Gun Regulation

[Comrade B]

With all the talk of the legalization of guns in District of Columbia, I have started to wonder what your view on gun laws in the ideal country.

I personally would want strict gun restriction in a communist country, however, the Empire accidentally provides rebel organizations around the world with arms all the time. In Che Guevara's Guerrilla Warfare Che himself advises buying guns in the United States (The M1 Garand)

Vote for your ideal system, and explain what you think of modern gun laws.

[nvm]

Give guns to the people!
They will need them for arming themselves in a revolutionary period!
No gun control!

[spartan]

I voted for the second option.

Personally i believe that firearms should be freely available to all citizens.

However these freely available firearms should have caliber/bullet restrictions (Nothing bigger than .50 BMG for example) and those buying them should have a gun license, be at least 18 (Age limit), has no history of mental health problems or criminal activities and should have a waiting period before getting the firearm which they purchased (So that checks can be made with the authorities on the person purchasing the firearm).

I dont think that there should be any restrictions when it comes to fully automatic/select fire weapons either.

[chimx]

I grew up in a state that had the first option and support only it. Screw tests and waiting periods.

[mykittyhasaboner]

second option. because everybody should be armed to participate in the revolution, and even in the post revolutionary period, in case there is a counter revolution. of course there needs to be waiting periods so some lunatic doesn't get a gun and start opening fire on innocent civilians.


I personally would want strict gun restriction in a communist country
i dont think there will be a need for guns in a communist society, so there probably wouldnt be many.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Eh I don't really trust the state to regulate guns, however I think that screening for shit like violent crimes and mental diseases might not be such a bad idea.

[chimx]

i dont think there will be a need for guns in a communist society, so there probably wouldnt be many.

Clearly you didn't grow up in rural America. We like guns and we won't let you take them away from us.

[Dean]

second option. I believe in limitations, i.e. age, but not a lot.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Clearly you didn't grow up in rural America. We like guns and we won't let you take them away from us.

no i didnt, but what need would guns serve? aside from hunting, if you could call that a need.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I understand why people would want firearms for recreation (target shooting, hunting).
However, having a gun for "personal protection" causes more accidents then crimes it prevents (especially in today's urbanized world.)

I support a unique alternative. Abolish firearms for personal ownership. However, at target ranges and ranger stations, allow individuals the opportunity to apply for membership or enrollment to a national list. After a background check and waiting period, issue a card to the individual who then would be allowed to borrow or rent a firearm from such a recreational service (the target range for target shooting or a ranger station for hunting.)

When the hunting holiday is over or the shooting session is over, the gun is returned (after a predetermined time period.)
If (and when) somebody walks off with a gun, records will show who has that gun (and it will be possible to track them down.) Additionally, possession of a gun outside of these areas would be strictly prohibited.

This would of course be applicable to debate and compromise, but it is a reasonable start; guns would be off the street (and the few that got by would be tracked down before long), but firearm recreation would still be perfectly legal, and the inconvenience experienced by such recreation seekers would be insignificant compared to the increased safety in the city streets.

The only group that should be upset is the "safety" group. I am sorry, but people who really think that their gun offers them personal safety have continually failed to present a convincing argument to me.

I will also admit that I have a personal bias against guns. I work in an area that shootings are a commonplace event (an injury about every other day and a fatality about ever month.)
There are 3 major gangs (Bloods, Crips, and Disciples) who operate locally, and I have picked up my fair share of gang-related shootings over the years; more often then not with unintended injuries and deaths (such as an 88 year-old woman and a 10 year-old boy I've picked up from drive-by shootings. Luckily I wasn't on duty a couple months ago when a 4 year-old girl was shot.)

[Vanguard1917]

No restrictions. The people should have a right to bear arms and the bourgeois state should not be permitted to set conditions limiting this right.

[nvm]

I personally would want strict gun restriction in a communist country

A communist country cannot exist lol/
In a socialist country though guns should be permited. An armed population is needed in order for the system to be protected from internal and external threats. There should be no bodies of armed men. There should be armed workers!

