Gun control

[gewehr_3]

I was wondering what your opinion is on gun control
I am very left but I do enjoy weapons a great deal it is very perplexing since guns are seen as right wing

[slim]

I would imagine that guns as a form of control is right wing.

Im against guns personally but i dont see a problem in owning one for hunting.

[CrazyModerate]

The American right *believes* owning a gun is part of being free from authoritarian goverment.

[gewehr_3]

I just dont want to be seen as right because i own guns
but guns are necessary in a revolution

[slim]

Not necessarily.

Look at my post in Theory-revolution.

[Socialistpenguin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:32 PM
I just dont want to be seen as right because i own guns
but guns are necessary in a revolution
Correct, comrade. They are also useful when we create no army but the standing army of the people;
Pros:
Less prone to imperialism
Adequate defence of country by invaders.

Cons:
Lack of control/ discipline

[slim]

Cons:

Crime.

[gewehr_3]

but if it was a pure communist society where EVERYONE was for the good of the people there would be no crime

[Socialistpenguin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:39 PM
Cons:

Crime.
True, but think about it:
Robbery would be pretty redundant
Murder would still be a problem, but murderers will be given a run for their money
Child molestation / any kinds of rape: Likely to be hung/castrated by neighbourhoods.

There's probably a lot more, but I've got writer's block at the moment.

[slim]

These things are true.

[Socialistpenguin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:46 PM
but if it was a pure communist society where EVERYONE was for the good of the people there would be no crime
True, but there will still be a couple of bad apples. In addition to society working together as a whole, we need just a little incentive to potential criminals, as to the potential consequences of their actions.

[CrazyModerate]

Ghandi was able to defeat the British without guns.

[slim]

And look what happened to him.

[CrazyModerate]

So what. He died for a cause. There are more images of imperial, capitalists, facsists, and religous extremists carrying weapons, than of leftist revolutionaries.

How about Nelson Mandela? He was a peaceful protestor that ended up on the winning side. He was even given an award by the Soviet Union.

The oppressors use guns as much as the revolutionaries. But the revolutionaries use peace much more often than the oppressors.

[slim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:08 PM
How about Nelson Mandela? He was a peaceful protestor that ended up on the winning side. He was even given an award by the Soviet Union.

Have you read history?

He was a terrorist, he bombed buildings and was put in jail for it.

[Socialistpenguin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:01 PM
Ghandi was able to defeat the British without guns.
I admire what Gandhi did and what he stood for, unfortunately, HE was not trying to expropriate the means of production from greed-driven capitalists. I mean, don't get me wrong, if there was a peaceful way to obtain the means of production, it'd have my full support: unfortunately, the capitalists will not hand them over willingly. To quote Stalin (though I despise the man)
"When we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope to do it"
That is why a violent revolution is necessary.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ghandi was quite happy to screw the masses when it suited him.
Pacifism is the most stupid thing ever.

Without weapons, Che Guevara and Fidel Castro would not have been able to overhtrow the capitalistic Batista regime.
Without weapons, future revolutionaries will not be able to overthrow the existing system.

In classless society, every responsible citizen should be able to carry the firearm of their choice.

[C_Rasmussen]

I personally am against gun control for the very fact that if people know that a person owns a gun they're less likely to break in.

[Redmau5]

I personally am against gun control for the very fact that if people know that a person owns a gun they're less likely to break in.

Most thieves who break in to peoples homes don't actually know the person who they are stealing from.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 06:32 PM
I just dont want to be seen as right because i own guns
but guns are necessary in a revolution
That is true. We won't achieve communist revolution with flowers, so guns will be necessary.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:30 PM

I personally am against gun control for the very fact that if people know that a person owns a gun they're less likely to break in.

Most thieves who break in to peoples homes don't actually know the person who they are stealing from.
Ok maybe I worded that one wrong. I will try it again though I can where you are coming from. Here goes another shot at getting it right, now if there are anti-gun control laws then people would be more wary of walking into someone's home and trying to steal something seeing as there is a chance that there might be a gun. There we go now I got it right.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Anything can be used a weapon,so I don't see the point of banning guns.You'll have to ban everything.

You can say,"Well guns are designed to kill people".

Well,what about knives? You eat with them too.

Guns have that same dual-quality as knives,if you live in bum-fucked nowhwere, you'll have to hunt in order to survive.So the culinary use of a gun is brought into existance.

And you are more likely going to win a revolution with arms than without them.
Sure,in the Philipines a Revolution was won without guns,but that was only because the millatary officals didn't want to kill innocents and were sick of Ferdinand Marcos and were upset with him rigging the election.But,what were talking about is entirely different.The conditions of the Western world is so different.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 5 2005, 07:52 PM
Guns have that same dual-quality as knives,if you live in bum-fucked nowhwere, you'll have to hunt in order to survive.So the culinary use of a gun is brought into existance.

Right, so if you live in the bum-fuck of nowhere, what are you going to do when you run out of ammo? You'd obviously have to live close enough to some sort of town or city where you could get ammo. And if you live close enough to a place where you can buy ammunition, you obviously live close enough to a place where you can buy food. So the guns-for-hunting argument doesn't really cut much ice.

Now if you lived out in the wilderness and you were using a knife or spear to catch your food, then that's fine. But guns aren't really necessary to catch dinner.

The way i see it, guns are used for two things. The first thing is self-defense, which is totally acceptable. The second is offense ie attacking someone. The hope is that in communist society, with the eradication of poverty etc., the latter use for guns will be non-existant.

[Entrails Konfetti]

When you run out of ammo?

Easy,throw the gun at the squirell in the tree.

Alright,dammit goodpoint. But,still its not very likely youre going to win a revolution with flowers,unless you can abstract something poisonous out of them.

[RedSkinheadUltra]

We should be against gun control. Guns are clearly not the source of crime; there are definite social, economic and psychological reasons for it.

What I think we should all avoid is the "fetishism" of the gun and armed struggle and see it simply as what it is, a tool.

It's already been mentioned but I agree that the right-wing is pro-gun and cites the Second Amendment because they believe the gun is some sort of beacon of freedom.

All the arms in the United States have failed to stop corporate power and the ruling class from taking away what's left of the social safety net.

[Sa'd al-Bari]

I was wondering what your opinion is on gun control
I am opposed to gun control, at least in a capitalist society at any rate. To restrict guns from the proletariat would mean to concentrate guns in the hands of ruling class. The masses must be able to arm themselves.

“A bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat is one of the biggest fundamental and cardinal facts of modern capitalist society. And in face of this fact, revolutionary Social-Democrats are urged to “demand” “disarmament”! That is tantamount of complete abandonment of the class-struggle point of view, to renunciation of all thought of revolution. Our slogan must be: arming of the proletariat to defeat, expropriate and disarm the bourgeoisie. These are the only tactics possible for a revolutionary class, tactics that follow logically from, and are dictated by, the whole objective development of capitalist militarism. Only after the proletariat has disarmed the bourgeoisie will it be able, without betraying its world-historic mission, to consign all armaments to the scrap-heap. And the proletariat will undoubtedly do this, but only when this condition has been fulfilled, certainly not before.” (V.I. Lenin, The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution, Section 2)