Gun Ownership

[Paradox]

As an offshoot from the AK-47 thread in the History forum, I wanted to know how gun ownership fits into Communism. Members in the History forum are debating about assault rifles, and whether they're needed, particularly during peace-time. So, would people still own guns, and if so, would there be any restrictions? For example, would assault rifles be banned? Also, are people in Cuba allowed to own guns? What kind of laws are in place there? Oh, and ammo would be free, right?

[NovelGentry]

gun ownership

Private property is abolished under communism.

[STI]

Gun "ownership" wouldn't be an issue. Gun possession (or whatever you want to call it) would be necessary. An armed working class is necessary for the surpression of the bourgeois counter-revolution.

[antieverything]

Private property is abolished under communism.
:lol:

That's a joke right? Don't tell me you are yet to grasp the difference between private property and personal property!

...in case you don't, the term private property refers only to productive property--property related to the process of production. Personal property (anything from a toothbrush to a firearm) refers to property intended only for personal use that plays no role in the productive process.

[NovelGentry]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...rivate+property (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=31216&hl=private+property)

[Paradox]

QUOTE
gun ownership



Private property is abolished under communism.

So what, people wouldn't own their clothes, or their shoes? I hope you're being sarcastic, just joking as antieverything asked? What's wrong with owning a gun? What, is everyone with a gun going to use their "private property" to force others to work for them, thereby recreating class society? And as socialist_tiger said, we need guns to combat counter-revolutionary forces? That's not a bad idea, don't you think? Please tell me you're not serious on this one.

[NovelGentry]

Indeed I was responding to make a point, but it had little to do with the nature of property. My point was very simply that it wouldn't be the case that we all tote guns around and protect the revolution, rather that guns would be available for such purposes. Guns would be available for a number of purposes, including the possibility of subduing a criminal -- but it's kinda dumb to think along the lines of walking into someone's house and having a gander at their arsenal (personal or private). Just as dumb as following with a question like "and ammo would be free, right?"

I have a problem with what many leftists (including our friend antieverything) here thinks the difference between personal property and private property is. The issues isn't that someone with a gun can force you (with risk to your life) to work for them, it's that with private property if you have something which no one else can get, you can force them to work in order to acquire that thing. Private property is strictly a social relation to personal property and property in general.

Socialist tiger is certainly correct that we need guns to combat counter-revolutionary, so what would you have us do, everyone wear a six shooter and when they see a "counter-revolutionary" shoot him dead in the street? Should they be given fair chance? Maybe we arrange a shoot-out a high noon. Fair warning, I'm taking a bullet proof vest!!!

If you want my SERIOUS opinion, it's that people have to stop thinking of communist society in bourgeois terms.

[Paradox]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=31216&hl=private+property

Ok, so people can't "own" houses or toothbrushes, etc., etc., but they CAN use them. So if that's the case, why can't they use but not own a gun? They live in a house, but they don't "own" the house; they wear clothes, but they don't "own" the clothes; why can't there be a gun?

[STI]

Socialist tiger is certainly correct that we need guns to combat counter-revolutionary, so what would you have us do, everyone wear a six shooter and when they see a "counter-revolutionary" shoot him dead in the street?

Well, they do wear big neon signs that say "Counter Revolutionary" on them.


Should they be given fair chance?

Well, we should be fair in determining that s/he actually is a counter-revolutionary. If s/he is found to be, it's ass-pwning time.


Maybe we arrange a shoot-out a high noon. Fair warning, I'm taking a bullet proof vest!!!

Fair warning, pwn that bastard's face!

[NovelGentry]

Ok, so people can't "own" houses or toothbrushes, etc., etc., but they CAN use them. So if that's the case, why can't they use but not own a gun? They live in a house, but they don't "own" the house; they wear clothes, but they don't "own" the clothes; why can't there be a gun?

They can use a gun, and it can be a gun. I'm not sure where I said it couldn't. Once again, my original statement was to make you look at what you were saying, and to make you realize it's more likely that such a thing would be publically available for proper uses (such as transportation).

[Paradox]

Just as dumb as following with a question like "and ammo would be free, right?"

