Armed populations

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Whats the general view here on the ownership of guns. In Britain the lack of guns keeps the crime rate down but if I lived in Afghanistan or Chechnya I would rather have a gun for self protection.

I understand we would need Guns for a revolution although I think they left should be more focused on class awareness then stockpiling Guns , knives bombs etc.

How many of you carry knives or guns or imitations on you and if so why do you?

Edit in late 2009: Someone go slap 2008 me.

[Asoka89]

In first world country class-consciousness and the revolution need not be overtly violent/need guns, self-styled urban guerrila insurrections etc in first world countries are childish and fatalistic (read: RAF)

I often have mixed thoughts though guns and an armed population will be needed in some countries to protect the people's revolution from counter-revolution (see Allende's Chile) and ive often had the same question

[Module]

In first world country class-consciousness and the revolution need not be overtly violent/need guns, self-styled urban guerrila insurrections etc in first world countries are childish and fatalistic (read: RAF)
Why? I think you'll find that a revolution will be met with violence no matter what country it's in.
Dissent no where near the revolutionary scale is already met with violence in these "first world" countries you speak of, for example, Australia at (and far more overtly ever since) the G20 protests. An example. (http://iww.org.au/node/279) And one of many, I'm sure.


I often have mixed thoughts though guns and an armed population will be needed in some countries to protect the people's revolution from counter-revolution (see Allende's Chile) and ive often had the same question
During a revolution I think that people should be armed, in preparation for violence. That doesn't mean I think anybody should initiate it, but it will happen, and they're allowed to be prepared for it.

[BIG BROTHER]

interesting question, I have never reallly tought much about the issue, I would somewhat favor the right of people to own guns so they aren't so helpless, but I'm not educated enough about this to have a real opinion.

[spartan]

I think that George Orwell was right when he said:


"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

I basically believe that elected representatives should be scared shitless of their citizens because that way they will better serve us and our needs as an armed population provides a check to any attempts of our elected representatives at gaining more power for themselves.

And as for the "less guns less crime" logic, that simply doesnt work as criminals will always get their hands on guns illegally leaving law abiding (i.e. not likely to obtain weapons illegally) civilians powerless to defend themselves due to not being armed.

Criminals can also use other weapons such as knives.

The fact is if an armed criminal wants to steal from a shop then he is going to seriously think twice about robbing from that shop if he thinks that there is a high probability of the shopkeeper being armed as well.

I would also like to direct your attention to this:


You're suddenly awakened by a noise from downstairs.
You listen closely.... but nothing. Was it your imagination?
One night, my husband was on night duty, so I knew it wasn't him, but still, it was definitely a noise. Shhh... there it was again.
Quietly, I get up, reach underneath my side of the bed to pull out my HK. The adrenaline is pumping the moment I feel the grooves of the gun. Breathing, I'm trained and prepared. I've experienced violence and trauma in my life before, never again, not by choice. This time I was ready. It also wouldn't matter if the person was 6' tall and 210 pounds. As the old saying goes, God created man. Samuel Colt made us equal. For a woman, especially finding yourself alone and facing danger, this matters.

The good thing about guns is that no matter your gender, strength, etc you are all equal when faced with a firearm.

A woman armed with a firearm is far more likely to be better able to resist rape then a woman without one, just as a man attacked by a group of thugs is far more likely to fight off his attackers with a firearm then without one.

That is because firearms make us all equal!

There is no gender or strength distinctions when you are looking down the barrel of a gun, you are just another human being facing possible death and wishing that that wasnt the case.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

In response to your question, I collect swords and knives. I'm a fan of Asian craftsmanship - it's truly a shame that the weapons are being mass produced.

The issue of guns doesn't seem theoretically detrimental to me since different cultures and regions have different standards. New York City and Smalltown, Texas probably should disagree on certain issues. I wouldn't be unequivocally supportive of either extreme. In my opinion guns are like cars; one should be properly tested for them, but almost anyone should be able to acquire them if they're serious with the responsibility. Of course driving tests are nothing short of jokes in my area.

[F9]

when a gun may be used against you, you must have and foryourself something to defend!i am not so against ownership of a gun because someone may fell in dangerous of his life and the only way to fight guns is with guns!before some years fascists killed leftists in cyprus just for their political statement.i wouldnt think bad for a man who killed a fascist which came to his house to kill him!

Fuserg9:star:

[BIG BROTHER]

I tend to agree with GeneCosta, everybody should get a chance to own a gun after making sure he's capable of using it responsibly.

[Red_or_Dead]

I tend to agree with GeneCosta, everybody should get a chance to own a gun after making sure he's capable of using it responsibly.

Yeah, but that shouldnt be as simple as getting a pack of cigs from the store, where all they ask you is to show your ID. I think that in this case, anyone with a criminal history should be banned from using guns. Also, educating people about the responsibility of owning a firearm should be a priority.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I basically believe that elected representatives should be scared shitless of their citizens because that way they will better serve us and our needs as an armed population provides a check to any attempts of our elected representatives at gaining more power for themselves.

