Firearms

[blueeyedboy]

I was just wondering about the distribution and use of firearms in a socialist society. I don't personally own any, but would people still be able to own them and purchase them properly. Also, would they be able to fire them unrestricted, obvioulsy not at people mind. My last point is, would military grade weaponary be allowed for civilian use.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 03:46 pm
I was just wondering about the distribution and use of firearms in a socialist society. I don't personally own any, but would people still be able to own them and purchase them properly. Also, would they be able to fire them unrestricted, obvioulsy not at people mind. My last point is, would military grade weaponary be allowed for civilian use.
In an anarchist society, you could whatever the hell you like with your guns, unless you do something dumb with them and everyone in your commune decides to kill/banish you.

In a Orthodox socialist society, there would be regulations on that sort of thing.

In a Communist society, you could order one from a workers council and use it somewhere.

[Whitten]

Most would support individual right to arms, however depending on the branch of leftist thought being used there may be some restrictions on them.

[Janus]

I was just wondering about the distribution and use of firearms in a socialist society
There's no reason for people to go around carrying guns wherever they go though possession of certain light arms for personal use should be allowed. heavier weapons should probably be stored in a local armory or warehouse until they are needed.


Also, would they be able to fire them unrestricted, obvioulsy not at people mind.
I would think that there would be need to be some restrictions on where you can fire a gun.


My last point is, would military grade weaponary be allowed for civilian use.
No, there's no reason for it.

[Red October]

My last point is, would military grade weaponary be allowed for civilian use.

why would any civilian need a heavy machine gun or rocket launcher?

[MrDoom]

Assuming that our movement would have by the time implied covered the globe, wouldn't the term "military-grade" be a bit anachronistic, considering that there would be no military?

[Janus]

considering that there would be no military?
Military is a general term that is used to refer to any armed forces. Thus a militia is also technically a military. If military-grade weapons doesn't suit you then perhaps heavy weapons would be better? Either way, it would be unnecessary and potentially harmful for regular people to possess such weapons.

[Joby]

Other than sport, why would you need one?

There's wouldn't be any motivation to rob someone.

[RebelDog]

When we achieve a communist society with all class antagonisms and scarcity destroyed there should be no use for guns and I fail to see a reason why they should be carried personally. Guns would still be needed for killing dangerous animals, hunting, sport etc and firearms could be kept for those that need them for such reasons. I would not envisage the need to produce firearms on a grand scale so everyone had one, there's no need.

[phoenixoftime]

The support for civilian/workers' militias by socialists has always confused me slightly - although I really like the idea of civilians being able to be part-time soldiers (I am one!), do most comrades support a completely decentralised military? Personally, I would think that could be difficult to maintain stability, since you could end up with one factory military attacking another etc. There is also the issue of how training standards, policy and logistics could be managed. I would favour a combination of a professional armed force and a nationalized part-time militia, both socialized.

What does everyone think?

[MrDoom]

What about weapons research?

Sure, it wouldn't be needed for use against humans; but, what if, you know, one day a giant flying saucer comes hovering out of the clouds? :unsure:

[RedLenin]

I think it's essential that all people can have guns. In fact, one of the fundamental principles of a workers state is that there must be no army but the armed people themselves. This ensures that ultimate power is in the hands of the whole Proletariat, and not a caste of buerocrats.

However, when communism exists all over the world, there would be no need for guns. At such a point, I think they will simply stop being manufactured. They will "fade away" if you will.

[piet11111]

i see no reason why you should not be allowed to own say an AK-47.
sure there should be restrictions on where you can fire your weapon to prevent accidents.

seeing how a world revolution is unlikely at best i think it would be a very good thing if poeple are able to use weapons and train with them.
ofcourse stuff like RPG's and machineguns should be left as part of militia training and stored in a secure building.

i dont know about you guys but im not concerned about assualt rifle's at all its the handguns that can be easily hidden that i consider a threat.

phoenixoftime i agree with you for the need of a professional military for the time that there are capitalist nations around that pose a military threat.
after they had their revolutions this military can be disbanded and the militia can then become the only armed group responsible for public safety.

i think that the need for weapons is a result of our existance in a capitalist society.
over time the fear that capitalism promotes will wither away and poeple will be secure enough to go without weapons.
i just dont think this sense of security will happen with our generation.

