to carry (thus reducing accidents and saving resources for other goods and services).

There's an interesting logic in this whole discussion. You have an unspoken, and in fact correct, assumption that police are different from other citizens.

Since police, and soldiers, are after all citizens, if citizens can't bear arms, why should police or soldiers be allowed to bear arms? Because they aren't really citizens, that's why.

They are The State. What is the state? It is an armed body of men, as Marx and Lenin defined it, whose purpose is to maintain the dominion of one class in society over another.

And of course you can only do that if you maintain at least some minimal level of social order, so they crack down on crime and criminals and such. Especially of course if the criminals are poor people, in a capitalist state. Or rich people for that matter, in a workers' state. But that is their *secondary* function, not the primary.

So when you are discussing whether or not citizens should be allowed to bear arms, that's a meaningless discussion, if you suffer from the illusion that police and soldiers are in fact citizens. Since obviously not only do they have the right to bear arms, but they generally don't think anybody else does.

What you are really discussing is whether the state should be able be better armed than the citizenry, in order that it can properly perform its primary function, which is to keep the people firmly under the boot of the state.

Chasing down crooks is strictly secondary, a side line. Besides, there's never a cop around when you actually need one.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Nonsense. Unquantifiable amounts of nonsensical drivel.

People with guns will never be on equal footing. Would giving everyone a nuclear device also work? Everyone having guns does not deter, nor decrease crime, nor does concealed carry, not only does that absurd travesty ignore social- and material realities relating to the rise of crime, but also betrays gun fetishism and absurd nonsense like spouted by the NRA that somehow guns would solve crime (which is as absurd as thinking no guns would stop crime).

Is crime stopped by shooting the criminals? Are the criminals not able to keep up in the arms race? Their victims have weapons; do you fancy it is beyond the ability of criminal elements to adapt? Would there be any crime at all in the countries with the laxest gun laws and the most widely available weaponry if they were that thoroughly incompetent? Just like criminal elements will adapt to a lack of access to weaponry, so they will to an abundance and paranoia.

The problem with abundance of weapons is not that there are lots of guns; whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the culture surrounding guns; the gun culture of the United States is machoistic and relies on some romance for rustic defence against the evil wilderness, with through and through propertarian aspect, where the patriarch is supposed to be responsible for defending his family and their property against the evil thieves and 'scum of society' which seeks to violate their right to land and property.

When the gun culture relies on this paranoid, individualist self-defence mentality, it does in no way foster revolutionary spirit and sentiment; for it is by and large a fundamental every person for themselves-situation; nor is it in and of itself in any way progressive.

The machoistic gun culture in the US is not about defense against the evil wilderness, but about both defense and offense vs. the folk who were here first, the so-called "Indians," in the West. In the other main center of it, the South, it was originally primarily about keeping the slaves in line, and then maintaining Jim Crow, lynchings etc.

The Second Amendment came out of the American Revolution. In fact, the discussions around it weren't so much focused around keeping the blacks and the natives in line, that was pretty settled at that point. Rather, it reflected more the conflicts at the time between the poor white farmers and the rich elites who ran the Constitutional Convention, who thought there was too much democracy under the Confederation. And were not shy about hiding their light under a bushel about this, they said so repeatedly in public, no conspiracy was involved. As the Founding Fathers loved to say, America was supposed to be a republic not a democracy.

The Second Amendment was a sop to the poor whites who weren't happy about the Constitution. Just like the First Amendment. It is carefully worded and quite algebraic.

After all, just what is a "well regulated militia"? Is it the Ohio militia which shot down students at Kent State? Or rather, was it America's most famous (or if you feel that way, notorious) opponents of gun control and supporters of the Second Amendment, the Black Panther Party? Whatever else you can say about the Panthers, in their military dealings they were well and tightly regulated, always marching in proper style and firmly disciplined.

-M.H.-

[Os Cangaceiros]

Nonsense. Unquantifiable amounts of nonsensical drivel.

People with guns will never be on equal footing. Would giving everyone a nuclear device also work? Everyone having guns does not deter, nor decrease crime, nor does concealed carry, not only does that absurd travesty ignore social- and material realities relating to the rise of crime

*shrug* Certain sources have indicated that guns have had a detering effect on crime:


Citizens use guns to defend themselves as many as 2.5 million times a year-or about 6,850 times a day. Each year firearms are used sixty times more often to protect the lives of citizens than to take lives. The majority of these citizens defend themselves by brandishing their weapons or firing a warning shot. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). Only two percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. By contrast, the error rate for the police officers is eleven percent.

