Pig Gunman Murders At Least Five

[RedAnarchist]

At least five people are said to have died after a gunman opened fire at a house in the Midwestern US state of Wisconsin early on Sunday.

Reports suggest the suspect is a law enforcement officer, and the victims were teenagers or young adults.

The shootings took place in the town of Crandon, in the north of the state.

"It's a pretty tragic situation here," said Forest County Supervisor Tom Vollmar, who lives just outside Crandon, a community of 2,000 people.

"There are five or six people dead," Mr Vollmar said.

Chris Lato, a reporter for local radio station WTMJ AM, told BBC News 24 the suspect was in the county sheriff's department, "effectively a law-enforcer". "He is still on the loose at this time, and we have heard that he is holed up in a house or cabin," Lato said.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7032971.stm


I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often. Thoughts?

edit - Latest reports say that the guys been culled.

[Colonello Buendia]

It probably happens often but in poorer city areas.
If the American Lax gun laws were reinforced this would not have happened

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 08:41 pm
It probably happens often but in poorer city areas.
If the American Lax gun laws were reinforced this would not have happened
Gun control is not the answer. In fact, that would mean disaster as only the police would be armed. Here in Britain, we don't allow the police to have guns, and they behave a lot better than the American ones, although they still act like police.

[spartan]

Gun control is not the answer! In fact we should have more guns! (They will also come in handy during the revolution).

Just look at Switzerland where most citizens are required by their Government to own a firearm and ammunition.

Therefore most of the population of Switzerland are armed which according to the gun control Fascists means that crime and violence in Switzerland should be sky rocketing at the moment. Wrong! Switzerland is Europe's (And thus one of the world's) most crime free Nations which also has one of the if not thee lowest murder count in the world!

Remeber if a criminal with a gun is about to rob a shop dont you think that criminal would seriously think twice about robbing the shop when he knows the probability/possibillity of the shop owner being armed and ready to defend him/herself are high?

Also a common gun control arguement is that if you take away the guns the criminal would not commit their crimes as they would have no guns to commit their crimes with. That to is wrong as the criminals would simply switch to knives and coincidentally their is a rise in knife related crime. "Well then" the gun control Fascists would say "Well then take away the knives!". Wrong again because if someone is going to commit a crime then a little thing such as not having a weapon is hardly going to put them off!

Also weapons can be made out of legal things anyway and you can not ban everything that you think can be a weapon or can be made into a weapon as this would be taking it way to far and this would be the worst case of a Dystopian nanny state ever!

We Proletariats need weapons not only to protect ourselves from criminals who commit most of their crime against the Proletariat but also the oppressive Government which supports gun control to disarm the people and any discontent which could be heightened by an armed insurrection.

So no gun control is definately not the answer and you would do well to get that stupid thought out of your head at once.

[BreadBros]

I'm not an advocate of gun control, but I highly disagree with what you are saying Spartan. You treat the debate as if communist and anarchists were trying to perfect or make more efficient the laws and mechanics of bourgeois judicial systems. The type of social environment that has compulsory gun ownership and encourages people to look out for instances of law-breaking is anything but revolutionary ... in fact historically it results in the growth of conservative social outlooks, high regard for property law, marginalization of the poor, etc. A deeper insight is needed...its true that some fascist governments banned the ownership of guns, but they also created rigid systems of militarizing the population. Personally I think gun ownership should remain a freedom even under bourgeois society and I advocate it for a variety of reasons....but arguing that we should have gun ownership to reduce crime and enforce bourgeois laws is something that belongs in free-market pamphlets, not RevLeft.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Gun control" is a liberal mess that disarms workers in the face in the most violent and heavily armed rulers in the history of the world. It has nothing to do with the communist tradition forged by comrades Marx, Engels, Lenin, Che, Fidel, Sankara, Ho Chi Minh, etc.