[Vanguard1917]

Also, there is no direct relationship between gun ownership and gun crime.

For example, Switzerland has higher adult gun ownership rates than the US, and far lower homicide rates. The same goes for Israel.

The Philippines and Mexico have strict gun controls and have far higher homicide rates than the US.

Handguns are banned in Washington DC and the city has a murder rate of 80 per 100,000. Arlington, Virginia has almost no gun controls and the murder rate is 1.6 per 100,000.

Well over 99% of the guns in the US have never been used in a crime. Less than one US gun owner in 3,000 commits homicide.

See this article for some more interesting facts: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/4158/ (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4158/)

------------

Futhermore, while there's no direct relationship between gun ownership and gun crime, there's a very definite relationship between gun control and ruling class fears of the people (as the article i linked points out).

In Britain, for example, gun controls were introduced in 1920 in response to the threat of Bolshevism. The 1968 Gun Control Act in the US was introduced in large part in response to the threat of the Black Panther Party.

[Zurdito]

"arm the working class", as they say.

crime is due to poverty, inequality and social decay of capitalism, not the availibilty of weapons. and communsits in any case have never accepted a trade off between "security" and giving the bourgeois state more powers. the real criminals, the bourgeoisie, will always be armed in any case, gun legislation doesn't cure that.

[Mala Tha Testa]

i went with the second one, mainly because screening for criminal history and stuff, and no restriction on automatic/select fire weapons because if you're a maniac, and a desent shot you'd probably be able to kill as many people with a bolt-action sniper rifle or something than with an automatic AK-47 or RPK. people who are turned down would end up buying a weapon from their friend or constructing one themselves so it probably wouldn't work.

[Zurdito]

i went with the second one, mainly because screening for criminal history and stuff

they would (do) also screen for communism, I'm pretty sure ;)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Communists support the right to bear arms.

[Lost In Translation]

I support the second option. If you have people just buying guns without a background check, that could lead to some bad s**t happening. However, for everybody else, it's fine.

[Mala Tha Testa]

they would (do) also screen for communism, I'm pretty sure ;)

:lol: yeah.

[NoArch]

An armed population is a free population. Just because people own a gun doesn't mean they will commit murder. I voted the first option as the only control should be common sense, a gun dealer should be able to refuse to sell to people s/he believes is suspicious or not safe to handle a weapon.

Similarly, if some loony wants to kill random people, making a homemade gun really isn't that hard.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Nor is wielding a knife... or an automobile (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2337171,00.html).

[piet11111]

the second option because i think its best to have some limited restrictions like
- age restriction (18+)
- gun safety license
- no criminal record involving violence to others

for the rest you should be able to get anything you want.

[BobKKKindle$]

Socialists should oppose legislation which restricts the ownership of guns. This it not because a gun can provide an individual with the ability to defend himself, although this is an argument which could be made to defend the right to own weaponry from a libertarian perspective - rather, the socialist position on gun ownership should be based on the needs of the working class in a revolutionary situation. The working class must have access to arms to overthrow the bourgeois state apparatus and defend the revolution against hostile groups such as the remnants of the ruling class. Restrictive legislation under capitalism allows the state apparatus to attain a monopoly on the use of violence, thereby securing the power of the bourgeoisie.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Exactly.

[NoArch]

Socialists should oppose legislation which restricts the ownership of guns. This it not because a gun can provide an individual with the ability to defend himself, although this is an argument which could be made to defend the right to own weaponry from a libertarian perspective - rather, the socialist position on gun ownership should be based on the needs of the working class in a revolutionary situation. The working class must have access to arms to overthrow the bourgeois state apparatus and defend the revolution against hostile groups such as the remnants of the ruling class. Restrictive legislation under capitalism allows the state apparatus to attain a monopoly on the use of violence, thereby securing the power of the bourgeoisie.
This.:thumbup1:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Even under communist society there should be certain restrictions - if you're mentally unstable, have a history of violence judged by the local community to be incompatible with firearms ownership, or lack a basic level of competence at handling firearms, then you should not be able to possess one.

