What would be the marxist stance on gun ownership? [Archive]

Blake's Baby

29th November 2013, 22:44

From the Address to the Central Committee of the Communist League, 1850 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

"2. To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party [the bourgeois democrats], whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising...".

What they would make of America's gun laws now is another matter I guess, if that is really the question. I'm not sure they'd be in favour of a gun-death rate 40 times higher than the UK's, just because theoretically at some poit in the future Americans might stop killing each other and attempt to overthrow the state.

Flying Purple People Eater

29th November 2013, 23:26

Generally speaking we're all for it.

What? No we aren't.

What they would make of America's gun laws now is another matter I guess, if that is really the question. I'm not sure they'd be in favour of a gun-death rate 40 times higher than the UK's, just because theoretically at some poit in the future Americans might stop killing each other and attempt to overthrow the state.

This so much.

Sea

2nd December 2013, 00:41

Call me a radical but I think we should share the guns.

Ceallach_the_Witch

2nd December 2013, 01:07

I don't really know where I stand tbh. I used to be firmly opposed to gun ownership (and I still echo Blake's Baby's final point on gun ownership tbh) but I am now by no means totally against the idea. It's difficult to see what the consequences would be like if gun ownership were made legal in a way similar to the US in a place where citizens haven't really owned weapons for centuries and I'm not entirely sure I'd like to be around to see them.

Vanguard1917

2nd December 2013, 01:37

What they would make of America's gun laws now is another matter I guess, if that is really the question. I'm not sure they'd be in favour of a gun-death rate 40 times higher than the UK's, just because theoretically at some poit in the future Americans might stop killing each other and attempt to overthrow the state.

The link between anti-gun legislation and gun crime is by no means clear. There are states in the US with little gun-control and not a lot of gun crime, and then there are states with lots of fairly strict gun legislation and lots of gun crime. Ultimately, social conditions cause gun deaths, not the lack of laws against guns.

The Marxist position is against gun laws.

Sabot Cat

2nd December 2013, 01:50

The Marxist position is against gun laws.

I disagree. In Marx's "Demands of the Communist Party in Germany" published in 1848, he stated the following as the fourth provision for his political platform:

"4. Universal arming of the people. In future the armies shall be simultaneously labour armies, so that the troops shall not, as formerly, merely consume, but shall produce more than is necessary for their upkeep.

This will moreover be conducive to the organisation of labour."

(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm)

He reiterated this principle in the 1850 address that Blake's Baby already quoted, and as he noted, whether or not the Marxist position is the correct one for these circumstances is another matter.

Lily Briscoe

2nd December 2013, 02:09

"...The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition..."

Govmint tryin' to take our cannons...

Anyway, a lot of young, male (http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Children_and_Families/Guns.pdf), rural American lefties seem to have a gun fetish and try to construct stupid political justifications for it.

On a gut level, my feeling is more or less 'I hope the government takes your guns you assholes'. But on a political level, I think the whole issue is basically a giant distraction and I don't think the legal status of firearms is at all relevant to working class self-organization in 2013.

#FF0000

2nd December 2013, 03:20

Anyway, a lot of young, male (http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Children_and_Families/Guns.pdf), rural American lefties seem to have a gun fetish and try to construct stupid political justifications for it.

i know hella working class women who are armed and like guns too, though? I mean, almost everyone I know here owns at least a long rifle or a cheap 9mm. The most heavily armed people I ever saw were a bunch of women from the local roller derby team who all went out and got AK-47s lol

On a gut level, my feeling is more or less 'I hope the government takes your guns you assholes'. But on a political level, I think the whole issue is basically a giant distraction and I don't think the legal status of firearms is at all relevant to working class self-organization in 2013.Being a gun-toting dummy I can still see where you're coming from. If gun control were, maybe, limited to handguns, i could understand that -- but I still just can't get behind the State disarming working class people.

#FF0000

2nd December 2013, 03:21

also fuck american gun culture. what a toxic morass that is.

The Jay

2nd December 2013, 03:23

Govmint tryin' to take our cannons...

Anyway, a lot of young, male (http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Children_and_Families/Guns.pdf), rural American lefties seem to have a gun fetish and try to construct stupid political justifications for it.

On a gut level, my feeling is more or less 'I hope the government takes your guns you assholes'. But on a political level, I think the whole issue is basically a giant distraction and I don't think the legal status of firearms is at all relevant to working class self-organization in 2013.

Fuck you asshole. You really just tried to imply that gun owners are domestically violent with that broad brush you like to swing at everyone. It is none of your god damn business what I have in terms of defensive tools so you can feel free not to own any yourself.

Essentially, if you don't think that guns are essential for working class organization then you should advocate for what would be essential instead of making passive aggressive assertions of rape and other acts of domestic violence.

Lily Briscoe

2nd December 2013, 04:25

Fuck you asshole. You really just tried to imply that gun owners are domestically violent with that broad brush you like to swing at everyone.

No, that actually wasn't what I was implying (although when people who are 'domestically violent' own guns, women are at a hugely increased risk of being killed). The point of leaving that link there was that gun violence has a concrete effect on peoples' lives now, and sweeping that under the rug with some abstract pronouncements about American workers overthrowing their government with legal firearms is stupid and probably accounts partly for the notable demographic pattern among pro-gun leftists.

It is none of your god damn business what I have in terms of defensive tools so you can feel free not to own any yourself.When your 'tools' are designed for the purpose of killing, it stops being a personal matter, and it absolutely is other peoples' business IMO. Plenty of people with guns have certainly made it other peoples' business.

Essentially, if you don't think that guns are essential for working class organization then you should advocate for what would be essential instead of making passive aggressive assertions of rape and other acts of domestic violence.Wow what are you even talking about. Control+F the word "rape" in this thread and see what comes up. If you want to dispute the statistics on gun use and domestic violence in that link, then by all means.

At any rate, this thread isn't about 'methods for working-class self-organization', it is about gun ownership, so unsurprisingly, that's what I am posting on.

Yuppie Grinder

2nd December 2013, 04:33

American gun culture is racist. Guns themselves I'm personally very fond of, but I'm just like that.

sosolo

2nd December 2013, 04:49

I don't want any more bourgeois laws at all, no matter what. Also, gun laws keep the ruling class (police and military) monopoly on arms in place.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Sabot Cat

2nd December 2013, 04:52

To expound upon my own position: I am in favor firearm ownership, if the state provides for everyone who wants one, along with other less lethal means of defense. However, this is with the caveat that prospective permit holders for firearms are subject to the most advanced lie detector tests possible (polygraph and an fMRI), so that there can be some degree of certainty as to what they intend to do with such force. Any additional questions to be added to the test will be proposed by a majority of local legislature, and approved by a majority in a referendum among the community they represent, so that firearms are not restricted for possibly authoritarian reasons. But I realize this probably isn't the most practical or cost-effective approach to gun legislation.

Art Vandelay

2nd December 2013, 04:59

The Jay

2nd December 2013, 05:00

No, that actually wasn't what I was implying (although when people who are 'domestically violent' own guns, women are at a hugely increased risk of being killed). The point of leaving that link there was that gun violence has a concrete effect on peoples' lives now, and sweeping that under the rug with some abstract pronouncements about American workers overthrowing their government with legal firearms is stupid and probably accounts partly for the notable demographic pattern among pro-gun leftists.

I guess I never stopped to consider that people who get shot had guns incur an effect in their lives. That or I think that it is pointless to base your argument for or against gun ownership on the whole by saying that some people sometimes get killed and that some of them are women. I could say the same thing about kitchen knives or rat poison.

When your 'tools' are designed for the purpose of killing, it stops being a personal matter, and it absolutely is other peoples' business IMO. Plenty of people with guns have certainly made it other peoples' business.

Plenty as in what percentage? Plenty as in most? Are you saying that people with guns go out to kill people or that people out to kill people get guns? Those are two very different things.

Besides, what are you advocating here exactly?

Wow what are you even talking about. Control+F the word "rape" in this thread and see what comes up. If you want to dispute the statistics on gun use and domestic violence in that link, then by all means.

Are you saying that domestic violence has nothing to do with rape?

At any rate, this thread isn't about 'methods for working-class self-organization', it is about gun ownership, so unsurprisingly, that's what I am posting on.

No, you did not. All you did was say that gun ownership was not relevant to the working class and linked to an article on domestic abuse while saying that males with guns are dangerous to women.

Yuppie Grinder

2nd December 2013, 05:02

Sabot Cat

2nd December 2013, 05:11

I tend to get the feeling that alot of the people here who take such harsh anti-gun stances, do so for reasons steeped in moralism (as V1917 already stated, guns don't cause violence, social conditions do) and probably have never been taught how to properly load/shoot/store a firearm safely.

Whether or not your opponents are aware of basic firearm maintenance has nothing to do with their ability to ascertain the effects of firearm ownership in society. I believe people can often have harsh views on gun ownership because guns can be as much of a tool for liberation as they are one of oppression; furthermore, there is the inescapable fact that guns do in fact cause fatalities when used, and regulation of firearm ownership is an achievable goal alongside addressing the underlying social circumstances.