[Great Helmsman]

Gun control absolutely does not disarm workers. The revolution will be neither legal nor spontaneous, in fact it would it be more practical to use illegally acquired weapons than legal ones. Another reason to support gun control is that the most reactionary parts of western society are the strongest defenders of gun ownership. These class enemies will be the people that will need to be killed or thoroughly reeducated under the dictatorship of the proletariat if we are to move forward. It would be regressive and dangerous to our cause to help arm the enemy, instead we should oppose both government fascism and the pro-gun right-wing reactionaries.

[bcbm]

How does a debate about a sheriff's deputy blowing people away move to gun control? The guy was a cop, and they HAVE GUNS.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Because liberals use every death by gun to drum up support for their campaign to disarm workers.


Gun control absolutely does not disarm workers.

Taking guns from workers doesn't disarm them? Do you know what the word disarm means?


The revolution will be neither legal nor spontaneous, in fact it would it be more practical to use illegally acquired weapons than legal ones.

No, illegally acquired guns can be taken away in an instant, and their owners imprisoned.

The right to bare arms was won in struggle and was a very progressive accomplishment.


Another reason to support gun control is that the most reactionary parts of western society are the strongest defenders of gun ownership.

Most fascists oppose the war in Iraq. I guess you'll start supporting that now?

Communists act in the interests of the working class, not according to what reactionaries do.

Workers need arms and they need to know how to use them.

There have been countless lessons taught to us in this regard.


It would be regressive and dangerous to our cause to help arm the enemy

The enemy is the capitalist ruling class, which currently has more guns than any force in human history.

* * *

Really, this isn't even a question for anyone serious about revolution.. and it's something that was settled in the communist movement years ago..

"...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


The guy was a cop, and they HAVE GUNS.

Right, and most workers around the world don't.

That's a problem.

[Great Helmsman]

Taking guns from workers doesn't disarm them? Do you know what the word disarm means?
How can you take what they haven't got? You admitted in the next post that most workers aren't even armed in the first place.


No, illegally acquired guns can be taken away in an instant, and their owners imprisoned.

The right to bare arms was won in struggle and was a very progressive accomplishment.
Uh, guess what: the government will imprison and persecute those conspiring to overthrow it anyway. Hording legal guns (the ones that the government doesn't feel threatened by) will only attract unwanted attention. Much safer to acquire them illegally.

If you're arguing that the workers require guns to prevent themselves from becoming victims, then I would say you are dead wrong. Arming proletariat against their fellow lumpen does not serve the class interests of the masses.




Most fascists oppose the war in Iraq. I guess you'll start supporting that now?

Communists act in the interests of the working class, not according to what reactionaries do.

Workers need arms and they need to know how to use them.

There have been countless lessons taught to us in this regard.
I don't understand what you're getting at. I guess you'll start supporting Timothy McVeigh since you seem to love 'the right to bear arms'. The reactionaries are the ones that benefit the most from the protection of gun rights in the bourgeois state. Opposing their power best serves the interests of the working class because it weakens the most rabid anti-communists and neutralizes potentially dangerous counter-revolutionaries. Why should we help future freikorps types like the Michigan Militia and Minute Men?



The enemy is the capitalist ruling class, which currently has more guns than any force in human history.

* * *

Really, this isn't even a question for anyone serious about revolution.. and it's something that was settled in the communist movement years ago..

"...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 I don't think that anyone here seriously thinks that weapons won't be needed for revolution, and that the workers won't need to be armed. The problem is that defending the status quo really doesn't improve the workers condition. Since the legal weapons are largely in the hands of the opposition, it makes sense that we should act against them to curtail their power. The state will still control the overwhelming source of weapons in society regardless of any gun control policies. The revolutionary classes will need to arm themselves to fight state power, and hopefully not state power plus organized reactionary powers.

[synthesis]

This is what happens when only the cops are allowed to have AR-15's and training to use them. There is nothing that could possibly stop this from happening again except armed self-defense on the part of those who need it.

[Luís Henrique]

Some people want to make revolution without breaking laws...

Gun control is immaterial to revolution. Revolution cannot happen without part of the State armed apparatus turning against itself, and this will not be achieved by any amount of weapons that private citizens may legally achieve.

The weapons for revolution will be stolen, smuggled, turned over by discontent soldiers and policemen, or obtained by other illegal means. They won't be bought at Wal Mart!

