Gun Control in the US

[KappaDelta]

With the recent support of 2nd Amendment rights in DC v Heller in the US supreme court, I've been thinking about the issues of weapons possession, especially vis a vis Communist ideas about the issue.

I think anyone calling themselves a Communist can reasonably be assumed to believe in the right of a people to possess weapons (outside of those persons who believe that no one has the right, which I assume is a minority), simply because a social right given to soldiers, as extensions of the bourgeois rule, must obviously be taken up by the proletariat if he is to ever shake their bonds.

That said, many people are very, very uncomfortable around firearms, especially if they are carried by someone without a recognizable uniform.
This strikes me as endemic to the society wherein the state pushes itself as the only legitimate user of force, and further, as implicit in the downfall of any organization seeking to bring about revolutionary ideals.

Essentially what I'm saying is that, I think the current trend in the US to view firearms as the realm of the government alone, sans certain pro-rights groups, has caused armed leftists to become a rarity. Not that violent assault on the everyday police officer is a good idea, but a populace is ground hardest under the jackboot of oppression when it is disarmed.

A policeman is not a god. He makes mistakes. Often, he is simply trying to feed his family, and the task of policing the populace is a simple path to a good life for them. Those of discerning nature and sharp logical mind don't automatically join the ranks, walk the beat, and administer justice as it best fits the greater good. Police are just referees, shouting penalties as the books have them written. Often the handwriting reeks of government control and a distinct lean toward the bourgeois rather than the working-class man, but the policeman must enforce it to maintain his paycheck.
And yet, in the US at least, cops are seen as assholes who are often wrong, who are required to make the weekly quota...
Yet whose games we must play.
When the police are perceived as unquestionable and infallible, it is the proletarian who suffers.

The bourgeois plays by the rules, by definition. Perhaps not the written ones, but at least the understood laws of capitalism. There is no need to break the law in a system tailored to one's needs.

The proletarian, on the other hand, is a much different matter. Because he is the basic building block of a capitalist society, he cannot be allowed by the system to do anything other than produce, as Brezhnev says, "the most work for the least money that kept me alive." Certainly, he cannot be allowed to move actively against the system, creating more trouble for the society than work he produces on a dollar scale.

Now, this would all belong in theory up to this point, except for the bit I'm getting to.

If any revolution is ever to be successful, it must be armed, and it must have the support of the masses. Anything else is doomed to failure.

My proposal, at least for those in the US, is to take a walk tomorrow to the store, an unloaded shotgun slung across the back. Shells in pocket. Surrender all goods to the police when they ask for them at gunpoint, because they will, and a dead comrade is worth less to the movement than a comrade inconvenienced, by far.
File the necessary paperwork to get the weapon out of impound if it is so taken, and do it again next week.
And the week after that.
And the next weekend, with five friends.
In the US, it is currently legal, as demonstrated in DC v Heller, to possess weapons for self-defense.
And what more is their to defend yourself against, comrades, than the oppression of the government? You are all hundreds of times more likely to go to jail for a minor crime, a crime that harms no one except the establishment's hold over the populace, than you are to be carjacked, or mugged.
In the US, it is currently theoretically legal, as demonstrated in People v Clark '96, to carry a weapon in plain view and unloaded, regardless of proximity of ammunition.
In practice, the police often harass open carriers mercilessly. They are arrested and spurious charges are often leveled at them.
Yet time and again, the charges are dropped when it is revealed that the police and law do not have the authority to take our arms away entirely. A niche of system and rights coinciding, for once.

In the near future, I'm going to be working to put together leftist groups to pick up litter, walk dogs, etc, while openly carrying unloaded firearms. I hope to foster the idea of the right of the people to carry armament in my central California city. To bring to light my conviction that an armed populace should, even needs to exist for rights to be upheld by the police force and the system as it stands.

That an armed populace is very much necessary for a revolution is the overall reason, but the road must be shown to be reasonable, and the right must be upheld if we are ever to shake our bonds.

Thoughts?
I expect to catch a LOT of flak from the cops for this, by the way, and have no illusions about it, but support will undoubtedly come from several other sectors and the current state of law makes this all legal.

[freakazoid]

I like you, :D

What is the People Vs Clark 96? Do you have a link about it? Before you go carrying around a firearm you need to find out if your state allowes conealed carry of a pistol/firearm/weapon, or if there is anything barring the carry of open carry. Because not all states allow concealed carry, and in some that do you are limited to what you can carry. Some resources, http://opencarry.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Carry


My proposal, at least for those in the US, is to take a walk tomorrow to the store, an unloaded shotgun slung across the back. Shells in pocket. Surrender all goods to the police when they ask for them at gunpoint, because they will, and a dead comrade is worth less to the movement than a comrade inconvenienced, by far.
File the necessary paperwork to get the weapon out of impound if it is so taken, and do it again next week.
And the week after that.
And the next weekend, with five friends.