My dad started teaching me how to shoot at a young age and if I ever have a kid I'm going to be teaching him how to shoot as well.

Generic he?

Lily Briscoe

2nd December 2013, 05:11

i know hella working class women who are armed and like guns too, though? I mean, almost everyone I know here owns at least a long rifle or a cheap 9mm. The most heavily armed people I ever saw were a bunch of women from the local roller derby team who all went out and go AK-47s lol
I was going to counterpose some of my own anecdotes on this topic to your anecdotes, but then I realized I have far too many to choose from, so I just looked up some statistics instead:

Men are three times more likely than women to personally own guns, representing one of the largest demographic differences in gun ownership, according to an analysis of Gallup polls from 2007 to 2012.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160223/men-married-southerners-likely-gun-owners.aspx

Also, demographic breakdown of political support for/opposition to gun control, from Pew: http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/gun-control-2011.pdf

I find it kind of unlikely that people are genuinely oblivious to this trend.

Art Vandelay

2nd December 2013, 05:48

Whether or not your opponents are aware of basic firearm maintenance has nothing to do with their ability to ascertain the effects of firearm ownership in society. I believe people can often have harsh views on gun ownership because guns can be as much of a tool for liberation as they are one of oppression; furthermore, there is the inescapable fact that guns do in fact cause fatalities when used, and regulation of firearm ownership is an achievable goal alongside addressing the underlying social circumstances.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean firearm regulation would be an achievable goal in a future socialist society, or a reasonable reform for the proletariat to fight for?

Generic he?

I think you know what I mean, but regardless would you prefer if I changed it to him/her?

Sabot Cat

2nd December 2013, 05:55

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean firearm regulation would be an achievable goal in a future socialist society, or a reasonable reform for the proletariat to fight for?

The latter, but the former is true as well. We should fight to make our world better by whatever means we can, as long as we are being mindful of the long-term with a holistic strategy geared towards a proletarian revolution.

I think you know what I mean, but regardless would you prefer if I changed it to him/her?

You don't have to change it for my sake, I just didn't want any unjust accusations of sexism to come your way if that wasn't what you were trying to get across.

DasFapital

2nd December 2013, 05:56

I favor gun control for the 5-0

Art Vandelay

2nd December 2013, 06:03

The latter, but the former is true as well. We should fight to make our world better by whatever means we can, as long as we are being mindful of the long-term with a holistic strategy geared towards a proletarian revolution.

So you're in favor of increasing the power of the bourgeois state?

You don't have to change it for my sake, I just didn't want any unjust accusations of sexism to come your way if that wasn't what you were trying to get across.

Anyone who wants to accuse me of sexism, because of adherence to a grammar rule I was taught in school growing up, can go right ahead, they'll merely be making themselves look silly.

Sabot Cat

2nd December 2013, 06:07

So you're in favor of increasing the power of the bourgeois state?

My specific proposal would not increase anyone's power but the proletariat, because they would have greater access to firearms and other means of defense or liberation, while taking the weapons out of the hands of those who would oppress others with them.

Art Vandelay

2nd December 2013, 06:13

My specific proposal would not increase anyone's power but the proletariat, because they would have greater access to firearms and other means of defense or liberation, while taking the weapons out of the hands of those who would oppress others with them.

That's not what you said.

Me:

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean firearm regulation would be an achievable goal in a future socialist society, or a reasonable reform for the proletariat to fight for?

You:

The latter, but the former is true as well. We should fight to make our world better by whatever means we can, as long as we are being mindful of the long-term with a holistic strategy geared towards a proletarian revolution.

If you can explain to me a way, you fight for gun law reform, without increasing the power of the bourgeois state, I'm all ears. But you certainly can't blame me for assuming that is what you meant.

Sea

2nd December 2013, 06:15

Generic he?No, psychic powers.

Lily Briscoe

2nd December 2013, 06:24

I guess I never stopped to consider that people who get shot had guns incur an effect in their lives.

I think you are struggling a bit here with reading comprehension. I'm sure you are an intelligent person, so I'm assuming it's more the result of this issue being really emotionally-charged for you rather than any intellectual deficit on your part. You should probably take a deep breath and remember that, no matter what I personally think of it, you can pretty much have as many guns as you can afford to buy and nobody is going to take away peoples' firearms, regardless of how much they may contribute to the deadliness of domestic violence or any other irrelevant little detail like that.

So getting back to this point now that you are hopefully a bit more relaxed:

I guess I never stopped to consider that people who get shot had guns incur an effect in their lives. That wasn't the point of the statistics. You can read them yourself if you are actually interested in the points (which you clearly aren't), but one of the relevant ones was that "access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times".

I don't want to make this discussion about domestic abuse, though, because pretty much wherever there is social oppression in the US, guns serve to empower the people at the top of that particular hierarchy and the people at the bottom pay with their blood. Domestic violence certainly isn't the only example where this applies, it's just the one that happened to spring immediately to mind because a friend of mine was in a related situation earlier this year (she wasn't killed thankfully, but was beat to a pulp, escaped the house with her cell phone to call the police, and then made the mistake of going back in to try to get her 3-year-old daughter out, at which point her boyfriend proceeded to hold her and her daughter at gunpoint for several hours until he was incapacitated).

Plenty as in what percentage? Plenty as in most? Are you saying that people with guns go out to kill people or that people out to kill people get guns? Those are two very different things.The fact that the entire purpose of guns is to kill is enough to make their possession a social issue rather than a purely personal one that concerns only the individual in possession of the firearm. Similarly, operating a vehicle isn't only the concern of the person operating it, which is why there are stringent requirements that someone must fulfill in order to legally operate a vehicle, since otherwise they are putting everyone in the vicinity in danger. For some reason, no one loses their shit over 'driver control' though, which is particularly weird when you consider that operating a vehicle actually has a practical, often essential, everyday function rather than just being for shooting shit, killing things, and feeling like a man.

Besides, what are you advocating here exactly?
Are you saying that domestic violence has nothing to do with rape?
No, you did not. All you did was say that gun ownership was not relevant to the working class and linked to an article on domestic abuse while saying that males with guns are dangerous to women.Basically, anyone interested can go back and read the above comments in relation to the quotes they are supposed to be responses to. They are complete non-sequiturs, so I don't really see much point in attempting to respond to them.

Sabot Cat

2nd December 2013, 06:28

That's not what you said. If you can explain to me a way, you fight for gun law reform, without increasing the power of the bourgeois state, I'm all ears. But you certainly can't blame me for assuming that is what you meant.

I did say that, just not in response to you, although I apologize for unthinkingly assuming you would have read my post earlier in the thread beforehand:

To expound upon my own position: I am in favor firearm ownership, if the state provides for everyone who wants one, along with other less lethal means of defense. However, this is with the caveat that prospective permit holders for firearms are subject to the most advanced lie detector tests possible (polygraph and an fMRI), so that there can be some degree of certainty as to what they intend to do with such force. Any additional questions to be added to the test will be proposed by a majority of local legislature, and approved by a majority in a referendum among the community they represent, so that firearms are not restricted for possibly authoritarian reasons. But I realize this probably isn't the most practical or cost-effective approach to gun legislation.

I don't think my above proposal would increase the power of the bourgeois.

No, psychic powers.

He could have meant that he would only train a boy to use a firearm, which is what is what I wanted to have clarified so no one would come to that conclusion if that wasn't what he was saying.

Slavic

2nd December 2013, 06:35

I don't think my above proposal would increase the power of the bourgeois.

How am I supposed to help overthrow the bourgeois, establish a DotP, and repress reactionaries without firearms? If I state that as my purpose during your proposed lie-detector test for obtaining a firearm would I be granted a permit? How does one expect a revolution to occur without bloodshed and firearms.

Remus Bleys

2nd December 2013, 06:39

I think you are struggling a bit here with reading comprehension. I'm sure you are an intelligent person, so I'm assuming it's more the result of this issue being really emotionally-charged for you rather than any intellectual deficit on your part. You should probably take a deep breath and remember that, no matter what I personally think of it, you can pretty much have as many guns as you can afford to buy and nobody is going to take away peoples' firearms, regardless of how much they may contribute to the deadliness of domestic violence or any other irrelevant little detail like that.

So getting back to this point now that you are hopefully a bit more relaxed:
That wasn't the point of the statistics. You can read them yourself if you are actually interested in the points (which you clearly aren't), but one of the relevant ones was that "access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times".

I don't want to make this discussion about domestic abuse, though, because pretty much wherever there is social oppression in the US, guns serve to empower the people at the top of that particular hierarchy and the people at the bottom pay with their blood. Domestic violence certainly isn't the only example where this applies, it's just the one that happened to spring immediately to mind because a friend of mine was in a related situation earlier this year (she wasn't killed thankfully, but was beat to a pulp, escaped the house with her cell phone to call the police, and then made the mistake of going back in to try to get her 3-year-old daughter out, at which point her boyfriend proceeded to hold her and her daughter at gunpoint for several hours until he was incapacitated).