The Justice Department under the Carter administration cited the statistic that 3% of attempted rapes were successful when a woman was armed with a knife or a gun. It's not entirely a clear cut issue where you can say "GUNS HAVE NO EFFECT ON CRIME!"


Is crime stopped by shooting the criminals? Are the criminals not able to keep up in the arms race?

Most people who are operating in a less-than-legal manner look for soft targets. And if they think that someone is waiting behind a door with a shotgun and a german shepherd, their first thought is not going to be "I'M GONNA GET ME AN RPG!" C'mon now.

Also, who on earth thinks that firearms stop all crime? That is a straw man, good sir.


The problem with abundance of weapons is not that there are lots of guns; whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the culture surrounding guns; the gun culture of the United States is machoistic and relies on some romance for rustic defence against the evil wilderness, with through and through propertarian aspect, where the patriarch is supposed to be responsible for defending his family and their property against the evil thieves and 'scum of society' which seeks to violate their right to land and property.

When the gun culture relies on this paranoid, individualist self-defence mentality, it does in no way foster revolutionary spirit and sentiment; for it is by and large a fundamental every person for themselves-situation; nor is it in and of itself in any way progressive.

I'd actually say that defense against the "evil wilderness" was a valid concern for many (although unfortunately the "evil wilderness" often included the native americans in the area). I certainly have experience in this area, and so do many who live around me. I think this passage by Joe Bageant is good in regards to many anti-gunners mentality vis-a-vis firearms:


Most liberal anti-gun advocates do not get off the city bus after working the second shift. Nor do they duck and dodge from street light to street light at 1 A.M. while dragging their laundry to the Doozy Duds, where they sit, usually alone, for an hour or so, fluorescently lit up behind the big plate glass window like so much fresh meat on display, garnished with a promising purse or wallet, before they make the corner-to-corner run for home with their now-fragrant laundered waitress or fast-food uniform. Barack Obama never did it. Hillary Clinton never did it. Most of white middle-class America doesn't do it either. The on-the-ground value of the Second Amendment completely escapes them.

There is a proud and admirable (IMO) tradition of anti-state and anti-authoritarian mentalities in a lot of rural America (although it's often combined with a lot of bigotry and ignorance, unfortunately), where a lot of the "gun huggers" live. Some of them are crazy, and it doesn't give me reassuring thoughts to think that they own guns, but a lot of anti-gun attitudes are the result of people who are absolutely terrified of the mysterious "other" outside of their safe little suburban compounds owning firearms. So we get attitudes writting off firearm ownership and enthusiasm as just the byproduct of macho moronic fools, drunk on their own backwoods individualism. Needless to say my experience growing up with firearms was a lot different.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

The reason te soviet union didnt invade the us was because there where more guns than people = door to door fight
And why not? Guns don't kill people

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

By all means, let's make sure that well trained soldiers are the only people to possess firearms, that way we won't have to worry about violent attacks!

Or not. This just came over the wire:

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — A South Korean Marine Corps corporal went on shooting rampage Monday, killing three fellow marines and wounding two others on a Yellow Sea island base near the country's tense border with North Korea, officials said.

http://news.yahoo.com/officials-3-killed-2-hurt-skorea-shooting-053041123.html

[black magick hustla]

i think the point is that whether we are armed or not is almost irrelevant to the possibility of communism. communism won't be won through military victory

[A Marxist Historian]

i think the point is that whether we are armed or not is almost irrelevant to the possibility of communism. communism won't be won through military victory

It won't? Yes it will. No ruling class has ever, ever given up its rule voluntarily.

How did we get rid of slavery in America? Peacefully and legally? NOT!

Certainly Ricardo Flores Magon understood that, you should read what he said instead of just quoting him in your sig.

-M.H.-

[IndependentCitizen]

Isn't it dangerous? I mean, gun crimes are quite high in the U.S....

And when we're pissed off we tend to act on emotion.

When you look at gun crime, you have to consider this: Were the weapons used in that crime legally bought? Most gangs, and criminals use the black market to purchase weapons simply it's quicker and easier.

I agree with gun ownership, because those who'll legitimately use the weapons for: hunting; target shooting and/or clay pigeon shooting (whilst it may be upper class dominated, it is pretty fun) will have to pay the price of the minority who ruin what could be a great freedom.

Oh, and how else do you arm workers?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There's no good reason why any remotely just society should forbid the possession of firearms to its members, aside from individual considerations such mental stability, level of training and so on.

[black magick hustla]

It won't? Yes it will. No ruling class has ever, ever given up its rule voluntarily.

good luck making front to tanks with the guns you bought at wal mart.