Sorry for asking a "dumb" question, but I'm still new to marxist ideas, that's why I asked this "dumb" question. People tell me "everything is free in communism," so I wanted to know if this was indeed the case. If things were free, including ammo, then people could just go wherever it is that such items are kept and get some of whatever it is they're looking for. I didn't know that this was actually the case, so I asked this "dumb" question, forgive me.


Guns would be available for a number of purposes, including the possibility of subduing a criminal -- but it's kinda dumb to think along the lines of walking into someone's house and having a gander at their arsenal (personal or private).

Ok, so guns would be available, but people wouldn't have them in their houses, I mean the houses they live in but don't own. I guess that sounds fair enough.


so what would you have us do, everyone wear a six shooter and when they see a "counter-revolutionary" shoot him dead in the street? Should they be given fair chance? Maybe we arrange a shoot-out a high noon.

A bit melodramatic, no? I'm not saying give guns to kids and tell everyone to shoot people who "look" or "act" "counter-revolutionary." I'm just saying guns should be available should we need to put down a counter-revolutionary strike. I think we can agree on that at least, no?

[Paradox]

Well, they do wear big neon signs that say "Counter Revolutionary" on them.

:lol: Thanks, I needed a laugh! :lol:

[NovelGentry]

Sorry for asking a "dumb" question, but I'm still new to marxist ideas, that's why I asked this "dumb" question. People tell me "everything is free in communism," so I wanted to know if this was indeed the case. If things were free, including ammo, then people could just go wherever it is that such items are kept and get some of whatever it is they're looking for. I didn't know that this was actually the case, so I asked this "dumb" question, forgive me.

Ever heard the phrase, nothing is free? Well it applies to communism as well. All the products of man are paid for in the labor of the men who made those products.


Ok, so guns would be available, but people wouldn't have them in their houses, I mean the houses they live in but don't own. I guess that sounds fair enough.

Some may, just like some may have a car. It is by no means going to be like a food item though. "Let's go down to the distribution center and pick us up a few more shotguns and some ammo."


A bit melodramatic, no? I'm not saying give guns to kids and tell everyone to shoot people who "look" or "act" "counter-revolutionary." I'm just saying guns should be available should we need to put down a counter-revolutionary strike. I think we can agree on that at least, no?

Guns should be available for all valid uses of a gun. Just like a house is available for all valid uses of a house -- the people of your neighborhood will not look kindly on you if you build a big mansion for the sake of you and your partying friends to have a place to chill. Brings whole-new level of understanding to the words use value. And yes, it was melodramatic, but it was funny.

[Paradox]

And yes, it was melodramatic, but it was funny.

I'll give you that. ;)


Ever heard the phrase, nothing is free? Well it applies to communism as well. All the products of man are paid for in the labor of the men who made those products.

I did not mean that they were produced free, I meant the people who go to obtain them for use do not have to give money (no money in Communism, right?) in exchange. I realize that things will still cost in the form of the human labor that went into their production, I meant that people who go use those items, don't have to pay to use them. For instance, a group wants to go hunting, so they go to where the guns are kept, and obtain permission to use the guns for a day, or however long their hunting trip is going to be, and they don't pay to use the guns, there is no charge. Is that how it would work, is my question in other words.


It is by no means going to be like a food item though. "Let's go down to the distribution center and pick us up a few more shotguns and some ammo."

:lol: That's funny too! :lol:


the people of your neighborhood will not look kindly on you if you build a big mansion for the sake of you and your partying friends to have a place to chill.

Now that's very understandable. I agree. I wasn't saying everyone should have an arsenal of 3 AKs, 2 Berettas, and 5,000 rounds hidden in the closet or something, I was just wondering how guns would fit into Communist society. No overkill, I think we can agree on that as well. ;)

[NovelGentry]

For instance, a group wants to go hunting, so they go to where the guns are kept, and obtain permission to use the guns for a day, or however long their hunting trip is going to be, and they don't pay to use the guns, there is no charge. Is that how it would work, is my question in other words.

Indeed or if it is a part of their daily life, hunting, or perhaps even work within a workers militia they would more than likely have guns readily accessible in their home aswell. Much like those who need a car to get to work have a car readily accessible. Those who work with computers have computers readily accessible (even if only for accessing other systems they work on).