I would completely agree. The only body which can prevent bureaucratization and party supremacy is the armed proletariat. Whilst all delegates in the socialist era must be paid no more than a working mans wage and must be immediately recallable from office, this is not enough. The masses must at all times after the revolution bear arms not only against the bourgeoisie but more importantly against the socialist state. This would ensure a true dictatorship of the proletariat and not that of the party.

The fears of civilian safety and crime levels are negligible. Not only can it be argued that guns reduce crime and violence, but if such was to occur irrelevant it would still be necessary. The proletarian state is the more important outcome, any residual effects must be made minor by comparison. We can not falter and bow the the threat of crime, the armed masses is an essential for the proletariat organized as the ruling class, a principle which can not be compromised.

[BIG BROTHER]

Yeah, but that shouldnt be as simple as getting a pack of cigs from the store, where all they ask you is to show your ID. I think that in this case, anyone with a criminal history should be banned from using guns. Also, educating people about the responsibility of owning a firearm should be a priority.

I agree.

[thejambo1]

people should be educated about using guns,and they should not be available over the counter. living in britain we dont need to carry them, but come a revolution i think everyone should have the means to get their hands on them.

[Red_or_Dead]

I would completely agree. The only body which can prevent bureaucratization and party supremacy is the armed proletariat. Whilst all delegates in the socialist era must be paid no more than a working mans wage and must be immediately recallable from office, this is not enough. The masses must at all times after the revolution bear arms not only against the bourgeoisie but more importantly against the socialist state. This would ensure a true dictatorship of the proletariat and not that of the party.

The fears of civilian safety and crime levels are negligible. Not only can it be argued that guns reduce crime and violence, but if such was to occur irrelevant it would still be necessary. The proletarian state is the more important outcome, any residual effects must be made minor by comparison. We can not falter and bow the the threat of crime, the armed masses is an essential for the proletariat organized as the ruling class, a principle which can not be compromised.


What we must take into consideration here is that the proletariat could use guns to fight the revolution itself. The fact is that at present moment in the first world countries, most people oppose communism, and accept the bourgeois democracy. Even if we would gain a widespread public support for a revolution, there would undoubtedly still be a great amount of people who would oppose it, AND they would have the support of reactionary institutions and political parties. Looking at it this way, arming the population isnt such a good idea, especialy not in a period of a revolution, which would mean instability, hostilities, and the like, which can very quickly lead to a civil war. Arming the population would only make things worse, imo. Guns yes, but not for everybody!

[RNK]

Failure of revolution in the first world is mainly due to asshole neoliberal anti-gun retards who prefer to stab capitalists with penstrokes on pieces of paper than actually physically challenge bourgeois rule of law.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Looking at it this way, arming the population isnt such a good idea, especialy not in a period of a revolution, which would mean instability, hostilities, and the like, which can very quickly lead to a civil war. Arming the population would only make things worse, imo. Guns yes, but not for everybody!

I'm not suggesting we arm the population in todays world as it is. I'm specifically talking about after the revolution. In a socialist society the proletariat must bear arms against bourgeois remnants and the socialist state itself.


Failure of revolution in the first world is mainly due to asshole neoliberal anti-gun retards who prefer to stab capitalists with penstrokes on pieces of paper than actually physically challenge bourgeois rule of law.

Well I wouldn't say it's mainly due to "asshole neoliberal anti-gun retards", they sure to have an impact. I would however warn against the violence fetish undertones that your post presents. In the Western world pen strokes on a piece of paper (communist pen strokes not neoliberal pen strokes) further the proletarian cause more than a bunch of gun-toting urban "communist" guerrillas physically opposing bourgeois rule. Individual terror and violent radicalism only seek to isolate and condemn our movement, a large step backward. Before violent actions can be taken there must be a mass movement, something that must occur on the streets and in the hearts and minds of the masses, achieved initially only be theorizing and raising of class consciousness through educational avenues.

[Winter]

Failure of revolution in the first world is mainly due to asshole neoliberal anti-gun retards who prefer to stab capitalists with penstrokes on pieces of paper than actually physically challenge bourgeois rule of law.

I agree. They play a large role and are nothing more but a piece in the capitalists plan to keep the working class helpless.

The working class has the right to bear arms. Studies have shown that there is less crime in areas where gun control is at a minimum.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Why can't we practice "entryism" in regards to the NRA? :(

[RNK]

Beats me. Entryism could be a valuable organization tool, if it weren't stubbornly for bourgeois political parties only (where, ironically, it is probably the least effective).


I would however warn against the violence fetish undertones that your post presents.

Excuse me if I don't feel the need to go in detail about why revolutionary violence is as necessary a tool as pen-stroking. Frankly, I'm tired of having to repeat the sentiment to the same circle of burnt-out ideologically bankrupt reformists again and again.

[lombas]

I don't see why and how to forbid.

That being said, I don't think I'd ever own a gun.