The fact that the entire purpose of guns is to kill is enough to make their possession a social issue rather than a purely personal one that concerns only the individual in possession of the firearm. Similarly, operating a vehicle isn't only the concern of the person operating it, which is why there are stringent requirements that someone must fulfill in order to legally operate a vehicle, since otherwise they are putting everyone in the vicinity in danger. For some reason, no one loses their shit over 'driver control' though, which is particularly weird when you consider that operating a vehicle actually has a practical, often essential, everyday function rather than just being for shooting shit, killing things, and feeling like a man.

Basically, anyone interested can go back and read the above comments in relation to the quotes they are supposed to be responses to. They are complete non-sequiturs, so I don't really see much point in attempting to respond to them.

It's pretty obvious you're calling gun owners mouth breathing hick, showing your elitist hatred of anyone who isn't from the city because they are "rural" and since they are rural, they are therefore uneducated, therefore will go out and beat their wives! And yeah, it did come off as implying rape. You are too worried about guns are meant to kill - but he said they are used as self-defense. So if Tricemarx is going to kill, it'll be as a result of someone else trying to kill him.
You wanna stop crimes? Make your case. But don't you dare say that gun owners are domestic abusers. Sure some of them are. Gun culture is ridiculous. But that doesn't mean that gun owners are somehow bad people, which your latent liberal elitism implies.

This is brutally dishonest and shitty of you. The gun debate is an interesting one (especially cuz I don't have an opinion on it) and acting like that showsthe contempt and elitism that is contained within you, and makes your argument look bad.

Art Vandelay

2nd December 2013, 06:43

I did say that, just not in response to you, although I apologize for unthinkingly assuming you would have read my post earlier in the thread beforehand:

I am aware of what you said and do indeed think it would be increasing the power of the bourgeoisie. What you are essentially asking for is a situation in which the state provides firearms to individuals who pass your proposed 'restriction tests' so to speak. I assume this would mean you would want the state to have a monopoly on firearm distribution; or else you must mean that the state should directly become a competitor in the firearm market, a proposal even more puzzling. Either way the proposal is troubling coming from a self described leftist. It does indeed increase the power of the bourgeois state to allow them to have control over regulation of firearms and I certainly hope you aren't naive enough to think they would allow these proposed laws to get in the way of carrying out their class interests.

He could have meant that he would only train a boy to use a firearm, which is what is what I wanted to have clarified so no one would come to that conclusion if that wasn't what he was saying.

I think given my posting history, its pretty obvious I'm not someone who is going to randomly come out with an outright reactionary position of 'herp derp only men should shoot guns,' but for clarity's sake, no that is not what I meant. It was simply a generalized statement, that when I have a kid, I will teach him/her to shoot, as my dad did with me. I don't know about anyone else, but going to shoot with your dad was like the coolest thing in the world growing up and a pretty awesome bonding experience. And there are some very simple rules to teach someone, that if taken seriously, will result in the person never misusing a firearm; #1 being don't point this at anything you aren't prepared to kill.

Art Vandelay

2nd December 2013, 06:48

Sabot Cat

2nd December 2013, 06:48

How am I supposed to help overthrow the bourgeois, establish a DotP, and repress reactionaries without firearms? If I state that as my purpose during your proposed lie-detector test for obtaining a firearm would I be granted a permit? How does one expect a revolution to occur without bloodshed and firearms.

First of all, I think they would have some sort of form with a rigid set of questions explicated in the legislation itself that would likely not include such a speculative scenario as, "if you were in an ideological war with the people in your community, would you use your firearm to fight against those you are opposed to?" I'm thinking more along the lines of, "Do you plan to use your firearm in cooperation with an organization that consistently transgresses the law in a violent manner, such as a gang?" or "Do you plan to use your firearm to aid in the facilitation of a robbery, home invasion or rape?".

Thus you should have no problem if you only plan to escalate to the use of lethal force when the situation requires it, that is, in self-defense or if someone is going to die otherwise or if there are people shooting at you from the other side of a battlefield. Even the bourgeois police/military can articulate these principles although they often fail to follow them, and so I'm not sure why a revolutionary militia would be less disciplined or humane in their theoretical ethics. My point is, if you will only use your firearm when that task devolves upon you, you should have no problem receiving a weapon.

I am aware of what you said and do indeed think it would be increasing the power of the bourgeoisie. What you are essentially asking for is a situation in which the state provides firearms to individuals who pass your proposed 'restriction tests' so to speak. I assume this would mean you would want the state to have a monopoly on firearm distribution; or else you must mean that the state should directly become a competitor in the firearm market, a proposal even more puzzling. Either way the proposal is troubling coming from a self described leftist. It does indeed increase the power of the bourgeois state to allow them to have control over regulation of firearms and I certainly hope you aren't naive enough to think they would allow these proposed laws to get in the way of carrying out their class interests.

I support my proposal if and only if the regulation is being directly handled via referendum on a local level, as I stated when I articulated it, and with that method of legislation it would not be handing the power to the state as a separate entity but to the community of that area as whole. Furthermore, I'm not asking for the state to compete with any company; I would like them to simply give people the money necessary to purchase a weapon if an individual wishes to own one but can't afford to buy it.

The Jay

2nd December 2013, 06:50

I think you are struggling a bit here with reading comprehension. I'm sure you are an intelligent person, so I'm assuming it's more the result of this issue being really emotionally-charged for you rather than any intellectual deficit on your part. You should probably take a deep breath and remember that, no matter what I personally think of it, you can pretty much have as many guns as you can afford to buy and nobody is going to take away peoples' firearms, regardless of how much they may contribute to the deadliness of domestic violence or any other irrelevant little detail like that.

How is this not exactly is this not what I was pointing out before? You say that and do not say anything else. What am I supposed to think you are implying here?

So getting back to this point now that you are hopefully a bit more relaxed:
That wasn't the point of the statistics. You can read them yourself if you are actually interested in the points (which you clearly aren't), but one of the relevant ones was that "access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times".

I don't want to make this discussion about domestic abuse, though, because pretty much wherever there is social oppression in the US, guns serve to empower the people at the top of that particular hierarchy and the people at the bottom pay with their blood. Domestic violence certainly isn't the only example where this applies, it's just the one that happened to spring immediately to mind because a friend of mine was in a related situation earlier this year (she wasn't killed thankfully, but was beat to a pulp, escaped the house with her cell phone to call the police, and then made the mistake of going back in to try to get her 3-year-old daughter out, at which point her boyfriend proceeded to hold her and her daughter at gunpoint for several hours until he was incapacitated).

I'm glad that he was incapacitated.

The fact that the entire purpose of guns is to kill is enough to make their possession a social issue rather than a purely personal one that concerns only the individual in possession of the firearm. Similarly, operating a vehicle isn't only the concern of the person operating it, which is why there are stringent requirements that someone must fulfill in order to legally operate a vehicle, since otherwise they are putting everyone in the vicinity in danger. For some reason, no one loses their shit over 'driver control' though, which is particularly weird when you consider that operating a vehicle actually has a practical, often essential, everyday function rather than just being for shooting shit, killing things, and feeling like a man.

Again, you haven't actually advocated for anything here. All you have done is said that it is a social issue and that motor vehicles are controlled. This is only repeating my question which you call a non-sequitur below: what do you say should be done concretely?

Basically, anyone interested can go back and read the above comments in relation to the quotes they are supposed to be responses to. They are complete non-sequiturs, so I don't really see much point in attempting to respond to them.

BIXX

2nd December 2013, 07:40

Ok, I know I'm not a Marxist, but I do utilize some of the same tools (dialectical materialism, specifically). I just wanna say that I'd be interested in how you think I should save myself from someone who stole a gun if I was unable to have one?

Furthermore, I'd be interested in seeing how someone tries to take away guns from gun owners- would they ask nicely? Maybe they would use guns? Either way, I doubt the person who owns the gun will be too obliged to hand over their weapons.

Furthermore fuck you, I'm an anarchist. I'll own a gun if I want to, and if it's illegal, cool, I'll still keep it.

Lily Briscoe

2nd December 2013, 09:36

How is this not exactly is this not what I was pointing out before? You say that and do not say anything else. What am I supposed to think you are implying here?

That maybe I think a lot of people who are emotionally invested in justifying private firearm ownership (particularly with regard to the current situation in the US) need to seriously reexamine their priorities? I am definitely not suggesting that owning a firearm makes someone a de facto domestic abuser, and I am absolutely not accusing anyone in this thread of being domestic abusers (which is not an accusation I would ever, EVER make out of any ulterior motive, least of all to score political points).