[redstar2000]

It seems to me that some behavior in communist society would arise as a result of evolving customs -- reflecting the absence of property in the contemporary sense.

I would not "hold title" to "my" computer...but I would have de facto exclusive use. All of its settings have been personalized and it would be a pain-in-the-ass for someone else to use it.

Naturally, in an emergency, I would let a neighbor use it and even show them how if they didn't know.

The same would go for my living quarters...normally it would be exclusively used by me, but in a real emergency, I would share it.

As to weaponry, I see little reason for individuals to have them...unless conditions are so unstable that personal safety becomes a serious concern (as it is now under capitalism).

Thus I would expect something similar to Cuba's present practice -- weaponry is stored in neighborhood locations and issued to people when they go "on duty" as militia.

As to hunting and shooting, I expect those would become "virtual sports" practiced, perhaps, in "sports centers" with elaborate computer effects.

Killing wild animals "for fun" will probably be regarded as "barbaric".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[NovelGentry]

Just as a note, I wasn't implying for fun, I was implying if that is how someone chose to acquire their food.

[Paradox]

Just as a note, I wasn't implying for fun, I was implying if that is how someone chose to acquire their food.

I too was referring to hunting in order to eat what you catch, not so you can hang a deer's head on the wall.


As to weaponry, I see little reason for individuals to have them...unless conditions are so unstable that personal safety becomes a serious concern (as it is now under capitalism).

I know many people are worried about safety "under capitalism" as you put it, and that has a big influence in their decision to get a gun, but isn't the danger posed blown out of proportion? Hasn't the murder rate gone down, while the media coverage of such crimes has gone up exponentially? And the fear that such media coverage creates results in people buying all these weapons, emergency supplies, etc., etc., when they aren't really that necessary?

Getting back to the argument that weaponry in the hands of individuals not being necessary, would people who already possess weapons have to give them up? Should the revolution take place and succeed, thereby making Communism a reality, all those who "own" weapons would give them up so that they could be stored at distribution centers, where all others could go to request permission to use them?


Thus I would expect something similar to Cuba's present practice -- weaponry is stored in neighborhood locations and issued to people when they go "on duty" as militia.

So this is how it works in Cuba? Do you have any links that can elaborate on this?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by paradox
I know many people are worried about safety "under capitalism" as you put it, and that has a big influence in their decision to get a gun, but isn't the danger posed blown out of proportion?

Most likely...the capitalist media "feeds" on fear. A fearful people are a submissive people, etc.

Even so, the U.S. is a violent country. Owning a handgun gives one at least the sense of personal security -- even if it's never used. I've owned one for more than 40 years and have never fired a shot in anger.


Getting back to the argument that weaponry in the hands of individuals not being necessary, would people who already possess weapons have to give them up?

Confiscation of private weapons would probably "look bad" and be "poorly received" by many people who would otherwise support the revolution.

The best way to proceed would probably be a "low-level" on-going campaign for people to donate their private weaponry to their local militia. Assuming people feel "safe" in communist society, I think this would work out over several decades well enough.


Do you have any links that can elaborate on this?

I recall reading how the Cubans do it in a couple of recent books...but I've never run into anything on the internet about it. Perhaps a search "Cuba + committees + defense + revolution" + weaponry or some variation of that might turn up some links.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[STI]

Even so, the U.S. is a violent country. Owning a handgun gives one at least the sense of personal security -- even if it's never used. I've owned one for more than 40 years and have never fired a shot in anger.

Nope. Good ol' Redstar prefers killing in cold blood :lol:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

after an international revolution it wouldnt be nesasary

[Paradox]

after an international revolution it wouldnt be nesasary

A bit simplistic don't you think? You aren't describing the process in discussion here, which is how and where guns will be kept. As NovelGentry suggested, most would be kept in distribution centers, but some would still be kept in houses. And as redstar2000 suggested, guns would be kept in neighborhood centers for use by local militias. Also, as redstar pointed out, private ownership of weapons would be phased out over time. I think that makes sense. People who possess weapons will be able to voluntarily give them to distribution centers once they realize that they no longer need them personally. As has been suggested, we don't want to just confiscate them, and piss people off.