And the decisive weapon of proletarian revolution - class conscience - cannot be bought or stolen, it has to be built.

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 10, 2007 02:20 am

The guy was a cop, and they HAVE GUNS.

Right, and most workers around the world don't.

That's a problem.
I wasn't suggesting otherwise at all. You should know by now that I'm a firm supporter of firearm ownership and strongly against almost any form of gun control


Hording legal guns (the ones that the government doesn't feel threatened by) will only attract unwanted attention. Much safer to acquire them illegally.

You don't know much about how getting guns works, do you? Acquiring weapons illegally is hardly safer.


Opposing their power best serves the interests of the working class because it weakens the most rabid anti-communists and neutralizes potentially dangerous counter-revolutionaries. Why should we help future freikorps types like the Michigan Militia and Minute Men?

Actually, making harsher gun laws would help them far more then relaxed gun laws ever would. Look at the growth of the militia movement during the Clinton years, or hell, read any of their publications. They're itching for a government crackdown on guns.


The revolutionary classes will need to arm themselves to fight state power, and hopefully not state power plus organized reactionary powers.[QUOTE]

The state cannot arm organized reactionary forces themselves?

[Great Helmsman]

You don't know much about how getting guns works, do you? Acquiring weapons illegally is hardly safer.
No I don't have any experience acquiring guns, but gangs seem able to furnish themselves quite well with illegal weapons.

Actually, making harsher gun laws would help them far more then relaxed gun laws ever would. Look at the growth of the militia movement during the Clinton years, or hell, read any of their publications. They're itching for a government crackdown on guns.
AFAIK gun control laws were loosened overall during the nineties. But naturally they're going to get cranky when their government acts against their privileges, and gun control was just one of many things they raged against.


The state cannot arm organized reactionary forces themselves?
They sure can, but the workers should be ready to defend themselves with illegal guns anyways.

I think it's important to recognize that there exists only a very small group of militant revolutionaries in America at this time. Who will guns benefit more, communists or reactionaries? I think we already know the answer to that question. Real self-defense involves winning the exploited over to class struggle.

[DISTURBEDrbl911]

I definitely love that a story about an off-duty cop who went on a rampage killing a number of teenagers from the ages of about 14-20 in a small Wisconsin town, turns into a debate and argument about gun control, which clearly has no implications in this case. Seeing that the killer was a cop, he clearly had access to firearms, secondly if the victims were armed, it wouldn't really matter because they were watching movies at the time and completely caught by surprise. Now I think the real issue here is the police. Now I understand that most of us don't like the cops too much and want to probably get rid of them, as in eliminate the program of law enforcement or something of that nature, but they exist. As a result of their existence and our lack of ability to do too much about it, I think the realistic stance here, would be to emphasize stricter regulations for becoming a cop. All candidates to become police officers should have more strict background checks, psychologist analysis, and the like. I just think it is quite sad that every time a firearm is mentioned in the media, everyone goes off on gun control, its a bit ridiculous isn't it?

[LSD]

"Gun control" is a liberal mess that disarms workers in the face in the most violent and heavily armed rulers in the history of the world. It has nothing to do with the communist tradition forged by comrades Marx, Engels, Lenin, Che, Fidel, Sankara, Ho Chi Minh, etc.

CdeL, on this board telling people that supporting something distances them from Lenin will probably make them more likely to embrace it. :D

You're correct in your analysis, however. Gun control is uniquely liberal in that it assumes that crime is a result of insufficient government, rather than a response to economic and sociopolitical exploitation.

The liberal/progressive agenda ultimately comes down to the idea that with the right tweaks to social policy we can eventually create the "perfect" libreral republic in which a fully "competitive" free market is balanced with a perfectly "democratic" state.

Within such a model, getting guns off the streets is a perfectly reasonable step. The problem, however, is that capitalism cannot be "perfected" and so striving towards that end is not only counterproductive but downright harmful, especially when ones efforts undermine genuinely productive working class causes.

That said, I think you're overstating the case somewhat when you talk about "disarming" the working class.

