Arguments against "only the cops and army should have guns"?

[X5N]

Aside from "the workers should be armed" and such. I'm looking for something I can use to argue my position to liberals.

EDIT: And not arguments against gun control in general. Just arguments against that liberal "<3 police and military" position.

[Comrade Samuel]

I think it should be obvious that when only one group of people has the means to kill everybody else that puts them in an authoritative position but with the existence of tanks, drones and precision bombers the argument about weather or not civilians should have guns seems pretty irrelevant.

Even though it's contradictary to what your arguing: Piers Morgan in that infamous interview said something to the extent " In the U.K cops have no guns, people have no guns and it is for that reason there were only 35 gun related murders last year". I think that's a pretty compelling argument regardless of the man's other questionable business- though I personally wouldn't support a total ban on firearms.

[BIXX]

Police brutality should be enough. Do we really want the police, who are known to cause excessive levels of pain, to also be the only ones to have guns?

[Art Vandelay]

"I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military." - William S. Burroughs.

[Blake's Baby]

Disarm and abolish the army and police.

[greenjuice]

I also don't know of any compeling arguments for that.

I've read some "libertarian" ideas about personal freedom and the non-aggression principle, but that lunatics are against any explosives (including nuclear bombs) and military machienery (like tanks) regulations, and seem to think that "the market will make sure that no one detonates the nuclear bomb he keeps in his basement".

Some regulation is necessary, the question is what kind. I suppose there are some texts from big leftist thinkers about the topic, does anybody know of any?

[GaggedNoMore]

Quote from Adolf Hitler in "Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations",


The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police.

I think Mao is supposed to have said something similar. But other than "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun" I don't know what it is.

[La Guaneña]

Well, I guess that has to be a case-by-case decision. I sure as hell wouldn't be in favour of legalizing guns for everyone in my country, things are violent enough the way they are now.

And also lets not pretend that we have the illusion that we'll get armed faster than the bourgeois militias, right ppl?

[consuming negativity]

jesus christ this thread is from january of 2013

why did you resurrect it?

[Halert]

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g109/lecokev/ThreadNecro.gif

[GaggedNoMore]

jesus christ this thread is from january of 2013

why did you resurrect it?

Because I wanted to ask a question about guns in the "learning" forum. But instead of starting a new one (thus creating a redundant thread) I decided to do a search first for an already existing one. This is the only one I found that wasn't locked/closed and that I could reply to.

I'm sorry if that's not how things are done around here. I used to be a mod/admin myself at another (now defunct) forum and I remember we ended up closing a lot of threads that were repetitive, already done etc; in most cases this was something the poster could have found out for him/herself if they did a search first.

So maybe that will put things in perspective. :)

[Slavic]

Mind as well contribute, doubt the OP exists anymore.

Argue your position by first establishing that socialism is a better system for society as a whole, then explain that the monopoly of violence held by the police/military serves as a barrier to said society.

If the proletariat held a monopoly over violence, then it would be easier for a socialist society to develop.

[Blake's Baby]

If the proletariat held a monopoly of violence, we'd already be in the revolutionary dictatorship and ideed it would be arguable that we'd just won the world civil war.