Gun Ownership

[Libertador]

I perceive that the Left in general is very much critical of personal gun ownership. This confuses me due to the fact that guns seem to be a requirement in any revolutionary scenario and that this apparently inherent bias seems counterintuitive to the overall goals of revolution.

I was wondering what the opinions were in this community. I personally own a glock and a hunting rifle.

[Psy]

I perceive that the Left in general is very much critical of personal gun ownership. This confuses me due to the fact that guns seem to be a requirement in any revolutionary scenario and that it seems counterintuitive to the overall goals of revolution.

I was wondering what the opinions were in this community. I personally own a glock and a hunting rifle.
I don't have a problem with personal gun ownership yet when it becomes to a revolution and beyond there should be community regulations over arms. For example if you are caught being armed while drunk you should be banned from having a gun for about a year.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I perceive that the Left in general is very much critical of personal gun ownership. This confuses me due to the fact that guns seem to be a requirement in any revolutionary scenario and that this apparently inherent bias seems counterintuitive to the overall goals of revolution.

I was wondering what the opinions were in this community. I personally own a glock and a hunting rifle.

Liberals, social democrats, and other moderate "leftists" tend to have a critical view of personal gun ownership. However, you'll likely find that the vast majority of the revolutionary left does not share their opinions.

[Libertador]

Liberals, social democrats, and other moderate "leftists" tend to have a critical view of personal gun ownership. However, you'll likely find that the vast majority of the revolutionary left does not share their opinions. And that is very good thing to hear.

[Aspiring Humanist]

Democrats and American liberals are not the left. They are center-right

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As far as I'm concerned with regards to firearms possession, if you can carry it and learn how to operate it properly and with due care and attention, then you should be able to have it.

[CommunityBeliever]

Killing tools, including guns, are only necessary to fight against the class enemy. In communism they will just wither away.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Killing tools, including guns, are only necessary to fight against the class enemy. In communism they will just wither away.

I'm not convinced that the transition from global capitalism to global communism will be any more peaceable than the transition from feudalism was.

Even when capitalism is relegated to the history books, who knows what new forms of socio-economic organisation will come after communism?

The idea that we won't need guns in a communist world is based on wishful thinking. Communism will not be heaven and humans will still be apes, not angels.

[Susurrus]

Guns are tools, as well, and are also fun. Thus, if anything, more people will have guns in a communist world.

[Tablo]

If anyone wants to take my guns away then they will be prying them from my cold dead hands.

[The Man]

You will find that the revolutionary left is one of the biggest supporters of gun ownership.

[Susurrus]

If anyone wants to take my guns away then they will be prying them from my cold dead hands.

Haven't you heard? Our communist authoritarian state is coming round next week to collect them.:laugh:

[CommunityBeliever]

The idea that we won't need guns in a communist world is based on wishful thinking.I hypothesise that after world communism and the disestablishment of the capitalist war machine there will be a period of relative peacefulness.


Communism will not be heaven and humans will still be apes, not angels. What does that ever mean? The main objective distinguishing factor is intelligence so are these super intelligent angels versus ignorant apes?

[Susurrus]

I hypothesise that after world communism and the disestablishment of the capitalist war machine there will be a period of relative peacefulness.

Guns are not merely weapons of warfare.

[Libertador]

What does that ever mean? The main objective distinguishing factor is intelligence so are these super intelligent angels versus ignorant apes? People are still going to want to attack others and people are going to need the means to defend themselves. We're still apes in the sense that there are always going to be Reactionary types who would want to exploit others for their own gain.

[Ocean Seal]

Guns are absolutely necessary in a pre-revolutionary situation. They are needed and should be supported until the coming of communism in which they will be needed less and less. Under communism, I think that guns naturally would come out of existence, but whoever, would like to keep them may.

[CommunityBeliever]

Guns are not merely weapons of warfare. I oppose the use of guns for other purposes such as hunting too, but that is just me.


People are still going to want to attack others and people are going to need the means to defend themselves. We're still apes in the sense that there are always going to be Reactionary types who would want to exploit others for their own gain. That is true to some extent, however, I think that capitalism is the cause of the vast majority of the world's violence and I'd think that most communists would agree with that assessment.

"It is the very nature of imperialism to turn humans into beasts" - Che Guevara

"We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun" - Mao

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I hypothesise that after world communism and the disestablishment of the capitalist war machine there will be a period of relative peacefulness.

Based on what evidence?


What does that ever mean? The main objective distinguishing factor is intelligence so are these super intelligent angels versus ignorant apes?

No, it means as long as we are human animals there will be conflict, and if history teaches us anything it is that sometimes that conflict turns violent.

Even people who are happy and healthy can vehemently disagree with each other.