As has been pointed out, the first world working class isn't really "armed" to begin with, not even in the United States with its relatively high rate of gun ownership.

The fact is most workers do not own and can't really operate modern firearms. And even if they did and could, it honestly wouldn't make a difference when it came to the business of overthrowing the bourgeois state.

Realistically speaking, no combination of Glock 17s and AR-15s is going to defeat the forces of the US military. The weapons tools that can, the heavy explosives, aircraft, long-range weaponry, etc... they're illegal no matter what; and no borugeois politician, liberal or otherwise, would ever proposes their decrminalization.

Besides, when the revolution comes it's not going to matter what the law says. People will have long since realized that bourgeois dictates have little value and they're certainly not going to refrain from arming themselves just 'cause it's "against the law" to do so.

All in all, I'd say that the whole "gun control" debate it irrelevent to our cause. Which is probably why I don't actually have a strong opinion on the subject, one way or the other.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Luis, we've had this conversation before. I'm afraid that on this issue your ultra-leftism turns to liberalism.

The right to bare arms was given to the toilers when the capitalists needed them to help win their battles. We should be no more willing to give up this bourgeois-democratic right than we should be willing to give up the right to freedom of the press (yes, I know that right is not full and has all sorts of limitations).

The fact that libertarians support the right to bare arms should not stop us from fighting for/to defend that same on our terms. Most fascists in the U.S. are against the war in Iraq. Should we abandon the fight against that in the name of not assisting "organized reactionary powers"?

Yes, we all know that 30.06 hunting rifles aren't as strong as nuclear bombs. But that's besides the point. When working people have guns, are comfortable with them, and know how to use them, they are that much stronger. And usually, a part of getting the state apparatus (i.e. the military) to turn on itself comes as the organized revolutionary forces are able to inflict losses upon them. Good luck knocking off those first few barracks with sticks and stones.
Of course what I'm arguing is nothing new. It's a communist position that goes back to the days of Marx and Engels and was upheld by every successful revolutionary force since.

"Anti-militarist agitation in the pacifist sense is extremely detrimental; it only furthers the efforts of the bourgeoisie to disarm the proletariat. The proletariat rejects in principle and combats with the utmost energy all military institutions of the bourgeois state and of the bourgeois class in general. On the other hand, it utilizes these institutions (army, rifle clubs, territorial militias, etc.) to give the workers military training for revolutionary battles. Therefore, it is not against the military training of youth and workers but against the militaristic order and the autocratic rule of the officers that intensive agitation should be directed. Every possibility for the proletariat to get weapons into its hands must be exploited to the fullest." - Guidelines on the Organizational Structure of Communist Parties, on the Methods and Content of their Work (Adopted at the 24th Session of the Third Congress of the Communist International, 12 July 1921) (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/3rd-congress/organisation/guidelines.htm)



Within such a model, getting guns off the streets is a perfectly reasonable step. The problem, however, is that capitalism cannot be "perfected" and so striving towards that end is not only counterproductive but downright harmful, especially when ones efforts undermine genuinely productive working class causes.

Right. Liberalism builds illusions in the ability of the capitalist state to be reformed, with the goal of limiting the activities of working people to the 'acceptable realms of society.'


That said, I think you're overstating the case somewhat when you talk about "disarming" the working class.

As has been pointed out, the first world working class isn't really "armed" to begin with, not even in the United States with its relatively high rate of gun ownership.

The fact is most workers do not own and can't really operate modern firearms.

And that's a huge problem. Even if soldiers are going to magically hand over arms, as some ultraleftists suggest, we won't be able to use them!

Of course, it's not all together true either. In the U.S., for example, about half of the population is armed*. In some other places the number is higher.

* And most of those who are armed belong to the working class.


And even if they did and could, it honestly wouldn't make a difference when it came to the business of overthrowing the bourgeois state.

I suggest you study the history of Bolivia, and then get back to me on this.


How can you take what they haven't got? You admitted in the next post that most workers aren't even armed in the first place.

Workers have won the right to bare arms in some countries, and lost it (or never had it) in others.

In the places the right has been won, we have to fight to defend and strengthen it. In the places the right does not exist, we fight for it.