Otherwise, you should be able to have any kind of weapon in your possession as long as you can use and maintain it by yourself.

[Comrade B]

in the ideal country.
A lot of you guys seem to have bypassed this part.

In the United States, or the UK, or wherever you are, the issue is entirely different.

[F9]

non of the options "fill" me i think.It wouldnt be ok to have kids running around with rocket lanchers,ak's etc,imagine what would happen in turkey with full gun allowing and they won a game in euro,ask Leo and Devrim:lol:I am not and a big lover of guns,molotov is the best;)but there should be freely availale some of the weapons not all and not to all people,imagine a 10 year old with grenades:blink:.Some weapons as bats etc weapon with no bullets ok,no limit at all but at the hevy weapon should be some conditions to get one!Our lives would be better with no gus at all,its a day i look forward of!

Fuserg9:star:

[Jazzratt]

Socialists should oppose legislation which restricts the ownership of guns. This it not because a gun can provide an individual with the ability to defend himself, although this is an argument which could be made to defend the right to own weaponry from a libertarian perspective - rather, the socialist position on gun ownership should be based on the needs of the working class in a revolutionary situation. The working class must have access to arms to overthrow the bourgeois state apparatus and defend the revolution against hostile groups such as the remnants of the ruling class. Restrictive legislation under capitalism allows the state apparatus to attain a monopoly on the use of violence, thereby securing the power of the bourgeoisie.

And after the revolution? This is a good reason to have gun rights now but after the working class cease power I don't entirely see what way someone who argues on this basis alone would go on the issue....

[spartan]

And after the revolution?
Well after the revolution guns should still be available as we may need them to defend our gains from some self appointed vanguard/bureaucracy which starts fucking things up like they did in the old USSR.

And of course for self protection, hunting, etc.

Arming the workers isnt just because of potential external threats it is also for potential internal threats.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I agree that the ownership of firearms should not be restricted (except on the basis of age of course). However I don't believe in a right to bear arms. The availability of fire arms may have benefits for a revolutionary movement (not some band of terrorist guerrillas), but this does not imply a right to gun ownership.

[Hexen]

I feel that no weapon should be restricted maybe except for weapons that cause major catastrophic damage (Nuclear Weapons, etc) which is common sense.

(http://qtl.co.il/aff)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And after the revolution? This is a good reason to have gun rights now but after the working class cease power I don't entirely see what way someone who argues on this basis alone would go on the issue....

In the act of the revolution the capitalist state and its armed bodies will be smashed, and a workers state built in its place. Depending on the circumstances there may very well be the need for a regular army (especially in the first countries in which the revolution breaks out.. you couldn't deal with imperialist encirclement without an army). There also need to be popular militias.

[Malakangga]

i choose the first one.
give a gun to the people and let them make their own revolution

[Yehuda Stern]

those buying them should have a gun license, be at least 18 (Age limit), has no history of mental health problems or criminal activities and should have a waiting period before getting the firearm which they purchased (So that checks can be made with the authorities on the person purchasing the firearm).So, say I'm a poor black worker in the USA who got thrown in prison for participating in a militant demonstration (maybe I was a black panther back in the day). Maybe I did illegal drugs and got sent to jail for it. Hell, maybe some cop just saw me walking in the street after a violent crime has been reported, wrong time, wrong place, wrong color, and I got locked up for it. Do you support the right of the same white, racist state that sent me to jail to take away my right to bear arms?

Many poor and working class people, black or white, are wrongly accused of crimes every year, mostly black people because of the racist nature of the American state. Supporting that state's right to limit gun rights is a slippery slope. The same can be said about Palestinians in Israel, Muslims in France, etc.


For example, Switzerland has higher adult gun ownership rates than the US, and far lower homicide rates. The same goes for Israel.Do I really need to spell out why Israel is such a bad example here (despite the fact that I support your argument)?

In Israel, settlers can get a gun easy as pie. Palestinians can't get them by any means other than by joining a militia. Palestinians revolutionaries, who do not wish to take part in reactionary outfits such as Fatah or Hamas, can get their heads blown to bits by a settler or a soldier quite easily.