I oppose the use of guns for other purposes such as hunting too, but that is just me.

That is true to some extent, however, I think that capitalism is the cause of the vast majority of the world's violence and I'd think that most communists would agree with that assessment.

"It is the very nature of imperialism to turn humans into beasts" - Che Guevara

Actually, history tells us that if anything pre-capitalist society was even more violent. So while I will accept that a communist society would be less violent than a capitalist society, that is not the same thing as saying that there will be no want or need of firearms.

[Vendetta]

I oppose the use of guns for other purposes such as hunting too, but that is just me.

Why?

[Luc]

I think I should add that Marx said that the "state" (for lack of a better word) would be the armed proletariat organized as a class. The confiscation of the weapons of the police and military (loyal to the old regime) will also be a necessary step in the revolution so really, we are reversing the gun ownership norm. (in some countries). Atleast I think Marx said that, it was in the State and Revolution by V. I. Lenin.

Also, I agree that we should just keep track of who has guns, the Commune, Gemeinwesen, Community, or w/e will do that. I personally think we should only ban automatic weapons after the revolution (and other things like RPGs).

I wonder if we will face invasion from a state during the revolution and arming the revolutionary people will be a necessity to fight back the imperialists.

In short:

The proletarians need weapons to defend the revolution themselves and afterwards to protect themselves as individuals and thoose close to them. However, gun regulation will still be around as different Communities may want to have different rules about guns.

[Klaatu]

There is nothing wrong with owning a gun or two. But I do wonder about these para-military types that have large arsenals of guns of all kinds along with pipe bombs, etc stored in their house. These are the kinds of nuts that give even peaceful revolution a bad name.

[CommunityBeliever]

Why?Because of energy efficiency, but I would prefer not to go off topic.


No, it means as long as we are human animals there will be conflictI think what you are looking for is that there is multiple naturally stupid individuals then there will probably be conflict between them, if however there are no individuals, e.g because there is a collective mind then there will be no conflict.


Based on what evidence?The capitalist system constantly needs to gain access to new sources of resources and labor, to quench opposition at home and to pacify rebellious operations abroad. In other words, the capitalist system requires an advanced war machine.

Communism by definition won't have the same need so the old war machine will go into disrepair, guns and other tools of violence will have reduced importance and society will be more peaceful overall.

[Rss]

I think that firearms will continue to exist in communist society as well as nuclear explosives. I like to think that in future there are gun clubs to keep "ye olde skill of fore-comrades alive".

[Franz Fanonipants]

honestly, i'm for the ownership of rifles and shit, but i'm pretty unmoved by pleas for unrestricted ownership of pistols etc.

and anyone who drones on about the "arming" of the proletariat under capitalism is kind of ridiculous, overturning the armies of late capitalism is going to take a whole lot more than having m16s and m5s and etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think what you are looking for is that there is multiple naturally stupid individuals then there will probably be conflict between them, if however there are no individuals, e.g because there is a collective mind then there will be no conflict.

How does "collective mind" follow from hypothetical "angels"?

In any case, conflict, even violent conflict, is not necessarily down to stupidity. Contradictory goals and goal-seeking systems are all that is necessary.


The capitalist system constantly needs to gain access to new sources of resources and labor, to quench opposition at home and to pacify rebellious operations abroad. In other words, the capitalist system requires an advanced war machine.

The problem isn't war. The issue here is tribalism. One can claim to be above that, but how true is that really? Even if we can get most of humanity to recognise itself as the primary in-group, by the time that happens I don't think we'll be the only intelligences on this planet.


Communism by definition won't have the same need so the old war machine will go into disrepair, guns and other tools of violence will have reduced importance, and society will be more peaceful overall.

I'm not so certain. But mark my words, "not perfect" can still mean "better than capitalism".

[Klaatu]

Communism by definition won't have the same need so the old war machine will go into disrepair, guns and other tools of violence will have reduced importance and society will be more peaceful overall.

"He shall judge between the nations, And rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore." ...Isaiah 2:4

[heyjoe]

what a difference between this thread and the thread about the slaughter of the children in Norway by a member of the far right because of their political affiliation. IN that thread i posted that it was stupid ,short sighted and dangerous for the left to allow itself or in some cases even encourage our being disarmed and not having armed security at gatherings such as that in Norway. Some of the posters felt that i was out in left field on that belief. Being armed with handguns or hunting rifles is not going to be used to wage revolution against the military and i am all for peaceful change, but with the increasing advocacy of violence from the far right and the constantly increasing levels of threats made from the right it would be beyond foolish to leave us incapable of defending ourselves and our children.

[CommunityBeliever]

Even if we can get most of humanity to recognise itself as the primary in-group

Most communists agree that the bourgioise ferments divisions in the workers so that they don't unite under the banner of class struggle, and well I do agree that communism won't completely unite us, it will nonetheless be a major step forward.