Again, you haven't actually advocated for anything here. All you have done is said that it is a social issue and that motor vehicles are controlled. This is only repeating my question which you call a non-sequitur below: what do you say should be done concretely?I'm not 'advocating' anything. I don't have a viable political solution to gun violence in the US within the framework of capitalism, and I have no interest in trying to construct or propose one. I want to get rid of this miserable society, not try to invent little impotent fixes for things within it (as if some random individual's pet solutions would have any political currency anyway).

But like I said, I do think people need to think about why their 'right' as individuals to privately own and freely play with guns is one of the main considerations as far as this issue goes and seems to take precedence over the lives of huge swathes of vulnerable people.

Lily Briscoe

2nd December 2013, 10:01

It's pretty obvious you're calling gun owners mouth breathing hick, showing your elitist hatred of anyone who isn't from the city because they are "rural" and since they are rural, they are therefore uneducated, therefore will go out and beat their wives! And yeah, it did come off as implying rape. You are too worried about guns are meant to kill - but he said they are used as self-defense. So if Tricemarx is going to kill, it'll be as a result of someone else trying to kill him.
You wanna stop crimes? Make your case. But don't you dare say that gun owners are domestic abusers. Sure some of them are. Gun culture is ridiculous. But that doesn't mean that gun owners are somehow bad people, which your latent liberal elitism implies.

This is brutally dishonest and shitty of you.
It is pretty amazing to me that you can talk about 'dishonesty' after making a comment like this without seeing the irony.

La ComÃ©die Noire

2nd December 2013, 11:34

I'm for gun ownership, not that it would make an overall difference for large scale revolution as other forces come into play besides military ones.

Blake's Baby

8th December 2013, 13:30

The link between anti-gun legislation and gun crime is by no means clear. There are states in the US with little gun-control and not a lot of gun crime, and then there are states with lots of fairly strict gun legislation and lots of gun crime. Ultimately, social conditions cause gun deaths, not the lack of laws against guns.

The Marxist position is against gun laws.

And what has this to do with the question? The OP posted a thread about gun ownership, not anti-gun legislation. It's not about laws, it's about guns. Do you deny that people in the US are 40 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in the UK? Do you deny that it's the availability of guns, that cause high rates of gun deaths, and that correspondingly, low rates of gun availability cause low rates of gun deaths?

Full Metal Bolshevik

13th December 2013, 12:41

DDR

13th December 2013, 13:35

As an European I'm against gun ownership. Simply because they are killing tools.
But I'd argue the reason there's a lot of gun crime in US is more due to extreme inequality than gun ownership itself, just compare it to Switzerland.

So, the best step should be diminishing inequality, but reducing gun ownership would obviously bring benefits to the society too.

As Europeans, Finland has, more or less, the same gun ownership laws as the US, yet they dont have the same amount of violent crimes. Guns are not the problem, the matter is education and social justice, the rest is just pure BS.

Full Metal Bolshevik

13th December 2013, 14:45

As Europeans, Finland has, more or less, the same gun ownership laws as the US, yet they dont have the same amount of violent crimes. Guns are not the problem, the matter is education and social justice, the rest is just pure BS.

I said that in my post, but used Switzerland and not Finalnd as an example.

However it's not just BS. Do you honestly think if gun ownership had more restrictions (on par with most European natiuons), gun crime and accidents wouldn't go down?

DDR

13th December 2013, 20:12

I said that in my post, but used Switzerland and not Finalnd as an example.

However it's not just BS. Do you honestly think if gun ownership had more restrictions (on par with most European natiuons), gun crime and accidents wouldn't go down?

Switzerland works better as an example, in every house there's an assault rifle (so to speak, military service is obligatory, and after completion you keep your weapon to take it home), and violent crimes aren't high. And yes I do belive that gun control solves nothing, just like prohibition solves nothing. Education about guns and the elimination of the social inequality that cause crime is the only way to end gun crime.

RedBen

13th December 2013, 21:29

Govmint tryin' to take our cannons...

Anyway, a lot of young, male (http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Children_and_Families/Guns.pdf), rural American lefties seem to have a gun fetish and try to construct stupid political justifications for it.

On a gut level, my feeling is more or less 'I hope the government takes your guns you assholes'. But on a political level, I think the whole issue is basically a giant distraction and I don't think the legal status of firearms is at all relevant to working class self-organization in 2013.

urban mexican here. i keep a rifle in the closet. i plan on getting more in the future. if you think the gov should start taking people's guns, are you sure you aren't really just a liberal?

Comrade Jacob

13th December 2013, 21:32

Lily Briscoe

14th December 2013, 00:01

if you think the gov should start taking people's guns, are you sure you aren't really just a liberal?
I said I was indifferent to the issue on a political level. On a purely emotional level (I.e. Not my political position but my gut reaction), when people obviously have an emotional attachment to their gun(s) and say stuff like this:
i keep a rifle in the closet. i plan on getting more in the future the thought of the government taking away their firearms absolutely brings a smile to my face. If that makes me a liberal, I'm cool with that.

I have more to say about this actually, but am on my phone at work atm, so will try to get back to it later tonight (hopefully not tho cuz I'll be smashed) or else sometime this weekend.

Logical seal

14th December 2013, 01:01

It is of utpomost importantance to the far-left to be armed, and millitant, And defend the human rights as the left is famously known for.

blake 3:17

14th December 2013, 01:33

less guns, less idiot murders

Remus Bleys

14th December 2013, 02:25

I kinda wish that I learned how to use a gun in the living hell that was boy scouts.

Also strix that's very elitist and liberal. Are you a student or just an asshole?

Skyhilist

14th December 2013, 02:54

Surprised this thread is still going.

I mean seriously "Marxist stance on gun control"? Marxism isn't supposed to be some dogma, you're allowed to think for yourself instead of just looking to Das Kapital in the same way Christian fundamentalists look to the bible.

Lily Briscoe

14th December 2013, 20:22

Also strix that's very elitist and liberal. Are you a student or just an asshole?
Again with the buzzwords. For the record, no I'm not a student and I've never been to university. I'm in my mid-twenties, I'm a courier and I make $12 an hour (which, working full time, comes to just under $25,000 a year).

Really the entire idea that being critical of private gun ownership makes you an "elitist" is such a total crock of shit. I posted really instructive links (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2692552&postcount=23) on the second page of this thread which contained demographic information on both gun ownership and support for 'gun rights' in the US*. Probably nobody actually clicked the links since I was presenting an angle on the whole 'gun ownership' thing that a lot of people here seem to be religiously opposed to even thinking about. But if you go back and read them, they demonstrate very clearly that both gun ownership and 'gun rights' politics in the US are overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly the province of middle class white male property owners, and that the people least likely to be armed and most likely to be opposed to 'gun rights' are not the wealthy elitist liberal boogeymen from the right-populist narrative (that a lot of people here apparently swallow hook, line, and sinker) but on the contrary are hispanics/blacks/women/people making less than $30,000 a year. Why? Because for one, these are the sort of people who are most likely to actually find themselves on the wrong side of a gun, so for them the whole issue of 'gun rights' isn't about whether or not they have the 'right' to have a gun hobby or to bond with their white suburban middle class dad at the gun range or whatever but rather the 'rights' to stockpile deadly weapons with impunity of people who help enforce the structures of violence that surround them in their daily lives. And also, the fact that ;gun rights' in America has nothing to do with vulnerable people 'defending themselves' or 'arming themselves against a tyrannical government' or whatever bullshit and everything to do with middle class white men protecting their property from the rabble. That opposition to this state of affairs could possibly be framed as 'elitist' is really testament to how completely fucked up and backwards the political discourse in american society is.

Here was some of the relevant stuff from the links:
http://i.imgur.com/Fz7Lzib.jpg

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/nizmqqsh2ewwqumlxgij7a.gif

*Also Remus Bleys, your location is set as "Apparently Denmark" but I'm assuming that's some sort of inside joke, because things you have said have given me the distinct impression that you are definitely an American

Queen Mab

14th December 2013, 20:33

Ocean Seal

14th December 2013, 20:49

Okay we've had this gun control thread for a while, but I wanted to say that I really dislike gun ownership. For the most part it simply empowers a security rich state and gives it cause to adopt more oppressive measures, and I have yet to see the firing of a shot outside of a revolutionary context do any good in terms of protecting us against the bourgeoisie. The Black Panthers had guns, and showed us that going down that road with guns doesn't necessarily help. For all the guns that they had they wound up dead or in jail without significant casualties on the other end (iirc). They are simply not useful.

Full Metal Bolshevik

15th December 2013, 13:43

motion denied

15th December 2013, 16:33

I absolutely oppose regulation of weaponry by the bourgeois state. When we get to a communist society there will be no class antagonisms and no crime, so guns will be useless and can be disposed of (except for sport). But until then I'm not going to trust bourgeois politicians being given the power to dictate who is armed and who isn't.

As if an armed citizen would stand a chance against the whole fucking apparatus of the bourgeois state. Whether you are armed or not, the State can kill, as it has always done with ease.

Living in a country where some people are heavily armed (big drug dealers have anti-aircraft army shit) I can tell that when the army or the police comes, they do not stand a chance. They just don't.