The hidden homicide rates in Israel are the dozens of Palestinians harassed or murdered by Jewish chauvinists, with or without green uniforms.

[RedAnarchist]

No restrictions should be in place. If only the authorities are armed, it gives working class people a huge disadvantage.

[piet11111]

No restrictions should be in place. If only the authorities are armed, it gives working class people a huge disadvantage.

without some restrictions even the most dangerous anti-worker people could get them.

would you not want to do a checkup on someone that wants an assault rifle to see if he is not a known counter-revolutionary ?

also it would be nice if they also passed a basic gun safety exam so that he is less likely to injure himself or someone else.

i think it would also be better if they are 18+ so that they are mature and strong enough to handle the weapon and the responsibility.

[Yehuda Stern]

would you not want to do a checkup on someone that wants an assault rifle to see if he is not a known counter-revolutionary ?

This is usually the arguments used by Democrats in the US and liberals all over to convince leftists to support gun control. In reality, the reactionaries can always get arms, while workers and minorities are left powerless by the state.

[gla22]

none or very light.

[piet11111]

This is usually the arguments used by Democrats in the US and liberals all over to convince leftists to support gun control. In reality, the reactionaries can always get arms, while workers and minorities are left powerless by the state.

its true if anyone wants a weapon they will eventually manage to get one.
but they still would have to try really hard to get one instead of simply being handed one.

no i would still support a background check for anyone requesting a weapon.

[Comrade B]

With no restrictions... Does this not just make the richest person the safest? Being that most people seem to be speaking about in the current political situation, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that if there are no restrictions, any crazy rich person could buy all the arms they like? Meanwhile, the poor, who typically are those more in need of protection, have the most pitiful resources for self defense.

[Yehuda Stern]

no i would still support a background check for anyone requesting a weapon.

And what sort of background, do you think, is more likely to cause the capitalist state to ban you from buying weapons - being a nationalist / racist, or being a 'dangerous' minority or revolutionary (or both)?

[piet11111]

And what sort of background, do you think, is more likely to cause the capitalist state to ban you from buying weapons - being a nationalist / racist, or being a 'dangerous' minority or revolutionary (or both)?

does it matter ?

like you said i would still be able to get my hands on a weapon if i just look hard enough.

besides i doubt the american government is keeping record about everyone's political preferences.
criminal records they would keep so getting yourself arrested at a protest would probably complicate things but i doubt even that would prevent anyone from legally buying weapons.
also i believe such records are destroyed after x years or am i mistaken ?

[Chapter 24]

I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter of gun and their regulation. So in that sense my stance is basically this: people should be able to own firearms after thorough backgroun checks on the individual wishing to purchase one or more.
The murder rate being affected strictly by the availability of guns is not a decent answer for me on why guns should be banned, considering a lot of it is liberal nonsense anyway.

[Yehuda Stern]

like you said i would still be able to get my hands on a weapon if i just look hard enough.

You - maybe, just maybe. The reactionaries - certainly.

[freakazoid]

I say absolutely no restrictions so I voted for the first one.


With no restrictions... Does this not just make the richest person the safest?

Most rich people are afraid of guns. But they don't seem to mind having armed bodygaurds :confused:


besides i doubt the american government is keeping record about everyone's political preferences.

I remember reading about how the president had plans to arrest all known communists during the cold war.

Also in the poll is lists waiting periods as light restrictions, there is nothing light about them and they serve absolutely no perpose but a huge hassle.

[Annie K.]

I don't understand.
What makes you all think that the ruling class will freely give us the means to violently oppose its power ? That the capitalist state will arm a proletariat ?
And moreover, that our opinions about the right to own a firearm or the gun regulation have any meaning ?

Gun regulation is not (yet) a political question that can be answered by a democratic process.
If the people constitutes a threat on the state power, like it can be in germany, france, or even UK, the state will ban firearms. If the threat is negligible like in switzerland or in the US, the state will only lightly regulate firearm ownership.