[blueeyedboy]

Would everyone agree with keeping guns as collector's items or not?

When I said 'military-grade' I didn't mean rocket launchers and stuff like that. I meant high-powered assault rifles and sub-machine guns used by armies around the world.

It seems to me this topic is divided into pro-gun and anti-gun people. So who is pro-gun and who is anti-gun?

I have an idea. Round up the cappies and send them out with a few weapons. We can then hunt them down, use all the guns there is, blow stuff up like huge congomlerate buildings etc. Then what ordanance we haven't used just dismantle it and let it rust away into oblivion.

[Demogorgon]

I would hope they were banned and no further guns were made with as many old ones as possible being destroyed. No good comes from those things.

[Psy]

Originally posted by piet11111+December 02, 2006 06:15 pm--> (piet11111 @ December 02, 2006 06:15 pm)i see no reason why you should not be allowed to own say an AK-47.
sure there should be restrictions on where you can fire your weapon to prevent accidents.


[/b]
Because it has crap accuracy, sure it works great for ambushes but are we going to allow people to have AK-47's so they can ambush deer? If there is peace why would the average person need a AK-47 over a SKS carbine? Even for self-defense, such weapons like the AK-47 is overkill.


Demogorgon

I would hope they were banned and no further guns were made with as many old ones as possible being destroyed. No good comes from those things.

There are hunting tribes that have become dependent on rifles.

[JKP]

Please use search next time; there are dozens of threads on this topic.

In any event, This isn't an issue of need. This is a matter of dis-arming the working class. Taking guns away from the working class is an authoritarian act (of the kind leftists don't stand for) , and increasing weapons the weapons available to the proletariat
is something that we must vouch for wholeheartedly. There really shouldn't be any discussion on this matter; were not liberals after all, but such is the state of radical leftism.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 11:04 pm
Please use search next time; there are dozens of threads on this topic.

In any event, This isn't an issue of need. This is a matter of dis-arming the working class. Taking guns away from the working class is an authoritarian act (of the kind leftists don't stand for) , and increasing weapons the weapons available to the proletariat
is something that we must vouch for wholeheartedly. There really shouldn't be any discussion on this matter; were not liberals after all, but such is the state of radical leftism.
well said !

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 09:36 pm
There are hunting tribes that have become dependent on rifles.
Well sure, every rule has it's exceptions. Over all though. the world should eventually be as disarmed as possible.

[An archist]

my opinion:
Tanks, Fighter jets, Bombers, Destroyers, nuclear bombs, stuff like that should be destroyed or disabled. Hand-weapons should be available to everyone to protect themselves and their community.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 03, 2006 12:44 pm
my opinion:
Tanks, Fighter jets, Bombers, Destroyers, nuclear bombs, stuff like that should be destroyed or disabled. Hand-weapons should be available to everyone to protect themselves and their community.
not untill the last capitalist on this planet has been shot should that even be considered.
fighting the revolution is important but protecting it is far more important !


i would rather be killed then disarmed after the revolution for we would be threatened by the entire capitalist world.

[blueeyedboy]

Exactly. I think disarmanent is wrong as the capitalists aren't just going to use 'harsh language'. (quote from Aliens) We will need whatever we can to stop capitalists from taking back over. If we overcome our current society with a VIOLENT revolution, which most people adhere to on here, then the capitalists will use VIOLENCE to try and take it back. The socialists who own weapons on this forum will have no choice but to use them against these cappies, or else capitalism will take over again.