Slavic

15th December 2013, 17:24

As if an armed citizen would stand a chance against the whole fucking apparatus of the bourgeois state. Whether you are armed or not, the State can kill, as it has always done with ease.

Living in a country where some people are heavily armed (big drug dealers have anti-aircraft army shit) I can tell that when the army or the police comes, they do not stand a chance. They just don't.

Your right, mind as well give up being a socialist and become liberals since the State is just going to kill us anyway. :rolleyes:

If a revolution were to occur, the "whole fucking apparatus" of the bourgeois state won't exactly be whole. I guarantee you there will be some level of mutiny within the military/police, as well as breakdown of state institutions. As I see it, the more weapons in the hands of the proletariat pre-revolution the easier it is to raid armories during the revolution.

Edit: Actually after rereading your post I'm not sure who are your referring to in your last sentence. The army/police or the "big drug dealers with anti-aircraft army shit"?

motion denied

15th December 2013, 17:43

Your right, mind as well give up being a socialist and become liberals since the State is just going to kill us anyway. :rolleyes:

If a revolution were to occur, the "whole fucking apparatus" of the bourgeois state won't exactly be whole. I guarantee you there will be some level of mutiny within the military/police, as well as breakdown of state institutions. As I see it, the more weapons in the hands of the proletariat pre-revolution the easier it is to raid armories during the revolution.

Edit: Actually after rereading your post I'm not sure who are your referring to in your last sentence. The army/police or the "big drug dealers with anti-aircraft army shit"?

Or maybe grab a Glock and seize power. :rolleyes:

If a revolution were to occur, you say. We're a bit far from there, don't you think? Having guns and not knowing how, why or against whom to use them doesn't bring revolution any closer.

An armed but not class consciousness proletariat is more likely to shoot itself, rather than anyone else.

I was referring to drug dealers. Regardless of their James-Braddock-esque weapons, they all ran.

Slavic

15th December 2013, 17:52

If a revolution were to occur, you say. We're a bit far from there, don't you think?

No where did I state that a revolution was right around the corner.

Having guns and not knowing how, why or against whom to use them doesn't bring revolution any closer. An armed but not class consciousness proletariat is more likely to shoot itself, rather than anyone else.

And disarming the proletariat and telling them that the state will just murder them if they try to revolt sure as hell isn't bringing the revolution any closer either. I am well aware that a revolution can not even begin without a level of class consciousness but I don't think we should neuter the proletariat. Class consciousness is needed to expose and bring to light the nature of capitalist oppression, but consciousness is not power, violence is power.

the debater

15th December 2013, 18:55

Legal but regulated.

Gun owners must have proper training before they can even think about owning a gun. To go along with strict regulation of guns, I also support neighbor-hood watch groups and having more shooting ranges so people can practice.

Queen Mab

15th December 2013, 23:09

As if an armed citizen would stand a chance against the whole fucking apparatus of the bourgeois state. Whether you are armed or not, the State can kill, as it has always done with ease.

Living in a country where some people are heavily armed (big drug dealers have anti-aircraft army shit) I can tell that when the army or the police comes, they do not stand a chance. They just don't.

An armed citizen wouldn't stand a chance, sure. But the armed working class?

The Paris Commune was precipitated by the Versailles government deciding to remove cannons from the city. Presumably you think the Parisians should have let the government disarm and then slaughter them, since the Communards didn't stand a chance anyway? And the Red Guards should have given their guns back to the Provisional Government after the Kornilov Coup, since, hey, the state was always going to be better armed than them?

motion denied

17th December 2013, 15:59

An armed citizen wouldn't stand a chance, sure. But the armed working class?

The Paris Commune was precipitated by the Versailles government deciding to remove cannons from the city. Presumably you think the Parisians should have let the government disarm and then slaughter them, since the Communards didn't stand a chance anyway? And the Red Guards should have given their guns back to the Provisional Government after the Kornilov Coup, since, hey, the state was always going to be better armed than them?

I don't know if I totally agree with this, but... Point taken.

Marshal of the People

21st December 2013, 03:15

Flying Purple People Eater

21st December 2013, 03:49

I think the moral of this thread is that marxists do not have a singular stance on gun ownership - something that in all honesty should be obvious.

BIXX

21st December 2013, 10:30

Why? Just ban all guns. If they want to subjugate or kill someone they can use a taser or a knife.

Banning doesn't sole the illegal ownership problem. Plus, fuck banning guns, we should be focussing on people learning proper usage.

People will kill people, whether it be with guns or knives or what have you. I honestly don't see a qualitative difference (other than the fact that death can be more instantaneous and less painful with a gun).

the debater

22nd December 2013, 22:12

You all know what would be really cool? If instead of offensive weapons like guns, we had defensive weapons instead. Imagine a weapon that when fired, would create a gigantic force field that would repel all sorts of bullets. Didn't Nicola Tesla actually try to come up with some really powerful version of what I'm talking about?

SensibleLuxemburgist

26th December 2013, 11:47

No gun laws. Ownership of guns remains a purely personal choice and guns should be readily available for ownership upon provision by the government when that choice has been made. Of course, in a perfectly socialist economy all citizens should have ready access to weapons for the purpose of a persistent revolution as well as self-defense from any reactionary forces they should encounter.

Marshal of the People

28th December 2013, 01:48

Banning doesn't sole the illegal ownership problem. Plus, fuck banning guns, we should be focussing on people learning proper usage.

People will kill people, whether it be with guns or knives or what have you. I honestly don't see a qualitative difference (other than the fact that death can be more instantaneous and less painful with a gun).

A man with a gun can kill dozens of people while a man with a knife would not be able to do that. Haven't any of you herad of school shootings?

blake 3:17

28th December 2013, 06:19

I think the moral of this thread is that marxists do not have a singular stance on gun ownership - something that in all honesty should be obvious.

You're so lucky you weren't handed years and years of crap Trot garbage about gun control. Ortho Trot positions have been full opposition to gun control -- No Monopoloy on Violence By the State -- but in reality??? fuck that.

In English North America they're mostly used by men to kill women.

Rottenfruit

28th December 2013, 14:31

Pro gun

. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun
Mao Zedong

Flying Purple People Eater

28th December 2013, 14:56

Pro gun

. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun
Mao Zedong

That's exactly why legalising gun-ownership is stupid. Doesn't matter what killing machine you want to get for the firing range, it is not going to do a thing against one of the most extensive and well-funded military organisations in the world.

I remember when this shit was only pushed by Nazis. Since the advent of the NRA it seems even leftists are going bonkers about this illogical paranoiac bullshit.

The Jay

28th December 2013, 16:49

You're so lucky you weren't handed years and years of crap Trot garbage about gun control. Ortho Trot positions have been full opposition to gun control -- No Monopoloy on Violence By the State -- but in reality??? fuck that.

In English North America they're mostly used by men to kill women.

I would like a source for that please.

Marshal of the People

28th December 2013, 19:21

Ele'ill

28th December 2013, 20:18

a question for those in favor of gun control or whatever you would call it- in a future society what body of people is going to oversee gun control and what body is going to enforce it, what is the penalty of violation, who decides it and who enforces it

The Jay

28th December 2013, 22:34

Are ownership of WMDs a purely personal choice?

How is a WMD a defensive tool? Are you going to threaten mutually assured destruction with a mugger or something?

goalkeeper

28th December 2013, 23:19

Or maybe grab a Glock and seize power. :rolleyes:

If a revolution were to occur, you say. We're a bit far from there, don't you think? Having guns and not knowing how, why or against whom to use them doesn't bring revolution any closer.

An armed but not class consciousness proletariat is more likely to shoot itself, rather than anyone else.

I was referring to drug dealers. Regardless of their James-Braddock-esque weapons, they all ran.

most trade unions are reactionary at the moment and do nothing in terms of advancing revolution but we still defend the right of workers to organise independently into unions. likewise some worker, class conscious or not, with an AK in his closet or handgun on his hip isn't likely to use it for any revolutionary ends but we still defend the right of workers against the state to maintain access to firearms.

Rss

29th December 2013, 00:55

That's exactly why legalising gun-ownership is stupid. Doesn't matter what killing machine you want to get for the firing range, it is not going to do a thing against one of the most extensive and well-funded military organisations in the world.

I remember when this shit was only pushed by Nazis. Since the advent of the NRA it seems even leftists are going bonkers about this illogical paranoiac bullshit.

What kind of an idiot would face organized military in open field battle while only fielding militias? There is thing called guerilla warfare, you know.

Flying Purple People Eater

29th December 2013, 01:29

What kind of an idiot would face organized military in open field battle while only fielding militias? There is thing called guerilla warfare, you know.

In this context, however, Guerrilla warfare fits into the larger subtext of a thing called 'Southerner wet dreams'.

Stockpiling AK47s in your basement is ultimately not going to stop the US military - in it's very country of origin - from getting rid of you. This is less an argument over "who will be armed come the revolution" and more of an expose on who here is an ultra paranoid gun-nut who'd rather that people get shot to death during an argument between strangers to keep gun liberty strong, and who isn't outright insane.