[LSD]

The fact that libertarians support the right to bare arms should not stop us from fighting for/to defend that same on our terms.

Obviously, but that still leaves the question of whether we want to fight for that right, "on our terms" or otherwise.

We have to pragmatic in what "rights" we choose to fight for, specifically they have to actually benefit our class and/or struggle in some objective manner. The right to free speech does that, as does the right to free association, right to privacy and many other hard-fought civil rights.

The right to bear arms, however, while sharing a comon history with many of those rights no longer has that much practical value. That is, while 200 years ago, or even 100 years ago in some cases, a citizens militia with common firearms could match, or at least challenge, a regular army, no number of AR-15 wielding amateur shooters is going to put a dent in even the Canadian military.

Like the right to free speech, the right to bear arms was construed a constituting a check on the power of the state, something which it is no longer able to be.

The fact is, technology has simply progressed to the point that the weapons that really matter are exclusively in the hands of the government. And no amount of "gun rights" will change that fact.

The "right to bear arms" as presently interpreted is exclusively in reference to small arms, and even then only those small arms judged not to be too "dangerous".

Fighting gun control doesn't mean putting us on equal fotting or even near equal footing to the armies of the bourgeoisie, it just means letting us own pistols and semi-automatic rifles.

In other words we can shoot ducks to our hears delight, but it contributes nothing to problems of revolution.

Rather those solutions will come out of the working class arming itself in violation of the laws, whatever they might be. And, right now, we have to work on radicalizing the working class, a project to which guns contribute very little.

Not they hurt either, of course, which is again why I'm rather neutral on the whole issue.


Of course what I'm arguing is nothing new. It's a communist position that goes back to the days of Marx and Engels and was upheld by every successful revolutionary force since.

Guidelines on the Organizational Structure of Communist Parties, on the Methods and Content of their Work (Adopted at the 24th Session of the Third Congress of the Communist International, 12 July 1921)

And you don't think anything's changed since 1921? Or that we might be in a slightly different positions than Czarist Russia when weapons technology is concerned?

Again, there was a time and place where fighting for a legally enshrined right to bear arms made good sense. That time, however, has passed.

Today, legal gun ownership or a lack thereof really doesn't intersect with issues of revolution. I suppose that arms training isn't a terrible idea, for a number of reasons actually; but I highly doubt that it's going to play a significant role in determining the outcome of a revolution.

We're not going to defeat the bourgeoisie by being better shots.


And that's a huge problem. Even if soldiers are going to magically hand over arms, as some ultraleftists suggest, we won't be able to use them!

Knowing how to fire a pistol is entirely different from knowing how to pilot a fighter plane or launch a missile.

Besides modern weapons are increasingly simple to use. And it's not like we're even going to have to fire most of the time. When workers sieze their factory or occupy a parliament building, they're not going to massacre the occupants.

It's the threat of violence that wins the day, not Triple-A marxmanship.


I suggest you study the history of Bolivia, and then get back to me on this.

The last successful revolution in Bolivia was in the 1940s and was decidedly nationalistic.

I suspect, however, that's your talking more about the protests and clashes of the past few years?

If so, I suggest you consider what difference it would have made had those protesters been armed or not? They weren't seaking to defeat the Bolivian military, just put pressure on the government.

Besides, I notice that the "right to bear arms" was not on their list of priorities. Almost as if they recognized that the working class has far more pressing concerns than getting the bourgoisies's permission to defend itself.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+October 12, 2007 10:55 pm--> (CompañeroDeLibertad @ October 12, 2007 10:55 pm) Luis, we've had this conversation before. I'm afraid that on this issue your ultra-leftism turns to liberalism. [/b]
Well, I'm not Leo Uillean or devrimankara, to whom "ultra-left" is a badge of honour.

I am not an ultra-leftist; to me, ultra-leftism is synonym to left opportunism.

So if something of mine is turning into liberalism, I am certain that it is not my supposed ultra-leftism.