An armed population is a free population. Just because people own a gun doesn't mean they will commit murder.
An armed population is not a free population. Just because people own a gun doesn't mean they will commit revolution.

Anyway, even a conscious population cannot challenge a modern army with only firearms.
My personal opinion is that our capitalist states must create a new tax on the financial movements, and use these new funds to furnish modern tanks, gunships, planes and military formation to the working class...

[Yehuda Stern]

What makes you all think that the ruling class will freely give us the means to violently oppose its power ? That the capitalist state will arm a proletariat ?
And moreover, that our opinions about the right to own a firearm or the gun regulation have any meaning ?


My personal opinion is that our capitalist states must create a new tax on the financial movements, and use these new funds to furnish modern tanks, gunships, planes and military formation to the working class...

Uh... wow, kinda contradictory there, no?

Anyway, if our attitude to every question was that the state is capitalist and we have no chance to gain our demands in the first place, we wouldn't be doing anything. But we fight against the state to pressure it to accede to our demands. And as right now to right to bear arms is protected in the constitution, we oppose the liberals' attempt to take that right away.

[trivas7]

Give guns to the people!
They will need them for arming themselves in a revolutionary period!
No gun control!
May I politely suggest that if the Marines invade your town that pistol in you attic won't be much help.

[Annie K.]

Uh... wow, kinda contradictory there, no?That was sarcastic.

Some things can be demanded to the state, like a protective work legislation, or a performant health system. But it is pointless to ask the state the permission to overthrow it.
Our attitude to every political question should be to determine if the conditions of the debate allow the participation with a revolutionnary point of view.
For exemple, the argument about gun regulation that takes currently place in the united states between reactionaries and conservatives has nothing to do with revolution. And if it could it wouldn't even exist.

I dont blame anyone who think that el pueblo armado etc. But I find disturbing that people who claim to be revolutionnaries involve themselves in a political debate which excludes revolution or social movement by its form and substance.

[Pogue]

Wait, why would you want guns easily available?

[freakazoid]

Anyway, even a conscious population cannot challenge a modern army with only firearms.Umm... Yes you can.


May I politely suggest that if the Marines invade your town that pistol in you attic won't be much help

1. Yes it would.
2. Who says I only have a pistol ;)?
3. Why would I only have a pistol?
4. Why would I have it stashed in the attack, a pistol isn't illegal.


Wait, why would you want guns easily available?Because it is my right to be able to own one. Who are you to tell me I can't?

[Taboo Tongue]

I voted for the first option ("Buying a gun should have no restrictions. Pay and leave."), because those tests and regulations can easily be used as a way to prohibit revolutionaries from having them, even in a post revolutionary society. Gun prohibition is precisely where I hold Luxemburg to be wrong, and reject her on such. The people must be armed, no questions asked.
Even age restrictions do little, I could have purchased one when I was 14. I would have except I was moving across the country and was worried of state border searches (and we got stopped but not searched).

[Yehuda Stern]

Some things can be demanded to the state, like a protective work legislation, or a performant health system. But it is pointless to ask the state the permission to overthrow it.

But the right to bear arms is a democratic right, i.e. a right that it is completely realistic to demand of the capitalist state. That's a fact, I think. All revolutionists have to do in the USA is to make sure that right is not taken away.

[Annie K.]

Yes you can.How ?

it is my right to be able to own one.
the right to bear arms is a democratic rightIn the united states, gun ownership itself is not a right, it is a particular aspect of the right to private property. And the political system of the united states is not a democracy. It protects rights only as they don't give freedom... It is as a merchandise that guns are allowed.

If it is realistic to ask the capitalist state for the right to bear guns, that only means that this right does not represent a threat for the power of this state. That is why the debate on gun regulation in the united states doesn't concern revolutionnaries.
I maintain that : it is pointless to ask the state for the permission to overthrow it.