The Jay

29th December 2013, 01:45

In this context, however, Guerrilla warfare fits into the larger subtext of a thing called 'Southerner wet dreams'.

Stockpiling AK47s in your basement is ultimately not going to stop the US military - in it's very country of origin - from getting rid of you. This is less an argument over "who will be armed come the revolution" and more of an expose on who here is an ultra paranoid gun-nut who'd rather that people get shot to death during an argument between strangers to keep gun liberty strong, and who isn't outright insane.

That is not the argument. There are plenty of nutters that do have those wet dreams but that is not the majority of what people that want to carry are about. Here is an example of a responsible gun owner like what the rest of us are talking about:

dHn3i4vSfhg

BIXX

29th December 2013, 02:51

A man with a gun can kill dozens of people while a man with a knife would not be able to do that. Haven't any of you herad of school shootings?

Same goes for killing cops.

And politicians.

And rapists.

You get the idea, so kindly fuck off.

liberlict

29th December 2013, 03:07

Marx seemed pretty flexible in his approach to policies. He didn't really foresee that the proletariat would remain so obstinately divided along religious and ethnic lines. Perhaps if he lived to see the military industrial project he would have had a different view on this. Really at this point in history, giving everybody a gun would just give people more fatal ways to resolve their arguments. I've even heard arguments along the lines of Libertarians want guns legalized to fuel intra-class fighting.

Ele'ill

29th December 2013, 21:55

nobody will answer my question

TheSocialistMetalhead

29th December 2013, 22:41

I think gun violence is not so much a legislative problem or a matter of too many people having too many guns. Gun violence is a symptom of the real problem, which is a cultural and social one.

Rottenfruit

30th December 2013, 15:27

Sinister Intents

31st December 2013, 03:12

nobody will answer my question

What was your question?

Lily Briscoe

31st December 2013, 21:58

The question was this:

a question for those in favor of gun control or whatever you would call it- in a future society what body of people is going to oversee gun control and what body is going to enforce it, what is the penalty of violation, who decides it and who enforces it

Which is only answerable to people with crystal balls or people who like jerking it off to writing meaningless blueprints for 'how specific thing will be handled in communism' anyway. So that could be why no one has answered it. Not that there aren't plenty of the crystal-ball-gazing/meaningless-blueprint-writing types on revleft, but my guess would be that they skew more toward the 'defend the rights of white male property owners to stockpile AK-47s in their closets!' perspective on this issue.

BIXX

31st December 2013, 22:04

The question was this:

Which is only answerable to people with crystal balls or people who like jerking it off to writing meaningless blueprints for 'how specific thing will be handled in communism' anyway. So that could be why no one has answered it. Not that there aren't plenty of the crystal-ball-gazing/meaningless-blueprint-writing types on revleft, but my guess would be that they skew more toward the 'defend the rights of white male property owners to stockpile AK-47s in their closets!' perspective on this issue.

What is your deal with generalizing people who want EVERYONE to be able to own guns as people who want white male property holders to hoard guns? Fuck you and your assumption. Provide some fucking evidence that we are doing that, or stop masturbating in your desk chair to how you implied we are racists.

Also gun control laws have been traditionally racist.

Yuppie Grinder

31st December 2013, 22:10

In this context, however, Guerrilla warfare fits into the larger subtext of a thing called 'Southerner wet dreams'.

Stockpiling AK47s in your basement is ultimately not going to stop the US military - in it's very country of origin - from getting rid of you. This is less an argument over "who will be armed come the revolution" and more of an expose on who here is an ultra paranoid gun-nut who'd rather that people get shot to death during an argument between strangers to keep gun liberty strong, and who isn't outright insane.

You come off as elitist in snobby in all your posts in this thread. Instead of having sound arguments you associate guns with people you see as beneath you. Could you please explain what exactly is wrong with Southeners? Your attitude is the reason why a lot of blue collar workers in the U.S. hate the left.

Ele'ill

31st December 2013, 22:26

The question was this:

Which is only answerable to people with crystal ballsburpburpburpburpdkehhf

Forgive me I thought this vbulletin forum was for discussing revolutionary praxis of a revolution that hasn't occurred yet. The question I posed isn't some semantic nuance it's an absolute deal breaker regarding authority, governance, and state.

Lily Briscoe

31st December 2013, 22:38

Your attitude is the reason why a lot of blue collar workers in the U.S. hate the left.

Yes, in addition to defending abortion rights. And being a bunch of queers, really.

Or else maybe the working class isn't the mass of backwards right-wingers that some people here assume, and the thing that is really "snobby" and "elitist" is this condescending, outdated stereotype of workers.

Forgive me I thought this vbulletin forum was for discussing revolutionary praxis of a revolution that hasn't occurred yet. The question I posed isn't some semantic nuance it's an absolute deal breaker regarding authority, governance, and state.
To me, it's basically on the level of 'how will children be raised after the revolution?' I can say that I don't think children will continue to be the private property of individuals (and I don't think that guns will be either, to the extent that they aren't all melted down). But beyond that, I don't know the answer, and I don't think it's for me to decide.

The Jay

31st December 2013, 22:54

The question was this:

Which is only answerable to people with crystal balls or people who like jerking it off to writing meaningless blueprints for 'how specific thing will be handled in communism' anyway. So that could be why no one has answered it. Not that there aren't plenty of the crystal-ball-gazing/meaningless-blueprint-writing types on revleft, but my guess would be that they skew more toward the 'defend the rights of white male property owners to stockpile AK-47s in their closets!' perspective on this issue.

No one appreciates your attempts at misdirecting and misrepresenting others' views. I agree with EchoShock completely here. You need to put up your fucking evidence that the people disagreeing with you are either predatory towards women or that they're defending property owners.

Os Cangaceiros

31st December 2013, 23:05

Stockpiling AK47s in your basement is ultimately not going to stop the US military - in it's very country of origin - from getting rid of you.

If the US military is going around the country liquidating it's own citizenry, that seems like a pretty serious situation. Not that it hasn't happened in the past, but the point about small arms being used to stymy the world's most advanced military is basically a sound point. Small arms represent the fundamental firepower of, say, the Taliban or the Iraqi insurgency. Small arms don't need to contribute to the victory over a state military, that's obviously impossible, they simply have to contribute to making civil society ungovernable. And there are hundreds of millions of small arms circulating in the USA.

It's going to be no small feat closing that Pandora's box, state-issued edict or no state-issued edict.

Ultimately, though, revolutionary change is not going to be one centered around a military struggle, or at least not predominantly centered around violence. If that becomes the case then the revolution is already lost, in my opinion. Real emancipatory social change becomes mired in the violence and hierarchical discipline of a military campaign, opportunists take center stage and the record of revolutions marked by an excessive degree of violent terror isn't good, as far as improving the lives of people long-term & maintaining the original ideals of the revolution, to say the least.

I'm pretty suspicious of those who would seek to prohibit all private gun ownership, though. Guns alone, whether we're talking about a hunting rifle or a 20MM cannon or a nuclear weapon, can't demolish a social order (and it won't build any sort of new order worth living in), but the prohibition of guns often stinks to me of a new group of leaders who're afraid of getting their heads blown off by their irate subjects.

"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

Os Cangaceiros

31st December 2013, 23:25

I grew up around firearms all my childhood and experienced first-hand the sort of mindset around guns that so baffles some non-Americans, namely the traditions associated with those people in rural areas for whom guns are an important part of life. It's not really entirely rational, there ARE "gun nuts" out there (I've met my fair share), but for the most part it's something that goes back hundreds and hundreds of years and isn't, in my opinion, "reactionary". It's a tradition that's taken extremely seriously in most cases, the passing down of firearms knowledge from one generation to the next, and it isn't all about protecting "muh property rights from the librahls and commies" or whatever people here choose to characterize it as.

At the same time I'm capable of seeing the opposing viewpoint on it. Guns are ultimately tools of death, and I'd like to see a world where weapons were beaten down into plows or whatever (even though I admittedly like shooting guns). The USA is a country marked by a culture of violence and guns contribute to that. But at the same time the distrust of the common citizenry to own firearms seems to go hand-in-hand with a trust in the state to operate within the people's best interests, and I don't trust the state at all. I trust my neighbors more than I trust the cops or the military.

Rottenfruit

1st January 2014, 13:06

poor rice farmers in Vietnam crushed the frence army and then bested the strongest military force in the world, with that logic all of the usa military with all of its reserve troops and fit in service at the same time could hold usa if the population of usa was 70 million , the population of usa is 313 million so yes the miltiary would be crushed on a scale even worse then in vietnam in a civil war in usa

Ele'ill

1st January 2014, 16:34

Marshal of the People

8th January 2014, 00:40

Same goes for killing cops.

And politicians.

And rapists.

You get the idea, so kindly fuck off.