In any case, conflict, even violent conflict, is not necessarily down to stupidity. Contradictory goals and goal-seeking systems are all that is necessary.

The existence of contradictory goals and goal-seeking systems was meant to be implied by the claim that they were individuals.

[The Man]

I can barely even look at these Gun Ownership threads because of the people that are critical of individual gun ownership, when they probably haven't even touched a gun before. Thinking that they know everything about Machine Guns, and SBRs, SBSs, DDs, AOWs, C&Rs (And a bunch of other stuff categorized in the National Firearms Act of 1934 (U.S.) etc etc.. It's quite ridiculous to be honest.

Shooting guns is my hobby, and I know a lot of people here carry that same shooting sports hobby. Some people like to collect just for the coolness factor of WWII rifles, people love looking at the dents and marks in these guns, knowing that behind each one of those marks and dents is a story. To some people, this is their lives.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the 'Anti's' learn a few things about how if you ban our hobbies, collections, and even banning of pieces of history, then I don't want to be part of your revolution.

[nolaleftist]

I do not find too many people opposing gun ownership within the left. It seems only moderate liberals oppose gun ownership.

[Dogs On Acid]

Gun-Ownership discussion and poll here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-civilians-allowed-t157096/index.html?t=157096

[ComradePonov]

Shouldn't be allowed.

There is a reason the rate of murders is about 8 times larger in America than England.

Ordinary citizens shouldn't be allowed to have personal control of arms.

Meaningful revolutions aren't carried out by guns any way. They are carried out through a peaceful democratic process.

Every single revolution which was carried out through brute force has either seized to exist or rotten to a point where the message of the revolution has been lost.

[Rss]

Shouldn't be allowed.

There is a reason the rate of murders is about 8 times larger in America than England.

Maybe the reason is that America is even more fucked up on capitalism than England?



Meaningful revolutions aren't carried out by guns any way. They are carried out through a peaceful democratic process.

Hahaha! Oh wait, you are serious. Let me laugh harder. Hahahaha! Guess there hasn't been any meaningful revolutions then. At least not those of your tendency.


Every single revolution which was carried out through brute force has either seized to exist or rotten to a point where the message of the revolution has been lost.

Reactionary military interventions are stopped by hugs, kisses and flowers then? See what became of Allende. May he rest in peace.

[CommunityBeliever]

Every single revolution which was carried out through brute force has either seized to exist or rotten to a point where the message of the revolution has been lost. That doesn't mean that those revolutions weren't meaningful. They were incredibly beneficial to the working class well they lasted, we should bring that back.

There were revolutions and counter-revolutions in the transition to bourgeois democracy and capitalism, however, they nonetheless came out on top in the end.

[Black Sheep]

I have an irrational unhealthy bias against gun-ownership due to the gun-loving nationalist mmurican nuthouse :bored:

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Comparing US and Canadian stats on gun-related crime gives an indication that gun ownership does not necessarily imply high gun crime. Its probably social and economic conditions that lead to high gun crime - for that reason, I kind of advocate gun ownership but at the same time there are a lot of people that I DON'T want to see carrying guns. The problem is society and certain sections of it. Guns don't kill people, people do, and its the problems that lead to that we need to consider.

If a gun isn't handy, there's always a knife, and take a look at Scotland - gun ownership is tightly controlled, but Glasgow is the knife crime capital of Europe (or was).

[Sam Varriano]

Hands off my AK-47 :cool:

But a lot of Marxists I know irl are fine with gun ownership. Hell I have a Russian friend who has been a socialist longer than I have been, he is a fucking NRA member.

[Chromatic]

Im all about gun ownership, but I think anyone who fetishizes their use in a revolutionary situation is being childish and irresponsible to an extent.

A cool fact to bring up in conversation is how many harsh gun laws in the US were brought by conservatives as a response to the Black Panthers, like the Mulford Act.

[Rusty Shackleford]

The real question is whether or not forklifts should be legal.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Shouldn't be allowed.

There is a reason the rate of murders is about 8 times larger in America than England.

Ordinary citizens shouldn't be allowed to have personal control of arms.

Meaningful revolutions aren't carried out by guns any way. They are carried out through a peaceful democratic process.

Every single revolution which was carried out through brute force has either seized to exist or rotten to a point where the message of the revolution has been lost.
Did you take into account the fact that the US homicide rate increased drastically as the crack epidemic began, and 20 years before that with the rise of extremely violent street gangs here, who are obsessed with amassing money and securing territory?

The Czech Republic has similarly lax drug laws as the US, however their homicide rate is similar to Englands.

[edit]
Czech republic has lax GUN laws. My mistake.