The right to bare arms was given to the toilers when the capitalists needed them to help win their battles. We should be no more willing to give up this bourgeois-democratic right than we should be willing to give up the right to freedom of the press (yes, I know that right is not full and has all sorts of limitations).

Yes, we should.

The right of freedom of press does not make us instruments of State; the "right" to bear arms does exactly that. It is intended to make each citizen a member of the State's first line of defence.


The fact that libertarians support the right to bare arms should not stop us from fighting for/to defend that same on our terms. Most fascists in the U.S. are against the war in Iraq. Should we abandon the fight against that in the name of not assisting "organized reactionary powers"?

No, and the reason why we should not support the right to bear arms is not that the libertarians support it - though the libertarians support it exactly for the reason we shouldn't: that they know pretty well that an armed citizen quite certainly becomes an informal policeman.

In general, we should never guide ourselves by our enemies.


When working people have guns, are comfortable with them, and know how to use them, they are that much stronger.

As far as I know, the only working class that can be said, to any significant extent, to own guns and to be comfortable with them, is the American working class. And I would not say that it is a particularly strong working class; in fact, in many aspects, it is one of the weakest.


And usually, a part of getting the state apparatus (i.e. the military) to turn on itself comes as the organized revolutionary forces are able to inflict losses upon them.

You are wrong, of course. The breaking down of the State apparatus is a political operation; of course it has military aspects, but those are always subordinate to politics.

The bourgeoisie necessarily arms huge sections of the working class - soldiers and policemen. It cannot help it; its own numbers are insufficient for its armed defence against the proletariat and the foreign bourgeoisies (and the police work is "undeign" of the bourgeois). It is this fact that we must take advantage of, not supposed "rights" to be armed.


Good luck knocking off those first few barracks with sticks and stones.

I expect better luck with political work within the military; but, evidently, if this is not enough, illegal weapons will be quite certainly better than legal ones.


Of course what I'm arguing is nothing new. It's a communist position that goes back to the days of Marx and Engels and was upheld by every successful revolutionary force since.

"Anti-militarist agitation in the pacifist sense is extremely detrimental; it only furthers the efforts of the bourgeoisie to disarm the proletariat. The proletariat rejects in principle and combats with the utmost energy all military institutions of the bourgeois state and of the bourgeois class in general. On the other hand, it utilizes these institutions (army, rifle clubs, territorial militias, etc.) to give the workers military training for revolutionary battles. Therefore, it is not against the military training of youth and workers but against the militaristic order and the autocratic rule of the officers that intensive agitation should be directed. Every possibility for the proletariat to get weapons into its hands must be exploited to the fullest." -

As you see, this text does not refer to the private ownership of guns, but to the military organisation of the working class within the bourgeois army.

Curiously, this is a point that the left seems to miss - that it should struggle, not for the "right to bear arms", but for the reinstitution of draft.

But that is an outlandish position, isn't it? Instead, it is much more "practical" to accept the liberal-conservative consensus that the military must be professional; this way we don't unsettle the comformism of those who oppose their own participation in the bourgeois massacres abroad, but not those massacres in themselves.


And that's a huge problem. Even if soldiers are going to magically hand over arms, as some ultraleftists suggest, we won't be able to use them!

What communists suggest is not that the soldiers are going to "magically hand over" their weapons, but that they will turn their weapons against their officers. Which cannot be achieved by means of "magic", but only by means of politics.

***

However, the topic under discussion here is not revolution, but a series of murders. It is in this context that the issue of "gun rights" has been brought - that if every citizen was armed, this particular assassin wouldn't be able to do what he did. Which is blatantly false, of course; but the unrelated issue of weapons in the revolution is brought into discussion to varnish a vulgar "law-and-order" or even vigilante position - "let the common citizen fight crime, for the pigs are too incompetent to do it!" with a layer of red.


[email protected] 07, 2007 07:50 pm
Just look at Switzerland where most citizens are required by their Government to own a firearm and ammunition.

Therefore most of the population of Switzerland are armed which according to the gun control Fascists means that crime and violence in Switzerland should be sky rocketing at the moment. Wrong! Switzerland is Europe's (And thus one of the world's) most crime free Nations which also has one of the if not thee lowest murder count in the world!
The opportunist confusion is plainly here. The Swiss citizens are armed as part of the Swiss land defence, not as particular owner of guns. In fact, their guns belong rather to the Swiss army than to themselves.