Your post makes no sense! Flaming is never the answer.

BIXX

8th January 2014, 01:55

Your post makes no sense! Flaming is never the answer.

Actually it makes perfect sense. Did you not understand the context or what? I'd be happy to explain but I have no idea what there is to not understand.

Marshal of the People

11th January 2014, 02:09

Actually it makes perfect sense. Did you not understand the context or what? I'd be happy to explain but I have no idea what there is to not understand.

Do you mean to say killing innocent schoolchildren is the same as killing cops or rapists? You told me to f&£@ off, that is rude!

BIXX

11th January 2014, 07:21

Do you mean to say killing innocent schoolchildren is the same as killing cops or rapists? You told me to f&£@ off, that is rude!

Not that killing kids is the same as killing cops and rapists, but that any argument that involves "so many of this or that group can be killed" is pretty weak as any groups chance of being killed goes up when you have a firearm.

Anyway, you've been acting troll-y lately. What's up with that?

Devrim

11th January 2014, 09:19

What is your deal with generalizing people who want EVERYONE to be able to own guns as people who want white male property holders to hoard guns? Fuck you and your assumption. Provide some fucking evidence that we are doing that, or stop masturbating in your desk chair to how you implied we are racists.

Also gun control laws have been traditionally racist.

Yet according to a link posted earlier in this thread, it is ethnic minorities along with women and the low paid who tend to be in favour of gun control:

http://i.imgur.com/Fz7Lzib.jpg

Nobody seems to have taken this up at all.

The attitude towards guns in the US is very different to that in Europe. I think that it has a lot to do with the individualistic frontiersman ideology that to a certain extent still forms a part of the American political discourse.

Seeing what are essentially right-wing themes being justified with leftist jargon reflects, I think, on the essential charecter of the left in the US.

Devrim

Lowtech

11th January 2014, 15:22

I would assume that a proper society would not have a state of any kind that would abolish gun ownership all together, but necessary measures would be put in place to keep them out of the hands of those who are an obvious danger to others, although I would hope that we'd all have the common sense to know what was necessary for self defense and what isn't.

Guns certainly would not be mass produced. without standing armies or wars, what need would there be?

if you made a weapon with your own two hands, a bow or a sling and you practiced it's use so you could hunt or defend yourself with it, now that's something to respect and something consistent with the real economic process.

BIXX

11th January 2014, 16:30

Yet according to a link posted earlier in this thread, it is ethnic minorities along with women and the low paid who tend to be in favour of gun control:

http://i.imgur.com/Fz7Lzib.jpg

Nobody seems to have taken this up at all.

Well, if you look at history, the founding fathers disarmed free black and slaves so they couldn't revolt. In the Dred Scott case, one of the judges ruled that black couldn't be citizens because they would have all the rights that came with it- including the right to bear arms.

The KKK supported gun control against blacks (at one time it was at the too of their agenda). The NRA supported gun laws the keep them out of the hands of immigrants, and furthermore, MLK was denied a license to get a gun, and finally, laws were passed to keep guns out of the hands of the Black Panthers.

So yeah, gun control laws have been traditionally racist.

The attitude towards guns in the US is very different to that in Europe. I think that it has a lot to do with the individualistic frontiersman ideology that to a certain extent still forms a part of the American political discourse.

Well, I think you're wrong. Most people who are against gun control (the crazy ones and the non-crazy ones) just like them. They give some people a feeling of safety. They're fun.

Seeing what are essentially right-wing themes being justified with leftist jargon reflects, I think, on the essential character of the left in the US.

More masturbation.

Devrim

11th January 2014, 17:07

Well, if you look at history, the founding fathers disarmed free black and slaves so they couldn't revolt. In the Dred Scott case, one of the judges ruled that black couldn't be citizens because they would have all the rights that came with it- including the right to bear arms.

The KKK supported gun control against blacks (at one time it was at the too of their agenda). The NRA supported gun laws the keep them out of the hands of immigrants, and furthermore, MLK was denied a license to get a gun, and finally, laws were passed to keep guns out of the hands of the Black Panthers.

So yeah, gun control laws have been traditionally racist.

No, that doesn't follow. What your argument says here is that gun control has been used in a racist manner. It does not say that gun control laws are, or even have been racist in themselves.

The attitude towards guns in the US is very different to that in Europe. I think that it has a lot to do with the individualistic frontiersman ideology that to a certain extent still forms a part of the American political discourse.
Well, I think you're wrong. Most people who are against gun control (the crazy ones and the non-crazy ones) just like them. They give some people a feeling of safety. They're fun.The attitude to guns is different in Europe and America. That is a fact. There must be a reason for this. It certainly isn't that Americans think that guns are 'fun', but Europeans just don't have ay sense of fun, as you seem to suggest.

Seeing what are essentially right-wing themes being justified with leftist jargon reflects, I think, on the essential character of the left in the US. More masturbation.More succinct argument, it is pretty difficult to counter that. Of course, the whole pro-gun lobby in the US is deeply tied in with the right-wing, and many of the arguments on this thread are shared with them. However, there is also a certain amount of leftist jargon about revolution and racism mixed in with all this.

Devrim

The Jay

11th January 2014, 18:22

Devrim, are you saying that I should follow bourgeois laws that are intended to control even more of what I do? Besides, guns are fun as hell and is a big reason for people wanting to keep them over here.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th January 2014, 18:29

NGNM85

11th January 2014, 19:08

Because people never hold opinions that are against their own interests, right?

Obviously, that happens. However, the preponderance of data suggests that, in this case, for women, and ethnic minorities, gun control legislation is in their immediate self interest.

Tenka

11th January 2014, 19:27

I often have a lingering paranoia about being shot. I live in a state with a lot of guns and gun-loving white men, and am at least two types of minority. Gun-loving white men in the U.S. have been known, from time to time, to shoot minorities just 'cause. Does my paranoia about being shot mean that I ought to buy a gun (supposing I had money) and training to use it to defend myself (again, supposing I had money)?

I don't think so. More guns is more opportunities for death. Paranoid gun-culture is, however, self-perpetuating and inextinguishable from the U.S., which is why I would leave here if I had money. (edit: one of the reasons anyway)

Marshal of the People

11th January 2014, 20:12

Not that killing kids is the same as killing cops and rapists, but that any argument that involves "so many of this or that group can be killed" is pretty weak as any groups chance of being killed goes up when you have a firearm.

Anyway, you've been acting troll-y lately. What's up with that?

I agree that there is a higher chance of being killed in a situation when a firearm is involved, but I thought you were on the pro-gun side?

BIXX

11th January 2014, 20:29

I agree that there is a higher chance of being killed in a situation when a firearm is involved, but I thought you were on the pro-gun side?

I am, I just wanted to point out that saying more people can be killed with a gun than without a gun applies equally to rapists as it does children- which means it is a pretty weak argument.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th January 2014, 20:32

Obviously, that happens. However, the preponderance of data suggests that, in this case, for women, and ethnic minorities, gun control legislation is in their immediate self interest.

Restricting firearms possession to rich(er) white guys is the effect of gun control, so no.

Marshal of the People

11th January 2014, 20:38

I am, I just wanted to point out that saying more people can be killed with a gun than without a gun applies equally to rapists as it does children- which means it is a pretty weak argument.

I agree with that also I just used school children as an example because they are frequent victims. How exactly is it a weak argument?

The Jay

11th January 2014, 20:55

I agree with that also I just used school children as an example because they are frequent victims. How exactly is it a weak argument?

Oh really? Frequent as in what percentage dear chum?

If you say that one child dying is enough then I agree but then again, I don't shoot anyone. I don't see why I should be restricted.

Marshal of the People

11th January 2014, 21:00

Oh really? Frequent as in what percentage dear chum?

If you say that one child dying is enough then I agree but then again, I don't shoot anyone. I don't see why I should be restricted.

Ummm... Usually more than one child dies in a school shooting.

The Jay

11th January 2014, 21:05

Ummm... Usually more than one child dies in a school shooting.

I would wager that more kids die in car accidents. I could find the statistics if you wish.

Marshal of the People

11th January 2014, 21:10

I would wager that more kids die in car accidents. I could find the statistics if you wish.

That is true but by banning guns we could save the lives of not just kids but adults as well.

The Jay

11th January 2014, 21:12

That is true but by banning guns we could save the lives of not just kids but adults as well.

You could say the same about alcohol. My point is that you're reaching for an excuse for what: giving the bourgeois government more power?

Tenka

11th January 2014, 21:14

You could say the same about alcohol. My point is that you're reaching for an excuse for what: giving the bourgeois government more power?

I don't think guns and alcohol being ubiquitous takes any power away from the bourgeois government...

Marshal of the People

11th January 2014, 21:16

You could say the same about alcohol. My point is that you're reaching for an excuse for what: giving the bourgeois government more power?

I actually support the prohibition of alcohol.

The Jay

11th January 2014, 21:19

I don't think guns and alcohol being ubiquitous takes any power away from the bourgeois government...