[T_SP]

Lets be realistic! In a Communist society the need for a gun, or any weapon for that matter, would be almost completely eradicated!! Why would one person need to kill another??? This is a mark of Capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Lets be realistic! In a Communist society the need for a gun, or any weapon for that matter, would be almost completely eradicated!! Why would one person need to kill another??? This is a mark of Capitalism.

Your naivete is overwhelming.

[STI]

after an international revolution it wouldnt be nesasary

Except, you know, to surpress that pesky bourgeois counter-revolution thing.


Lets be realistic! In a Communist society the need for a gun, or any weapon for that matter, would be almost completely eradicated!!

See above.

[Rockfan]

What about hunting, will hunters be allowed to use guns? As a keen hunter myself I would still like to do it under a communist system>

[Hiero]

Hunting is a sport most common in working class in rural areas and also sometimes in cities althought only a minority take up the sport (australian by the way), and also since pest control is still going to have to be addressed i dont see why in a socialist soceity they would remove sport hunting.

Only a few take interest in the sport and farmers have to work, so they have little time to hunt pests. The weekend hunter does make a difference in pest control.

Also why should weekend hunter should be punished for his choose of sport because some post modernist thinks is barbaric. State run farms and state run parks are a great place to accommodate for hunters. It is not a big buisness unlike oher spectator sports. If the working class are meant to be militant anyway hunter is good practice.

I think it would be stupid and foolish to ban hunter becauase of what some buercrat thinks is morale and imorale based on his unviersity degree.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 01:31 AM

after an international revolution it wouldnt be nesasary

Except, you know, to surpress that pesky bourgeois counter-revolution thing.
Ultimately, however, this should be temporary. I expect the need for arms would gradually disapear, with the eventual disapearence of the threat of counter-revolution.

(Not saying complacency will ever be "OK" - just saying that the need to defend, violently, a new society, will likely be temporary.)

[STI]

Ultimately, however, this should be temporary

True. I just didn't like those airy-fairy "we'll never need guns because we'll all have great big stuffed animals" statements.

For a short second, I thought you were going to go the shitty Buddhist route of "the need for guns is impermanent and therefore doesn't exist blah blah blah" but then I remembered who you were and how little you suck.


I expect the need for arms would gradually disapear, with the eventual disapearence of the threat of counter-revolution.


Of course, though I doubt this will occur fast enough for it to be a very pressing issue.


(Not saying complacency will ever be "OK" - just saying that the need to defend, violently, a new society, will likely be temporary.)

Tru Dat.

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 03:12 AM
Your naivete is overwhelming.
Your encouragement is unbelieveable comrade, when the revolution comes I will make your death quick! :P
Seriously, why naieve?? You obviously plan to fight an armed war against the counter-revolution do you? Why? What would this prove or solve? It would make us no better than them! If there was a world revolution surely the destruction of all weapons would be mandatory!!

If you believe I'm naieve atleast have the decency to explain why, and then try and correct me or teach me! Your insult was pointless and unhelpful!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by rockfan+Dec 28 2004, 11:33 PM--> (rockfan @ Dec 28 2004, 11:33 PM) What about hunting, will hunters be allowed to use guns? As a keen hunter myself I would still like to do it under a communist system. [/b]
This is something of a secondary issue, in my opinion.

First, hunting with firearms is not much of a challenge -- a bow & arrows or a spear would make more sense in terms of sport.

Second, I did suggest a large "sports complex" where people could "shoot" at whatever they liked...virtually.

And third, there's no reason for gun "ownership" even if you do enjoy hunting with firearms -- just walk down to the militia depot and check out a suitable weapon...like checking a book out of the public library.


Hiero
Also why should [the] weekend hunter should be punished for his choice of sport because some post modernist thinks [it] is barbaric...I think it would be stupid and foolish to ban hunting because of what some bureaucrat thinks is moral and immoral based on his university degree.

I don't think this has anything to do with "post-modernism", university degrees, morality, or bureaucracy.

I'm a "city guy" myself...as will be a majority of the world's population within the next few decades. The habits of rural life -- including what is considered "fun" -- are going to mostly disappear over the next couple of centuries.

