Gun laws/Concealed Carry from a Marxist perspective

[Leftsolidarity]

Lets discuss shall we? I've been thinking and discussing this lately with other comrades and it's always been pretty good discussions.

Since I'm reading through The Transitional Program by Trotsky at the moment, I'll quote the section that got me thinking about all this:




The politicians of the Second and Third Internationals as well as the bureaucrats of the trade unions, consciously close their eyes to the bourgeoisie’s private army; otherwise they could not preserve their alliance with it for even twenty-four hours. The reformists systematically implant in the minds of the workers the notion that the sacredness of democracy is best guaranteed when the bourgeoisie is armed to the teeth and the workers are unarmed.

The duty of the Fourth International is to put an end to such slavish polices once and for all. The petty bourgeois democrats – including Social Democrats, Stalinists and Anarchists – yell louder about the struggle against fascism the more cravenly they capitulate to it in actuality. Only armed workers’ detachments, who feel the support of tens of millions of toilers behind them, can successfully prevail against the fascist bands.

The struggle against fascism does not start in the liberal editorial office but in the factory – and ends in the street. Scabs and private gunmen in factory plants are the basic nuclei of the fascist army. Strike pickets are the basic nuclei of the proletarian army. This is our point of departure. In connection with every strike and street demonstration, it is imperative to propagate the necessity of creating workers’ groups for self-defense. It is necessary to write this slogan into the program of the revolutionary wing of the trade unions. It is imperative wherever possible, beginning with the youth groups, to organize groups for self-defense, to drill and acquaint them with the use of arms.

A new upsurge of the mass movement should serve not only to increase the number of these units but also to unite them according to neighborhoods, cities, regions. It is necessary to give organized expression to the valid hatred of the workers toward scabs and bands of gangsters and fascists. It is necessary to advance the slogan of a workers’ militia as the one serious guarantee for the inviolability of workers’ organizations, meetings and press.

Only with the help of such systematic, persistent, indefatigable, courageous agitational and organizational work always on the basis of the experience of the masses themselves, is it possible to root out from their consciousness the traditions of submissiveness and passivity; to train detachments of heroic fighters capable of setting an example to all toilers; to inflict a series of tactical defeats upon the armed thugs of counterrevolution; to raise the self-confidence of the exploited and oppressed; to compromise Fascism in the eyes of the petty bourgeoisie and pave the road for the conquest of power by the proletariat.

Engels defined the state as “bodies of armed men.” The arming of the proletariat is an imperative concomitant element to its struggle for liberation. When the proletariat wills it, it will find the road and the means to arming. In this field, also, else leadership falls naturally to the sections of the Fourth International.



So how do you view guns and particularly concealed carry (I'm in Wisconsin so that's the big discussion up here)?

Do we support it as the arming of the proletariat and gives us legal protection from the state?

Or do we oppose it from the stance that it is individualized to the point where it is not class-based arming but arming for egos/racism/worker-on-worker violence/etc.?

I'd really like to hear different views on this.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I support the arming of workers so they can resist bourgeois counterrevolution as well as the more pressing threat of Fascist thugs.

[Leftsolidarity]

I support the arming of workers so they can resist bourgeois counterrevolution as well as the more pressing threat of Fascist thugs.

What about the fact that any class can buy these weapons and it's assumed (at least by me) that most of the people buying weapons legally and will be getting concealed carry permits will likely be middle-to-upper "class" whites who most likely are arming themselves for individualistic reasons based off of concious/unconcious racism?

Or is that not even a concern and is based off false assumptions?

[ВАЛТЕР]

I don't see anything wrong with allowing people to own firearms. If they are deemed capable of using them safely.

There needs to be regulations as to who is allowed to receive a firearm license. I believe in order for a person to own a firearm they must be registered with the local "committee", "soviet", or whatever you wanna call it. I also believe that before they receive a license to own a firearm they must receive a psychiatric evaluation (which will be taken every year or two years or whatever), also I believe that their spouse/family members as well as neighbors and friends should be interviewed in order to find out if that person is seen as a responsible individual by his or her family/friends. I also think that they must first pass a safety course on how to handle, maintain, and store their weapon in a responsible manner. As well as a written test.