How did we get rid of slavery in America? Peacefully and legally? NOT!

the abolition of slavery was not the abolition of classes and property, nor the abolition of slavery necessitated world revolution,



Certainly Ricardo Flores Magon understood that, you should read what he said instead of just quoting him in your sig.

-M.H.-

certainly you can go eat a dick for being patronizing. ricardo flores magon failed precisely because he had a conspirational view of revolution in terms of military success.

[A Marxist Historian]

good luck making front to tanks with the guns you bought at wal mart.

------------------------------------------------------------

The army, unlike the police, is a mass formation with internal contradictions. People who join the army, even voluntarily, think they are defending the country, not defending "law and order" i.e. capitalist rule.

So the army can be split, as happens in all revolutions. Then you have civil war. As happens in all revolutions.

Meanwhile, if the civvies want to play any role in this process other than as kewpie targets, they'd better have some guns.

As Iraq for example has demonstrated, even poorly armed civilians can sometimes be remarkably effective against an occupying army. Ask any Iraq vet about i.e.d.'s, he'll explain it to you.

-M.H.-

------------------------------------------------------------------

the abolition of slavery was not the abolition of classes and property, nor the abolition of slavery necessitated world revolution,

--------------------------------------------------------------

I dunno, seemed pretty revolutionary to me. And to the slaves too.

Necessitated world revolution? Well, it was the result of not just one but a bunch of revolutions, including a direct anti-slavery revolution by the slaves themselves in Haiti. The French Revolution in France abolishing slavery helped a lot. The original American revolution destabilized plantation slavery in the Americas, and inspired revolutions in France and in Latin America that did abolish slavery. Though it took half a century for Jefferson's "all men are created equal" to actually be applied to Jefferson's own slaves.

And in fact it still hasn't, finally getting rid of the heritage of slavery, i.e. racism, will require another revolution in America, and almost certainly another civil war too. You really think the white racists are all just gonna wake up one day and say, gee, I've learned better? No, they all have guns and they *will* fight to the death for their fucked-up beliefs.

------------------------------------------------------------

certainly you can go eat a dick for being patronizing. ricardo flores magon failed precisely because he had a conspirational view of revolution in terms of military success.

Well, I suppose I agree with you sorta, but if you're gonna criticize the guy and say things he'd totally disagree with you shouldn't put him in your sig.

-M.H.-

[Anti Propaganda]

In countries where civilians can not have guns have far less gun deaths than the US.
Guns are useless. Guns are just used to kill people. Supporting guns is supporting the death penalty. Guns are tool used by the government to oppress the working class and make us fight each other and guns kill animals and I am a Vegitarian soon to be Vegan so I don't support guns. Do you think murder should be legal? It is the same thing. If guns were in Anarchist societies and everyone had a gun the Anarchist society would turn to chaos like Somalia, like an Anarcho-Capitalist society which is chaos and an oxymoron. The Weapons manufacturers profit off of death in wars like Afganistan, and as well as fighting between the working class. Guns are used to make the Middle and Working Class fight each other with guns in gangs. The greed and fight over money also increases the death, but that is a different topic. Guns should be used against the state, and The Upper Class, and then destroyed, and that is why I believe that civilians should not have firearms.

[gendoikari]

My reasons are best summed up here


Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat — it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Granted he makes it seem like guns are an auto win for the righteous civilians against criminals, which is not true, but they do help. And even if you ban firearms, they will still be sold on the black market, and new ones will be made in basements, mostly by criminals looking for that force monopoly.

Besides, what's wrong with someone who's a law abiding citizen owning a gun, they are the definition of a non threat. And for some of us, target practice is good therapy/good old fun. I know it is for me. I carry on a daily basis, and I pray I never have to draw my gun. In any situation I'll try and run first, but if my life is threatened I would do my duty to protect myself and my community.

[Reznov]

Touchy issue, we know if we banned guns society would SEEM like a better place, but how do we really know.

I kind of believe that illegal weapons will always find a way into any society regardless of economic conditions.

That said, I see no problem with the selling of guns to legally permitted individuals who understand how dangerous a gun is, and understand they must use it only in self-defence.

[Aleenik]

Civilians should definitely be allowed to own guns. If we don't, then only the bourgeoisie and their lackeys will. I don't see why anyone on revleft would want that horrible situation. Even under an Anarchist/Communist society I am for gun ownership. Communism isn't a perfect Utopia. It's just much better than what we currently have. People still need to be able to defend themselves even under an Anarchist/Communist society.