This can be argued as a leftist, or at least radical-democratic position: draft, organisation of the populace as a whole within the military, and gun "ownership" connected to defence duties of the military reserve constituted by the whole citizenry. But it has nothing to do with the "right to bear arms"*.

Luís Henrique

*except historically, of course, for the reason the US constitution gives for the 2nd amendment rights is the need for a "well organized militia". With time, the "well organized" totally disappeared, and the "militia" turned into synonym of wannabe fascist squads - to which, in any case, most gun owners don't belong.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't have a lot of time right now, but I wanted to respond to LSD, who is apparently not a student of historic or military questions. If you think the U.S. military cannot be defeated, or deadlocked (which can turn into a defeat in a revolutionary situation), by lightly-armed masses you should look into Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq, etc.

Along those lines, Che wrote "The armies in Latin America are set up and equipped for conventional warfare. They are the force through which the power of the exploiting classes is maintained. When they are confronted with the irregular warfare of peasants based on their home ground, they become absolutely powerless; they lose 10 men for every revolutionary fighter who falls. Demoralization among them mounts rapidly when they are beset by an invisible and invincible army which provides them no chance to display their military academy tactics and their military fanfare, of which they boast so heavily, and which they use to repress the city workers and students."

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 14, 2007 12:02 am
I don't have a lot of time right now, but I wanted to respond to LSD, who is apparently not a student of historic or military questions. If you think the U.S. military cannot be defeated, or deadlocked (which can turn into a defeat in a revolutionary situation), by lightly-armed masses you should look into Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq, etc.

Along those lines, Che wrote "The armies in Latin America are set up and equipped for conventional warfare. They are the force through which the power of the exploiting classes is maintained. When they are confronted with the irregular warfare of peasants based on their home ground, they become absolutely powerless; they lose 10 men for every revolutionary fighter who falls. Demoralization among them mounts rapidly when they are beset by an invisible and invincible army which provides them no chance to display their military academy tactics and their military fanfare, of which they boast so heavily, and which they use to repress the city workers and students."
I think it is intelectually dishonest to think Viet Nam defeated militarily the US.

Sure, at the end the US did get away from Vietnam, but at what cost? 2 million vietnamese died, plus all the infrastructure destroyed by the American military. Only 40 000 american soldiers died, and this without having their country bombed to 20 years back.

America could have incinerated Viet Nam in a blink of an eye if it weren't for the now defunct USSR.

Luis Henrique is right. The american state won't be defeated inside its own borders without a part of the state turning against itself.

This doesn't means gun control needs to be supported though. The BPP proved that weapons could be used as a deterrent for police brutality etc.

[bcbm]

America could have incinerated Viet Nam in a blink of an eye if it weren't for the now defunct USSR.

But they would've had no reason to do so without the existence of the USSR. And besides, that makes it a good analogy- the US government isn't going to incinerate the continent.


Luis Henrique is right. The american state won't be defeated inside its own borders without a part of the state turning against itself.

Who's arguing that we don't need the soldiers to turn? The point is that we don't need to restrict gun access.

[LSD]

I don't have a lot of time right now, but I wanted to respond to LSD, who is apparently not a student of historic or military questions. If you think the U.S. military cannot be defeated, or deadlocked (which can turn into a defeat in a revolutionary situation), by lightly-armed masses you should look into Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq, etc.

And where did the Vietnamese, Koreans, Iraqis, etc. get their guns from? Did they acquire them legally, at their local store, in accordance with their state-sanctioned "right" to "bear arms"?

Or did they sieze them any way they could, from stockpiles, from diserting soldiers, from political allies in other countries.

The issue here isn't whether small arms can make a difference (albeit an increasingly limited one), but rather whether fighting for a bourgeois recognition of a "right" to "arms" actually accomplishes anything towards that end.