A "ban" will not be necessary -- people just won't be interested in that sort of thing any longer. It strikes my sensibilities that going out and killing wild animals for no reason other than "fun" is atavistic...a form of primitive behavior that civilized people see no reason to engage in.

Try fishing instead. :)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

hunting sucks

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Seriously, why naieve?? You obviously plan to fight an armed war against the counter-revolution do you? Why? What would this prove or solve? It would make us no better than them! If there was a world revolution surely the destruction of all weapons would be mandatory!!

If revolutionary areas are invaded by bourgeouis forces, then we will need to defend ourselves. Non-cooperation and disobedience are of course our first weapons of choice, but we will need arms to prevent atrocities being committed against us.
We would never win in a 'proper' battle, but guns will enable us to carry out geurilla warfare.

We would also need weapons in case some ambitious bastard (And his lackies) tries setting himself up as a ruler.

That is why we need weapons and why you are naive.

[Rockfan]

[QUOTE] redstar
First, hunting with firearms is not much of a challenge -- a bow & arrows or a spear would make more sense in terms of sport.

Yes I belive bow & arrows and spear is harder but If all hunters used them (expespecaly spears) there would be no point in hunting because of the skill involved. And shoting the game is less then half the whole hunting experence. Tracking, tramping, cooking and the share plesure of being in the bush all add to the experence. Pulling a trigger is easy.

[Hiero]

A "ban" will not be necessary -- people just won't be interested in that sort of thing any longer. It strikes my sensibilities that going out and killing wild animals for no reason other than "fun" is atavistic...a form of primitive behavior that civilized people see no reason to engage in.

Try fishing instead

Some people find fishing for funt to be barbaric. Its a personal belief if you find hunting barbaric and thats were it should stay.

[comrade_mufasa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 10:44 PM

Just as a note, I wasn't implying for fun, I was implying if that is how someone chose to acquire their food.

I too was referring to hunting in order to eat what you catch, not so you can hang a deer's head on the wall.
unlike what most people think many hunters do eat the meat of the kill, or they sell it to buyers who sell it as exotic meat. you cant eat the head so they hang it up instead of tossing it in the trash.

[STI]

Except that that has nothing to do with what the thread was intended for.

[Thomas]

Fishing and hunting should only be allowed is the meat and coat are then used to be eaten and to provide warmth/shelter.

As for gun ownership every gun will be owned by everyone, and if a person needs a gun, they will get one. Just like if someone needs a car they will get one. Gun "ownership" will be the same as every other thing in a aommunist society.

[Hiero]

unlike what most people think many hunters do eat the meat of the kill, or they sell it to buyers who sell it as exotic meat. you cant eat the head so they hang it up instead of tossing it in the trash.


Alot actually do. If you read any hunting magazines or anything hunting related you will find alot grow up with a ethic to not waste the meat of the game they hunt. Most real big game hunters, they ones who take the head for trophy will take the hide of the animal and may only take a small number of animals in a year.

There is this sterotype that all people who hunt kill anything that moves, this is not promoted or accepted in hunting. If you ever join a gun club you are tested on gun control, ethics etc. Some examples are how to store gunes safely, how to shoot safely. Anyone who is breaking the rules can be expelled from the hunting club, and in Australia i know that if gun responisibilty is broken you will have your guns removed from possession.

[NovelGentry]

Anyone who is breaking the rules can be expelled from the hunting club

Well let's not be naive here... money talks. I doubt ANYONE can be removed ;)

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 06:14 AM

Anyone who is breaking the rules can be expelled from the hunting club

Well let's not be naive here... money talks. I doubt ANYONE can be removed ;)
Hunting clubs are not elite clubs.

Yes lets not be naive here. Your in at a rifle range and some guy start swinging your gun around, or you come in drunk just think of any dangours scenerio. You really think the other members and the range officer are just going to let you bribe they way out of trouble

"nah its alright mate you nearly killed us all, just gives us some money and we will forgot about it"

Have you ever been to a hunting club or a rifle range, i know being in America there is a larger market in hunting but i assume the attitudes would be the same here. You will most likely find the members are working class and are responisibly people. Here the rifle ranger even gives up his spare time to be there on the weekends.