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, no one said America is a democracy. But the fact is, the right to bear arms is granted there - though in some places there are some limitations. It is a fact, then, that it is realistic to demand (not 'ask') the right to bear arms under capitalism. That the American bourgeoisie intends it for a different use altogether is another matter.

[Annie K.]

Yes, of course it is realistic to demand that. What is not is to think this right has something to do with freedom or revolution. That is also a fact, no just the intent of the bourgeoisie.


not 'ask'I'll try to remember that.

[freakazoid]

How ?

How can they not? The military isn't some unstoppable force.


In the united states, gun ownership itself is not a right,

What Yehuda Stern said. Also the current Heller Vs SCOTUS showed that it is an individual right, not a collective one.

[Pogue]

Because it is my right to be able to own one. Who are you to tell me I can't?[/quote]

I can't tell you, the laws of country can. Theres no reason for you to have a gun, and if everyone had one we'd have people shooting people everywhere. Like they are in some areas at the moment.
Its the same as how I can tell you not to posess aload of bombs, cos you could use them to inflict serious damage. or the same as me telling you that you have no right to murder.

[freakazoid]

What is not is to think this right has something to do with freedom or revolution

The whole purpose of The Bill of Rights is to keep the government from taking away our natural right, from taking away our freedom. And the 2A actually has a LOT to do with revolution. The purpose of the 2A is less for personal protection and more to do with making sure that we can overthrow the government when it starts to get out of control.



I can't tell you, the laws of country can

No, it can't. We have an inalienable 2A right to it.


Theres no reason for you to have a gun,

Hunting, personal protection, sport shooting, overthrowing the government when it gets out of line, collecting, because I feel like. All of those are reasons for me to have a gun.


and if everyone had one we'd have people shooting people everywhere.

If that where true then why don't we see that happening? One person already gave the example of Vermont and Switzerland.


Like they are in some areas at the moment.

Those areas just happen to be where the laws are most stringent, like DC or Chicago. How about that.


Its the same as how I can tell you not to posess aload of bombs, cos you could use them to inflict serious damage.

No, it's not. You shouldn't be able to tell me I can't have a bomb. And if you do I can make my own. What does it matter what I could do with something? I could kill a lot of people with my car if I wanted. Did you here about that guy in Japan who killed 17 people with a knife, A KNIFE! Should we outlaw those to?


or the same as me telling you that you have no right to murder.

No, it is not the same. I can't murder because that is infringing on someone else's rights. That would be me putting my authority over them which isn't right. Your rights end at the end of my nose.

[Annie K.]

The bill of rights is just a constitutionnal text, not an accurate report on the political situation in the united states.
Its original purpose doesn't matter.
If guns can be used to overthrow the government, the law will change, like it has been the case in many european countries. If not, it will stay an "inalienable right".


we can overthrow the government when it starts to get out of control.If that where true then why don't we see that happening?


How can they not? The military isn't some unstoppable force.The united state army, engaged in an all-out conflict like a civil war, is an unstoppable force if the only opposition is an armed one.

[freakazoid]

The bill of rights is just a constitutionnal text,

JUST a constitutional text, what is that supposed to mean?


not an accurate report on the political situation in the united states.

Its not supposed to be. It is a list of rights that all people have that the government can not take away from us, not a list of rights that the government has granted us.


Its original purpose doesn't matter.

What do you mean it doesn't matter?


If that where true then why don't we see that happening?

Many reasons actually, apathy being one.


If guns can be used to overthrow the government, the law will change, like it has been the case in many european countries. If not, it will stay an "inalienable right".

It is actually going to be a lot harder to change now since we have the Heller ruling on our side, but nevertheless we should still be stockpiling now just in case years down the road they rule in the opposite direction.


The united state army, engaged in an all-out conflict like a civil war, is an unstoppable force if the only opposition is an armed one.

I see there propaganda has worked well on you, :(

[Annie K.]

There is some differences between constitutionnal texts, their authors' intents, the usages of the political authorities, the intents of present and future governments, and the political situation.
If you want to analyze a political question with only the legal texts, you may be surprised one day or the other.