As for "concealed carry" forget about it. That is just looking for trouble in my eyes.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

I must admite that I LOVE guns and weapons. Knives, knuckledusters, batons, tasers, revolvers, AKs etc. But unfortunatelly, these things are not used for self-defense purposes for the most part. These are the tools that assist many robbers. I think guns should be used on a revolution or at war. I think, anyone above the age of 16 without any permits could own a weapon or firearm in his HOUSE only, however if he/she wants to carry it, I think there should be a special permit without strict criteria. Of course, guns should not be used by people who do not have a clear criminal record. Of course every firearm owner, should always be instructed on how to use any weapon properly and responisbly.

[Leftsolidarity]

I don't see anything wrong with allowing people to own firearms. If they are deemed capable of using them safely.

There needs to be regulations as to who is allowed to receive a firearm license. I believe in order for a person to own a firearm they must be registered with the local "committee", "soviet", or whatever you wanna call it. I also believe that before they receive a license to own a firearm they must receive a psychiatric evaluation (which will be taken every year or two years or whatever), also I believe that their spouse/family members as well as neighbors and friends should be interviewed in order to find out if that person is seen as a responsible individual by his or her family/friends. I also think that they must first pass a safety course on how to handle, maintain, and store their weapon in a responsible manner. As well as a written test.



Sounds like a lot of hoops to jump through. I also mean this question to be in relation to current capitalist society.


As for "concealed carry" forget about it. That is just looking for trouble in my eyes.

Why do you think that? Wouldn't the arming of the proletariat involve them carrying weapons on them?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What about the fact that any class can buy these weapons and it's assumed (at least by me) that most of the people buying weapons legally and will be getting concealed carry permits will likely be middle-to-upper "class" whites who most likely are arming themselves for individualistic reasons based off of concious/unconcious racism?

Or is that not even a concern and is based off false assumptions?

People will get weapons in any number of manners and the fact remains that the proletariat needs means of self-defense. The actions of individuals is not something I take into consideration a whole lot when weighed against the might of the working class ready to assert themselves.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Sounds like a lot of hoops to jump through. I also mean this question to be in relation to current capitalist society.

Well guns are a pretty big responsibility I think. Guns are dangerous in the wrong hands. I've seen some real morons treating guns as if they are toys.

When I was young the first thing I was taught about guns was: "The gun is loaded. Always". Meaning treat it as if it it can kill another person or yourself even if you are 100% sure it is empty.

As for the current capitalist society? Arm the proletariat to the teeth. Give them machine guns, tanks, whatever. When the shit kicks off I don't want to be using slingshots and bricks.




Why do you think that? Wouldn't the arming of the proletariat involve them carrying weapons on them?Well, then you have the chance of having a person who just had a bad day get in an altercation and it end in a gunfight.

I mean, people get in arguments all the time, giving them firearms isn't going to help the situation. I'd rather two guys kick the shit out of each other than go and shoot at each other wounding/killing one or both or even some bystander over some petty argument. There are some hotheaded people out there, as well as regular folk who just may have a bad day or take something harmless as a threat and riddle someone with bullet holes over it.

[Leftsolidarity]

People will get weapons in any number of manners

I agree but I'm saying that the majority of the people going through the legal process of buying weapons are likely to be the upper classes of society with reactionary views who are protecting themselves with those weapons against the working class. They can use that legal backing to own those weapons and violently defend their property.

While a lot of working class people might not be able to go through the legal process anyways because of a criminal record or something like that. Then even though they can still arm themselves illegally, these gun laws do not protect their able to arm themselves.

So all this might do is give the upper class reactionaries the ability to stay armed and use their weapons without reperciousions while still surpressing the working class's ability to arm itself without fear of state oppression.


and the fact remains that the proletariat needs means of self-defense.

Agreed but are these laws the way for us to do it?


The actions of individuals is not something I take into consideration a whole lot when weighed against the might of the working class ready to assert themselves.

What if the working class isn't ready to assert itself? What if the only reason people are buying these guns are for individual reasons and have no class actions except for the repression of the working class?