And I would remind you that the US was stalemated in Vietnam, and is being stalemated in Iraq today, not only because of concerted resistance efforts, but also because fear of US domestic opinion restrains their hand.

If the US military was free to run this war anyway they wanted, they would have nuked Sadr city a long time ago, along with a whole number of "strategic" sites.

In the event of a revolution, they will not hesitate to use whatever forces are at their disposal to level any revolutionary strongholds, regardless of how many civilians might get in the way.

Forget Vietnam, think Dresden, think Hiroshima.

When the bourgeoisie is fighting imperialist wars of foreign aggression, they need to be careful to maintain their facade as moral liberals. When they're fighting for their very survival, they'll do whatever they have to to win.


the US government isn't going to incinerate the continent.

My guess is that they'd rather incinerate a good chunk of it than lose all of it.

Which is why we need to make sure that we are capable of stopping them. Something we won't be able to do with pistols and Glocks 19s!

[bcbm]

My guess is that they'd rather incinerate a good chunk of it than lose all of it.

Which is why we need to make sure that we are capable of stopping them. Something we won't be able to do with pistols and Glocks 19s!

But we will be able to do with....?

[LSD]

Assured second strike capacity. The ability to project devastating force against the bourgeoisie itself, directly.

In other words weapons technology rivaling that of their standing armies, indeed probably appropriated from their standing armies... ;)

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 14, 2007 12:02 am
I don't have a lot of time right now, but I wanted to respond to LSD, who is apparently not a student of historic or military questions. If you think the U.S. military cannot be defeated, or deadlocked (which can turn into a defeat in a revolutionary situation), by lightly-armed masses you should look into Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq, etc.
In Korea, the Americans faced regular armies (North Korean and Chinese) with weapons comparable, if inferior, to theirs, and superior in number. In Vietnam they faced irregular guerrillas and a regular army (North Vietnamese).

But you are right to point that a superpower that has nukes can be confronted, and defeated, by relatively lightly armed enemies. The reason, however, is political. To make its superior armament really efficient, the superpower has to be politically able to use its superior armament to its full extent. The United States, in Vietnam, wasn't (and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan wasn't, so this isn't a "democracy" thing).

Which brings the question: if you can defeat nukes with guns, how do you know it is impossible to defeat guns with bare hands? It isn't - the Iranian regime fell, in 1979, to practically unarmed crowds, with its soldiers, armed with machine guns, fleeing in panic. Again, the issue is political; war is an instrument of politics, not the other way round.


Along those lines, Che wrote "The armies in Latin America are set up and equipped for conventional warfare. They are the force through which the power of the exploiting classes is maintained. When they are confronted with the irregular warfare of peasants based on their home ground, they become absolutely powerless; they lose 10 men for every revolutionary fighter who falls. Demoralization among them mounts rapidly when they are beset by an invisible and invincible army which provides them no chance to display their military academy tactics and their military fanfare, of which they boast so heavily, and which they use to repress the city workers and students."

Needless to say, Che is wrong here, and has been proved wrong dozens of times. The irregular warfare of Cuban peasants and intellectuals was able to topple Batista (with the often forgotten, but invaluable, help of a general strike in Cuban cities), because Batista's regime was already politically defeated. Whenever the bourgeois State has been able to muster enough political force to strike back, its army has brutally smashed the feeble resistance of peasant irregulars, and their "academic tactics" and "fanfare" have shown to be apt to evolve, adapt, and surpass peasant irregulars. Perhaps the best example of this was the fate of the Argentinian guerrillas. Able to harass the State for years, even giving the impression that they could topple the Argentinian bourgeoisie, they were wiped out quite quickly once the Argentinian State recovered its political strenght (by contrast, not many years later, an unarmed movement toppled an Argentinian government with practically no exchange of fire, once that government had been politically defeated).

Revolution is a political process, in which military events play a bigger or smaller role; but it's won, or lost, politically, even when actually huge battles have to be fought.

Politically, one stolen gun is worth ten, or a thousand, guns legally bought - because achieving them is already a political victory over the State. Inversely, a bought gun is a political victory for the State, a political enlistment of a citizen as an auxiliary of the State.

Luís Henrique