A right not excercised is a right lost. :)


In the near future, I'm going to be working to put together leftist groups to pick up litter, walk dogs, etc, while openly carrying unloaded firearms. I hope to foster the idea of the right of the people to carry armament in my central California city. To bring to light my conviction that an armed populace should, even needs to exist for rights to be upheld by the police force and the system as it stands.

Yes, :D These are thing that we need to be doing. Sort of like what the Black Panthers had done.

[MarxSchmarx]

What EMPIRICAL evidence do you have that wide-spread gun ownership protects anyone from tyranny？



In the near future, I'm going to be working to put together leftist groups to pick up litter, walk dogs, etc, while openly carrying unloaded firearms. I hope to foster the idea of the right of the people to carry armament in my central California city.

Drop the plan. I am sorry for being so blunt, but this is one bone-headed idea.

I don't know what town you speak of, but what are you going to say to mothers of working class kids who were killed by gang violence or a child safety lock gone awry? How does this console anyone who's relative committed suicide through a fire arm? Not to mention the myriad of potentially sympathetic left-leaners who will not become supporters over your group making such a needlessly controversial stand.

[freakazoid]

don't know what town you speak of, but what are you going to say to mothers of working class kids who were killed by gang violence or a child safety lock gone awry? How does this console anyone who's relative committed suicide through a fire arm? Not to mention the myriad of potentially sympathetic left-leaners who will not become supporters over your group making such a needlessly controversial stand.

What does this have to do with what KappaDelta suggested? Is it supposed to console anyone who's relative committed suicide through a firearm? Should we stop driving cars now too?

[KappaDelta]

What EMPIRICAL evidence do you have that wide-spread gun ownership protects anyone from tyranny？



Drop the plan. I am sorry for being so blunt, but this is one bone-headed idea.

I don't know what town you speak of, but what are you going to say to mothers of working class kids who were killed by gang violence or a child safety lock gone awry? How does this console anyone who's relative committed suicide through a fire arm? Not to mention the myriad of potentially sympathetic left-leaners who will not become supporters over your group making such a needlessly controversial stand.

What EMPIRICAL evidence do you have that radical leftism is the best outlook for society?
I mean, seriously? Do you want to take such a ***** (pardon the french) position?
You know what I'm going to say to them?
In order of their appearance, it should go something like this:
"If he had had a weapon, perhaps he wouldn't have died. If you had taught him from an early age about weapon safety instead of hiding the firearm away and pretending it didn't exist, perhaps he wouldn't have tried to play with it. If that person chose to end their own life, it certainly wasn't the bullet's fault, and it certainly isn't my right to stop them. If you are a left-leaner who doesn't support the right of a person to exercise his or her rights, then I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with your sorry self right now. Get the hell away from my cause."

Every once in a while, we should remember that what we represent and stand for is, by definition, revolutionary. The rights and freedoms of the people, not the power of the system as it stands, or its symptoms.

If you don't believe in the right of a person, solid in his own mind, to bring arms to bear in defense of his person, get the hell away from me.
Because you represent the very oppression I stand against.

EDIT: People v Clark established that a weapon is always legal to carry, outside of restricted areas such as school zones, government buildings and the like, as long as bullets are not in a position to fire within the weapon. Clark was carrying a shotgun with live shells attached to the butt of the weapon when he was arrested. The decision was overturned and the definition of "in position to fire" was made more clear. Essentially, a citizen who owns a weapon legally has the full right to carry it unloaded and in full view. Unloaded means, "with bullets not in the chamber or magazine."

[Mala Tha Testa]

whenever i am old enough/can afford a firearm i will participate in these activities.

[Kronstadt]

The second amendment is an issue very important to me. I'm glad to see that there are at least a few pro-gun lefties on here. The concept of any anti-gun Anarchist/Libertarian Communist seems beyond insane to me.



I don't know what town you speak of, but what are you going to say to mothers of working class kids who were killed by gang violence or a child safety lock gone awry? How does this console anyone who's relative committed suicide through a fire arm? Not to mention the myriad of potentially sympathetic left-leaners who will not become supporters over your group making such a needlessly controversial stand.

What I'm getting (and please correct me if I'm wrong) from this comment is that we shouldn't cause a raucous with out liberties. Many people kill themselves with ovens so obviously ovens should be hidden from the public. Hell, both cars and doctors kill more Americans than the illegal firearms that are responsible for most murders.