[The Jay]

I am in favor of gun rights for those reasons. Weapons will always be necessary to ensure democracy, or, rather, an equality of offensive and defensive force between all individuals. This ensures that if someone decides that they know better than the majority and tries to illegally advance their views through violence, the majority must be able to prevent this, even in socialism.

[Revolution starts with U]

I agree with the posters saying we should have open access to gun, but regulated by mental state.

I also agree that concealed carry is bogus. You should be able to carry a gun. You should also have to show it... which, duh, will deter more crime than having it sealed away.

[Magón]

I agree with the posters saying we should have open access to gun, but regulated by mental state.

I also agree that concealed carry is bogus. You should be able to carry a gun. You should also have to show it... which, duh, will deter more crime than having it sealed away.

There are open carry laws in the US, that allow people to walk around with a pistol or whatever strapped to their hip. Some states say you don't need a permit or license to carry openly, either on yourself or in a vehicle, and others are more strict (like here in Cali) where you can only openly carry a rifle/pistol in areas unincorporated, and the amount of people in that area is relatively low to the basic pop. level of say more dense places.

Frankly, I don't see a reason why anyone would want to conceal or openly carry a gun around all day. Unless I was in a constant situation, I knew I was going to get some shit from people who were armed with something, then I might think it necessary.

There's no doubt that since here in the US, we don't see a bunch of people for the most part, walking around with guns strapped to them, or in their cars that we can see, if people did see you walking down the street with a gun, they'd panic and probably call the cops, making it more of a headache than what was intended.

Also, people with concealed carry permits have been arrested before by police because someone just saw a glance of their gun on them, panicked and called. And to even the law that's a money fine, because the carrier didn't conceal it properly enough in their eyes.

[Revolution starts with U]

Good point.

[Art Vandelay]

"I would not want to live in a country where only the government had weapons." - William S. Burroughs.

[Luc]

edit: ah fuck just realised this is "marxist perspective" not "do you support...?" sorry mate :(

I am for legal guns in capitalist society, making them illegal is just more ways bourgie can control the working class. Maybe similiar to how making drugs illegal allows for bourgeoisie to easierly (lol not even a word...) control communities particurily poor minority communities (with this example the drugs.. I dunno what gun ownership is like in those communities).

hope ya get what im saying :unsure:

[Ocean Seal]

This like many things is where a Marxist perspective isn't useful.

Because it usually leads to two things. Liberal moralism. Which usually presents itself as guns cause crime, and are in the hands of gun nuts, etc.

Or this

I support the arming of workers so they can resist bourgeois counterrevolution as well as the more pressing threat of Fascist thugs.
Basically the "if only we had guns" narrative. I doubt honestly, that guns will make much of a difference in suppressing fascist thugs because in the one country with liberal gun laws we really don't have organized fascists like in Europe. Nor do we have workers to arm. At the very best we would have a group of weirdoes who carry guns and scare the working class.
First we have to worry about finding workers who would want to be part of a communist/anti-fascist front, and then we can worry about what to do with guns.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I agree but I'm saying that the majority of the people going through the legal process of buying weapons are likely to be the upper classes of society with reactionary views who are protecting themselves with those weapons against the working class. They can use that legal backing to own those weapons and violently defend their property.

While a lot of working class people might not be able to go through the legal process anyways because of a criminal record or something like that. Then even though they can still arm themselves illegally, these gun laws do not protect their able to arm themselves.

What? Many working class people own guns. (edit: speaking in regards to the USA) The true upper class don't need guns for protection, they have bodyguards/private security/responsive police depts etc.

Plus there is no way that a majority or even close to a majority of working class people are convicted felons and are thus forbidden from owning one (and even, depending on the crime commited there's a possibility to get your ability to own guns re-instated.)

[Leftsolidarity]

What? Many working class people own guns. (edit: speaking in regards to the USA) The true upper class don't need guns for protection, they have bodyguards/private security/responsive police depts etc.



By "upper-class" I meant the higher sections of the working class. Like well off salary workers and all that jazz. So yes, a lot of working class people own guns but you also need to look at what sections of the working class own them. Plus, I've seen first hand the differences between the gun ownership of the upper and lower sections of the working class. They are pretty different from each other.