There is also a possibility that after a socialist society is formed, there will be a prolonged war anyway between the socialists and the capitalists. Er, without firearms, the socialists would lose as all firearms companies are capitalist anyway.
I personally don't think disarmament is a viable option, even when there is a transition from capitalism to socialism and even socialism to communism. The simple reason been that there will always be pockets of righties, espcially ultra-righties who will try and take the leftys down with force. You can't completely eradicate all rightist opposition.

Another opinion is that we would have to be authoratarian for a short time to keep them in place with whatever means necessary. I don't believe that we can take over and install socialism, this is inherently an authoratarian act anyway, and then simply become passive. The majority of people who haven't taken part in the revolution will presumably have some form of rightist sympathies, and so becoming passive will just allow these people to vote back in a rightist party. It's essential that we remain authoratarian to suppress these ideas. i know it's not democracy that we all strive for, but an amount of supression will have to be implemented to make sure we stay in power.

Does anyone agree with my views?

[Boriznov]

it seems everyone forgets that there are too many violent people in the world

if everyone has a gun then what stops them to kill their neighbour when they have a fight ? how would that be stopped. also if everyone get's guns then the capitalists would have to much of a chance to take over land again with force

[MrDoom]

if everyone has a gun then what stops them to kill their neighbour when they have a fight ?
The neighbor and his gun. As well as everyone else's.


also if everyone get's guns then the capitalists would have to much of a chance to take over land again with force
They would have to go through every single armed worker on the planet.

[Luís Henrique]

Gun factories will be owned by workers, and I guess we will vote to no longer manufacture guns. Thus the factories will be closed or transformed into factories of something else.

Luís Henrique

[freakazoid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 03:44 pm

if everyone has a gun then what stops them to kill their neighbour when they have a fight ?
The neighbor and his gun. As well as everyone else's.


also if everyone get's guns then the capitalists would have to much of a chance to take over land again with force
They would have to go through every single armed worker on the planet.
Oh.. my.. goodness, I think we agree on something MrDoom, :P . I think that there should be no restrictions on firearms or destructive devices, be they Class III, the common hunting rifle, RPGs, mortors, tanks, or anything.
Oh and the post about the AK47, it is one of the most reliable firearms out there, which is also why it isn't the most accurate, but it is accurate enough. Most battles happen within 200 yards anyways which means that it is just fine, why do you think that most "insurgents" are still using them?

[Political_Chucky]

There should definitely be restrictions in my opinion but everyone above a certain age should be able to carry a gun. If every capitalist was killed and obliterated from the planet( which is very unlikely and unrealistic), you still have dangerous criminals. In a true communist society, even then there are people with mental disorders who or just plain crazy who may not know right from wrong and will attempt to murder an individual. We must remember capitalists are not the only danger we would face. I believe some people are naturally good and some people are naturally evil, how would we defend ourselves from those who just want to inflict harm on others? No matter if its capitalist or communist, there are still murderers.

[dannie]

This would be a matter to be decided by the community you live in. In my opinion, society should be incredibly decentralised into those communities, all able to decide freely on subjects like euthanasia, drugs, gun ownership, ..., as they are all choices that can limit freedom of the people living in that community.
Saying certain guns, or all guns should be banned, restricted, ... is an inherently authoritarian thing to say as essentially this would be a decsicion for the community.

Of course there are risks associated with weapon ownership but as the organisation of society evolves into a more communist style of organising, I'm sure, there would be other ways to limit those risks.

[blueeyedboy]

I totally agree with dannie on this. It should be down to the community whether firearms become banned or not. If the community says no, then its no. If they say yes, then its yes, simple as. I just hope it doesn't turn into civil war between communities who want them all banned and communities that don't.

[freakazoid]

I don't think that if a community that wanted them banned attacked an armed community that they would last very long.

[Boriznov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 04:14 am
I don't think that if a community that wanted them banned attacked an armed community that they would last very long.
i think he means the other way around

[freakazoid]

Oh, I see. My mistake.