It is a list of rights that all people have that the government can not take away from us, not a list of rights that the government has granted us.I see there propaganda has worked well on you... huhu.

What do you mean it doesn't matter?I mean it doesn't matter. We're not in 1791.

Many reasons actually, apathy being one.It's a quite poor analysis, but yes. The result is that we can't overthrow the government, guns don't change a thing.

we should still be stockpiling now just in case years down the road they rule in the opposite direction.You seems to have money to waste. Stockpiling guns won't change the state of consciousness of the US citizens.

I see there propaganda has worked well on you, :(What propaganda ? I live in france since i was born.

[freakazoid]

I see there propaganda has worked well on you... huhu.

The government would have us believe the opposite. So no, there propaganda hasn't worked. And since you live in France what would you know of our Bill of Rights?


I mean it doesn't matter. We're not in 1791.

So? Why does a lot of time passing all of a sudden mean that the original intent doesn't matter anymore? So I guess that you believe that it is now ok for the government to quarter troops in our home, or to have random warrant less searches right? Because hey, it is no longer 1776. Or 1791 for some reason.


The result is that we can't overthrow the government, guns don't change a thing.

We can't overthrow the government, how defeatist. So your basically saying that we will never reach communism/anarchy? Firearms will help to fight back the government when they get violent, you know they are not just going to let us change it from a capitalist economy.


You seems to have money to waste. Stockpiling guns won't change the state of consciousness of the US citizens.

The purpose of stockpiling isn't to change the state of the peoples consciousness. I think I made it pretty clear on the point of stockpiling now.


What propaganda ? I live in france since i was born.

The propaganda that the military is an all powerful force.

[Annie K.]

The US government would have us to believe that it is not a legally constituted state ? I doubt that.
For the bill of rights, I know of its existence, its date of ratification (1791), a little of its content, and its legal status. And up to now i didn't need more, but if it's necessary, information about the united states is available in france too, you know.

Let's repeat.
The power of a governement in the united states is its legitimacy, the support it gets from the population. He has to respect its constitution as long as it is a condition of its legitimacy.
If a threat (real or not) appears on the security of the part of the population which give its legitimacy to the state, and that the constitution does not allow the state to control the threat, the change of the constitution will be legitimated.

[ariskar]

Guns should have light restrictions (Waiting periods and tests). Assault weapons are prohibited.

[Sir Comradical]

Might as well ease legal restrictions and regulate them otherwise the black market will always be able to provide it.

[Decolonize The Left]

Let's repeat.
The power of a governement in the united states is its legitimacy, the support it gets from the population. He has to respect its constitution as long as it is a condition of its legitimacy.
If a threat (real or not) appears on the security of the part of the population which give its legitimacy to the state, and that the constitution does not allow the state to control the threat, the change of the constitution will be legitimated.

Annie makes an excellent point here. The power of the government is, indeed, drawn primarily from its legitimacy. Though I would argue that it is secondarily drawn from its possession of the legitimate use of force. Yet, Annie could now argue that that possession is dependent upon its legitimacy, and that is correct as well.

But all-in-all, legitimacy is one thing, while reactionary violence and counter-revolutionary violence is another. While I am very reluctant to condone violence in any form, I feel as though it is necessary to the success of the revolution that guns ownership have no restrictions.

- August

[ipollux]

Only police and military should be armed.

[disobey]

If they have sticks, we need sticks.

If they have spears, we need spears.

If they have guns, we need them also.

Otherwise, how can we protect ourselves from our oppressors?

[RedAnarchist]

Only police and military should be armed.

Says the liberal, who probably doesn't realise the role that the police play in preserving the status quo within capitalist society.

[Jaccob]

I'm somewhere between #2 and #3 for reasons stated above, I don't really know enough about guns to make an informed decision between the two.

[politics student]

The proletarians do not need guns, if we had guns it would give the bourgeoisie the excuse to use deadly force when protesting or taken union action as we may be armed.

[Tower of Bebel]

I oppose any prohibition of small arms by bourgeois governments. I do favor tests though. If we want the working class to be armed then we should make sure they can aim ;).