No shit it doesn't oust them. The point is that I don't want to give them any excuse to fuck with me.

The Jay

11th January 2014, 21:20

I actually support the prohibition of alcohol.

What don't you want the government to do?

Tenka

11th January 2014, 21:21

I actually support the prohibition of alcohol.

Leftists want to take our alcohol!!!!1
Actually I am a teetotaler and lack the constitution to consume any decent amount of alcohol anyway, and am not against prohibition. Alcohol is a very dangerous drug, and not just to the consumer. However, you can expect comments like "HOW'D THAT WORK OUT IN THE U.S.???". I recommend not pursuing such conversation further.

edit: NOT THAT I THINK PROHIBITION CAN BE FEASIBLE IN AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM WITH MARKETS AND CONSEQUENTLY BLACK MARKETS.

Devrim

11th January 2014, 21:23

Devrim, are you saying that I should follow bourgeois laws that are intended to control even more of what I do?

I am not giving you any advice for living at all. Nor am I advocating gun control. I was merely pointing out that views on gun control are very different in Europe and the US, and offering some commentary on why those on the American left end up sounding like the mainstream right.

Devrim

Devrim

11th January 2014, 21:26

Yet according to a link posted earlier in this thread, it is ethnic minorities along with women and the low paid who tend to be in favour of gun control: Because people never hold opinions that are against their own interests, right?

It is of course possible, but in this case I would imagine it is not the case, quite the contrary in fact. I would imagine that proportionately those are the demographics that are most likely to suffer from fire-arm related violence, and that the opposite, well paid white men, are probably those least likely to suffer from this.

Devrim

The Jay

11th January 2014, 21:26

I am not giving you any advice for living at all. Nor am I advocating gun control. I was merely pointing out that views on gun control are very different in Europe and the US, and offering some commentary on why those on the American left end up sounding like the mainstream right.

Devrim

I suppose but the way that you wrote it led me to think you were implying something. Also, if the right advocates that people should breath regularly I am not going to say that is a bad idea.

Ele'ill

11th January 2014, 21:33

why does fire arm related violence occur within the demographics most strongly in favor of it

Devrim

11th January 2014, 21:35

I suppose but the way that you wrote it led me to think you were implying something.

I think that we probably both relate to politics in a different way. For me, I don't think it is the task of communists to propose legislation for the bourgeois state. It is not the job of revolutionaries to propose better ways of running capital, so I don't take a position either for, or against, gun controls.

That said, on a personal level, I would rather live in a state where guns were less common. Our next door neighbour's window got shot through in a post-football match celebration a few years ago, and after that we used to go and sit in our back room every time there was a big match on. I'd rather live without this sort of stuff.

Also, if the right advocates that people should breath regularly I am not going to say that is a bad idea.

Not in essence, no, but I think in this case it does have the same individualistic base as those of the right. I also think that the arguments about needing to have guns then there can be a revolution are ludicrous.

Devim

The Jay

11th January 2014, 21:40

I think that we probably both relate to politics in a different way. For me, I don't think it is the task of communists to propose legislation for the bourgeois state. It is not the job of revolutionaries to propose better ways of running capital, so I don't take a position either for, or against, gun controls.

That said, on a personal level, I would rather live in a state where guns were less common. Our next door neighbour's window got shot through in a post-football match celebration a few years ago, and after that we used to go and sit in our back room every time there was a big match on. I'd rather live without this sort of stuff.

I'm in agreement that we should not propose legislation for the state. I'm arguing against people doing so actually. I'm also sorry that happened to you. Much love.

Not in essence, no, but I think in this case it does have the same individualistic base as those of the right. I also think that the arguments about needing to have guns then there can be a revolution are ludicrous.

Devim

I never said anything about an armed fight against the state so I hope you're not attributing that rhetoric to me.

Marshal of the People

11th January 2014, 21:42

why does fire arm related violence occur within the demographics most strongly in favor of it

Explain further please.

Ele'ill

11th January 2014, 21:58

Explain further please.

I'm posing it as a question regarding the chart thing and the comments on the previous page and this one. (in light of people's political opinions not actually working in their interest)

Full Metal Bolshevik

11th January 2014, 22:46

You could say the same about alcohol. My point is that you're reaching for an excuse for what: giving the bourgeois government more power?
But guns have only one purpose, to kill.
Cars and other shit has death as an unfortunate side effect.

I like guns, but they made something called Airsoft for that. Mostly harmless and fun as hell.

The Jay

11th January 2014, 23:08

But guns have only one purpose, to kill.
Cars and other shit has death as an unfortunate side effect.

I like guns, but they made something called Airsoft for that. Mostly harmless and fun as hell.

Put forth a positive argument please.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th January 2014, 23:14

It is of course possible, but in this case I would imagine it is not the case, quite the contrary in fact. I would imagine that proportionately those are the demographics that are most likely to suffer from fire-arm related violence, and that the opposite, well paid white men, are probably those least likely to suffer from this.

Devrim

The violence of which you speak exists for broader reasons (largely to do with economic inequality) than the presence of firearms. Removing firearms from the picture won't remove the violence, it would just change the form it takes.

Marshal of the People

11th January 2014, 23:25

The violence of which you speak exists for broader reasons (largely to do with economic inequality) than the presence of firearms. Removing firearms from the picture won't remove the violence, it would just change the form it takes.

Yes but there would be less violence and it wouldn't be as violent.

NGNM85

12th January 2014, 04:02

Restricting firearms possession to rich(er) white guys is the effect of gun control, so no.

I present hard, objective facts, and all you can say is; `Nope.' Crap like this is why I don't take you seriously, anymore. First of all, guns are very rarely used, by civilians, for self defense, particularly women, that is virtually nonexistent. Second, most homicides are intraracial, not interracial. Third, most homicides are committed by an aquaintance, oftentimes the victims' spouse, or partner, what-have-you, and this is especially true for women, partly because men are responsible for such a dizzyingly disproportionate percentage of homicides. Women of color, most of all, are likely to be killed (never mind the thousands more who are injured, or terrorized) by their boyfriend, or husband. (Of course, this is not a result of some inherent tendency, but, rather socioeconomic factors.) Having a gun in a home, where domestic violence occurs, which happens wayyy too often, in this fucked society, dramatically increases the likelihood that that gun will be used against the woman in that house. I'm not advocating gun prohibition, and I never have. (Which will absolutely NEVER happen, anyhow.) I just don't see why you can't acknowledge the fact that for working class women, particularly women of color, guns are a seriously mixed bag, or that gun culture is patriarchal, and reactionary as fuck.

JollyRoger

27th January 2014, 09:02

I noticed a that a lot of leftists are anti- gun.....yet live in all white gated communities with armed guards planted at the entrances.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

27th January 2014, 12:13

I noticed a that a lot of leftists are anti- gun.....yet live in all white gated communities with armed guards planted at the entrances.

What the fuck are you talking about? Whom is it that live in white gated communities with armed guards?

The Jay

27th January 2014, 12:44

I noticed a that a lot of leftists are anti- gun.....yet live in all white gated communities with armed guards planted at the entrances.

I didn't know I had an armed guard. Huh. Thanks random internet person that I don't know!

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

27th January 2014, 16:02

I present hard, objective facts, and all you can say is; `Nope.' Crap like this is why I don't take you seriously, anymore. First of all, guns are very rarely used, by civilians, for self defense, particularly women, that is virtually nonexistent.

So what? That just means that civilians with guns are less likely to kill people than cops or soldiers.

Second, most homicides are intraracial, not interracial.

I never said otherwise. I was talking about access to firearms, not who kills who with them.

Third, most homicides are committed by an aquaintance, oftentimes the victims' spouse, or partner, what-have-you, and this is especially true for women, partly because men are responsible for such a dizzyingly disproportionate percentage of homicides. Women of color, most of all, are likely to be killed (never mind the thousands more who are injured, or terrorized) by their boyfriend, or husband. (Of course, this is not a result of some inherent tendency, but, rather socioeconomic factors.) Having a gun in a home, where domestic violence occurs, which happens wayyy too often, in this fucked society, dramatically increases the likelihood that that gun will be used against the woman in that house.

Again, you are tilting at windmills. Guns aren't the issue, the violence of what you perceptively call "this fucked society" is. I'm sure victims of violence are really comforted by the prospect of being stabbed rather than shot. Nah, didn't think so.

I'm not advocating gun prohibition, and I never have. (Which will absolutely NEVER happen, anyhow.) I just don't see why you can't acknowledge the fact that for working class women, particularly women of color, guns are a seriously mixed bag, or that gun culture is patriarchal, and reactionary as fuck.

I acknowledge that working class women face issues such as violence, but fail to see what's so special about guns in that regard. Violence against women is unacceptable no matter the form it takes, so why single out guns when that does nothing to address the underlying issues of a patriarchal society?

As for American gun culture, that definitely needs a revolution and shouldn't be emulated. But even US firearms aficionados aren't all reactionary gun nuts, so there is hope there.