Plus there is no way that a majority or even close to a majority of working class people are convicted felons and are thus forbidden from owning one (and even, depending on the crime commited there's a possibility to get your ability to own guns re-instated.)

I never said a majority. I said "a lot", which there are many many poor working class people that are not able to purchase a weapon for one reason or another.


It seems you're picking a fight where there is none. You're taking my words differently than what was intended. Also, I am in support of gun rights/concealed carry/etc. I am just playing boths sides to keep the discussion going.

Can you now answer the OP instead of just picking at a response I gave to someone else?

[Rafiq]

Here's a Marxist approach: That should they be necessary, it has fuck all to do with "govment" needing to be regulated by "da peoplez"

[Leftsolidarity]

Here's a Marxist approach: That should they be necessary, it has fuck all to do with "govment" needing to be regulated by "da peoplez"

What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

[Os Cangaceiros]

By "upper-class" I meant the higher sections of the working class. Like well off salary workers and all that jazz. So yes, a lot of working class people own guns but you also need to look at what sections of the working class own them. Plus, I've seen first hand the differences between the gun ownership of the upper and lower sections of the working class. They are pretty different from each other.

*shrug* I live in rural gun-lovin' bubba country too, and there are plenty of people in the lower-working class who have firearms here. What do you mean by differences between gun ownership? Like, poor people own shotguns while (comparatively) rich people own pistols, or what? I don't get it.


I never said a majority. I said "a lot", which there are many many poor working class people that are not able to purchase a weapon for one reason or another.

I still maintain that the number of people forbidden from owning firearms through purely legal reasons borders on statistical insignificance, unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary.

[gorillafuck]

Here's a Marxist approach: That should they be necessary, it has fuck all to do with "govment" needing to be regulated by "da peoplez"who are you mocking?:confused:

I'm against gun control

[Leftsolidarity]

*shrug* I live in rural gun-lovin' bubba country too, and there are plenty of people in the lower-working class who have firearms here. What do you mean by differences between gun ownership? Like, poor people own shotguns while (comparatively) rich people own pistols, or what? I don't get it.



Actually I was going to say the other way around. You probably live in a different kind of area than I have though. Back in the city I'm from which was really poor (first of all, I never even came into contact with people flaunting their guns except for a very few rare instances) the people who owned guns usually did so illegally and they usually just had a handgun or something like that.

Now I'm out in the very rich semi-rural suburbs and EVERYONE seems to own multiple guns and they are usually flaunting them and they usually have bigger weapons. They use them a lot more often and they have a mentality around firearms. (Not saying that's a bad thing) And going along with this, there is a heavy dose of racism that usually comes along with all their talks of guns. (that's a bad thing)

I don't really know how to describe it. It's just a kind of vibe and mentality that you can pick up on. For me, it always seemed as if the more poor working class people had what they had for self-defence or for "criminal activity"; While the more rich working class/petty bourgeois people around here own them out of fear of the poor/black people and in defense of their property (if their petty bourgeois).


I don't want to assert that I think that is how it is everywhere, though. It could very well be completely opposite where you are.





I still maintain that the number of people forbidden from owning firearms through purely legal reasons borders on statistical insignificance, unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary.

I might look into that.

It was just a thought I had as to a way to be opposed to the gun laws. I thought it to be more of a defence from a liberal stand point honestly. I just figured I'd argue the other side since no one else would.


-----------

Back to the OP that a lot of people seem to be missing though:

What class character do you think these laws have and do you think the benefit one class over another?

Should we support more open or more strict gun laws as Revolutionary Leftists?

[u.s.red]

Here is Marx on gun ownership:

"4. Universal arming of the people..." From The Demands of the Communist Party in Germany, 1848.. It sound more like a militia than individual gun ownership. From a class perspective, however, it makes sense. Arm the people as a class, but no gun ownership for the bourgeois and petit-bourgeois classes.

[Rafiq]

who are you mocking?:confused:

I'm against gun control

Why?

I don't formally have a position on this, but I'm curious.