[al8]

First option definitly. It's practical for our purposes.

[freakazoid]

The proletarians do not need guns, if we had guns it would give the bourgeoisie the excuse to use deadly force when protesting or taken union action as we may be armed.

When they use deadly force that is when you use your tools. The .gov doesn't need a reason to use deadly force against us. They will just make something up.

[Mala Tha Testa]

When they use deadly force that is when you use your tools. The .gov doesn't need a reason to use deadly force against us. They will just make something up.

pretty much.

[DEPAVER]

Ownership should be permitted with restrictions, such as age, and past criminal history. I live in Memphis, and believe me, there are criminals in this city you don't want having easy access.

But handguns and shotguns are not the tools of revolution. It's pure folly to think an armed citizenry has any hope against the heavily militarized state. It would be over before it ended, especially in the U.S., since folks in the U.S. won't have the stomach for a long struggle like the Iraqis.

Revolutionary thinkers have a much greater weapon on their side, one that is presently being deployed: Mother Earth

[Invader Zim]

Under capitalism I support gun control, largely because I don't want to be shot.

[Segadoway]

there shouldn't be guns at all, killing people is wrong FULL STOP, it may sometimes be necessary but if it can be avoided it should!

[politics student]

Ownership should be permitted with restrictions, such as age, and past criminal history. I live in Memphis, and believe me, there are criminals in this city you don't want having easy access.

But handguns and shotguns are not the tools of revolution. It's pure folly to think an armed citizenry has any hope against the heavily militarized state. It would be over before it ended, especially in the U.S., since folks in the U.S. won't have the stomach for a long struggle like the Iraqis.

Revolutionary thinkers have a much greater weapon on their side, one that is presently being deployed: Mother Earth

:thumbup:

I agree. Revolutionaries can steal weapons from the police/armed forces if needed.

Direct conflicts with weapons should also be avoided as no matter how well armed the proletarian are the state will always have better protection and weapons. We can not risk large loses of our warriors as it would greatly damage moral and disillusion the support of the proletarian leading to the death of the revolution.

Last people you want with guns are fascists and other groups in society that will fear the change the revolution brings.

[Red_Dialectics]

To above, there is always Guerilla Warfare, which has proven quite successful in many past revolutions. I think that the only restriction should be a competence test and safety course. And those should be incorporated into the public education program, anyway. The objective in a revolutionary outcome is to eliminate the army, and instead have well-armed militias of workers. That way, there is no body of heavily armed men just sitting around waiting to go to war in whatever country. Militias can only be used for defense (and revolution).

[DancingLarry]

Option one. Once you abolish the state, who would be regulating such matters anyway? Also, the experience of saga-age Iceland, probably the best example of an enduring stateless society, makes plain the case for widespread ownership of weapons. No revolution will change the fact that some people are just of inherently criminal disposition, and the peaceful people will have need to be able to overpower that sort of menace, as well as to subdue the menace of some elements that may seek to reestablish statist tyranny.

While I am no fan of the concept of the "transitional period" because states and those who hold power over their fellow humans due to holding state office are naturally predisposed to preserving, perpetuating and extending their power over others, if there needs to be some sort of transitional administration, then any "law officers" such a regime may have should be unarmed.

[Anarch_Mesa]

I think I'm gonna go with the second one. Men have the right to protect themselves. If they took guns away then the only people left with guns are the people that are "bad" and will do "bad" things to get them, which means they could do whatever they wanted.

[Invincible Summer]

I voted for the 2nd option. I was thinking of voting against assault weapons, but I was thinking that if an invading/aggressive force had assault weapons, then we would be at a disadvantage.

But like someone else said, there should be a round size restriction, possibly magazine/clip size restriction.

[Yazman]

I think that guns should be freely available to the people, although there should be waiting periods and tests. I voted for the second option in the poll.

[Some Red Guy]

Guns to the people I say. Guns should not be givn to people with a history of mental problems, but for everyone else they should be freely available. Only police and millitary? That's starting to sound like a police state to me.