[DarkPast]

I'm undecided on the issue, but I'd like to make a couple of points:

1. Guns may protect you from random drunks and desperate amateurs (i.e. people who have no choice but to turn to crime for a living - the type of people who shouldn't exist under socialism). But a real criminal will not walk up to you and give you a polite warning; they'll strike when you're least prepared - they will distract you, or sneak up on you from behind etc. Let's not forget that some 10-15% of policemen are killed with their own weapons. Remember, police are trained and (generally) fit - and they still fall victim to their own guns.

2. If you pull a gun on a mugger, you must be prepared to kill him. There's no safe place to shoot someone, and it's not like you'll have time to aim properly anyway. If you pull a gun on a mugger, but don't shoot, there's a good chance the mugger will kill you with his own weapon, or snatch away your weapon and kill you with it.

So will guns protect you from a mugger? Maybe. But they could also kill you where you would otherwise just be robbed and possibly beaten.

[RNL]

Why the hell would a socialist society want to equip all of its citizens with lethal weapons? For what purpose would these weapons be produced?

[gendoikari]

Touchy issue, we know if we banned guns society would SEEM like a better place, but how do we really know.

I kind of believe that illegal weapons will always find a way into any society regardless of economic conditions.

That said, I see no problem with the selling of guns to legally permitted individuals who understand how dangerous a gun is, and understand they must use it only in self-defence.

Um ONLY in self defense? what about target practice? If you want those with guns to be safe with them they need to proficient with them.


Why the hell would a socialist society want to equip all of its citizens with lethal weapons? For what purpose would these weapons be produced?

They're fun, and in the right hands safe. Just because there isn't a NEED for something doesn't mean it should be produced. I mean we don't NEED movies and video games. But we like them, and some can argue they're dangerous.

[Dogs On Acid]

They're fun, and in the right hands safe. Just because there isn't a NEED for something doesn't mean it should be produced. I mean we don't NEED movies and video games. But we like them, and some can argue they're dangerous.

The whole idea of a communist society is production for need

And that's a terrible argument, movies aren't lethal "in the wrong hands", what, you gonna slit my throat with a DVD? :lol:

[RNL]

There would be a difference between manufacturing firearms strictly for use in firing ranges and sporting activities like clay pigeon shooting, and manufacturing firearms for general consumption, to be kept in homes and carried on the street.

Outside of the former contexts (specific forms of recreation), what's 'fun' about guns?

[Dogs On Acid]

There would be a difference between manufacturing firearms strictly for use in firing ranges and sporting activities like clay pigeon shooting, and manufacturing firearms for general consumption, to be kept in homes and carried on the street.

Outside of the former contexts (specific forms of recreation), what's 'fun' about guns?

Nothing unless you are a collector, firearms engineer and designer, or a Red-neck.

[Rss]

There would be a difference between manufacturing firearms strictly for use in firing ranges and sporting activities like clay pigeon shooting, and manufacturing firearms for general consumption, to be kept in homes and carried on the street.

Outside of the former contexts (specific forms of recreation), what's 'fun' about guns?

Shooting is fun and challenging sport. Different people like different things. For example, I can't stand football, but rugby and shooting are tons 'o fun.

[Wired]

As usual, this argument largely comes down to how much to trust the state.

As an anarchist, I believe that people should be free to defend themselves and I know that any statist mechanism professing to want to defend you is actually there to try and keep you.

[Dogs On Acid]

I can understand having a firearm at home in a Capitalist society, but in a Socialist one, there is no need unless you are security or militia, and if you aren't, you may possess a firearm at a gun club where you can shoot and practice all the time you want. Target practice at home is impossible for there are neighbours, and if you live in the field then the land around your house isn't yours to blow shit up on. It's the people's land and must be preserved and kept clean.

[RNL]

Shooting is fun and challenging sport. Different people like different things. For example, I can't stand football, but rugby and shooting are tons 'o fun.
I said outside of the context of sporting activities.

Incidentally, I believe hunting should be illegal, so that doesn't count.

[Psy]

I can understand having a firearm at home in a Capitalist society, but in a Socialist one, there is no need unless you are security or militia, and if you aren't, you may possess a firearm at a gun club where you can shoot and practice all the time you want. Target practice at home is impossible for there are neighbours, and if you live in the field then the land around your house isn't yours to blow shit up on. It's the people's land and must be preserved and kept clean.

To decentralize the storage of small arms, if the only firearms are in one central armory then who ever control it gets to make the rules as they have all the guns, democracy can only exist with free access to guns to ensure the workers state doesn't hold a monopoly on violence, for example if the workers state for some reason stops being a workers state and rolls out the tanks to crush the workers then the workers can pull out their RPGs from under their beds.