[MarxSchmarx]

Okeeeey... i didn't realize people felt so strongly about this... let me take the points one at a time.



don't know what town you speak of, but what are you going to say to mothers of working class kids who were killed by gang violence or a child safety lock gone awry? How does this console anyone who's relative committed suicide through a fire arm? Not to mention the myriad of potentially sympathetic left-leaners who will not become supporters over your group making such a needlessly controversial stand.
What does this have to do with what KappaDelta suggested? Is it supposed to console anyone who's relative committed suicide through a firearm? Should we stop driving cars now too?....
Many people kill themselves with ovens so obviously ovens should be hidden from the public. Hell, both cars and doctors kill more Americans than the illegal firearms that are responsible for most murders.


Y'all can't be serious. For better or for worse, at least as far as I know, nobody who's family member died from a car accident or oven has seriously urged the abolition of cars or ovens. However, plenty of families who lost someone to firearms have called on banning guns. This indicates that when it comes to guns, whose raison d'etre is to kill or cause serious harm anyway(unlike the automobile or an oven), people are much more emotional and more likely to tune out of an otherwise leftist message.


What EMPIRICAL evidence do you have that radical leftism is the best outlook for society? I mean, seriously? Do you want to take such a ***** (pardon the french) position?


Classless societies, ephemeral though they have been, have proven incredibly successful from an economic perspective. Anarchist Spain is the most famous example, but even among capitalist societies, we find the further to the left a society is, the better off its people. It is not without reason that Guardian has labeled Swedish social democracy "the most successful society ever created", and is it any surprise that the most rightwing industrialized democracy, the U$, lags so far behind every other industrial country on virtually any measure of human happiness? Moreover, one only need recall that in the last couple hundred years, more people were massacred by statism and classism than all epidemics and natural disasters COMBINED. All which lends strong credence to the belief that a stateless, classless society is the only viable alternative.


"If he had had a weapon, perhaps he wouldn't have died. If you had taught him from an early age about weapon safety instead of hiding the firearm away and pretending it didn't exist, perhaps he wouldn't have tried to play with it. If that person chose to end their own life, it certainly wasn't the bullet's fault, and it certainly isn't my right to stop them. If you are a left-leaner who doesn't support the right of a person to exercise his or her rights, then I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with your sorry self right now. Get the hell away from my cause."


Let me paraphrase: So it is your own damned fault your son was killed. What an appealing message.


Every once in a while, we should remember that what we represent and stand for is, by definition, revolutionary. The rights and freedoms of the people, not the power of the system as it stands, or its symptoms.

Maybe it is a matter of semantics, but I consider the likes of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr just as revolutionary as Lenin and Che.



EDIT: People v Clark established that a weapon is always legal to carry, outside of restricted areas such as school zones, government buildings and the like, as long as bullets are not in a position to fire within the weapon. Clark was carrying a shotgun with live shells attached to the butt of the weapon when he was arrested. The decision was overturned and the definition of "in position to fire" was made more clear. Essentially, a citizen who owns a weapon legally has the full right to carry it unloaded and in full view. Unloaded means, "with bullets not in the chamber or magazine."

You will get more mileage citing DC. v. Heller.


we shouldn't cause a raucous with out liberties.

care to clarify :confused:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Communists support the right to bear arms. Of that there can be no question. We have to take advantage of any means possible to get arms into the hands of workers. No communist can support a policy that leaves arms only in the hands of the state while preventing the workers from holding any.

Liberal arguments against the right to bear arms are bogus. Banning guns does not stop people from getting guns.. and even if you could eliminate all guns, it wouldn't prevent violence. People don't commit violent acts because they have guns. They commit violent acts for other reasons, and just use guns sometimes. If there is no access to guns, people will use knives (for example: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080720/lf_afp/britaincrimeyouth_080720025452 - Britain grapples with surge of knife attacks). Maybe the liberals will argue that the UK should ban knives next.. or I should say ban all knives, since its already illegal to carry some knives in some conditions...

[MarxSchmarx]

Communists support the right to bear arms. Of that there can be no question. We have to take advantage of any means possible to get arms into the hands of workers. No communist can support a policy that leaves arms only in the hands of the state while preventing the workers from holding any.

I agree. I fully support the right to bear arms. I just think the proposed action, carrying empty guns while picking up litter, is needlessly counter-productive.


Liberal arguments against the right to bear arms are bogus. Banning guns does not stop people from getting guns.. and even if you could eliminate all guns, it wouldn't prevent violence. People don't commit violent acts because they have guns. They commit violent acts for other reasons, and just use guns sometimes. If there is no access to guns, people will use knives (for example: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080720...h_080720025452 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080720/lf_afp/britaincrimeyouth_080720025452) - Britain grapples with surge of knife attacks). Maybe the liberals will argue that the UK should ban knives next.. or I should say ban all knives, since its already illegal to carry some knives in some conditions...

When British knife deaths start to equal American gun deaths on a per-capita basis and controlling for socio-economic differences, I will believe your argument. Until then, there's a reason modern armies use guns because they are a whole lot easier to kill people with than knives or swords. Guns, qua guns, result in more deaths. Whether we want to, therefore, ban them is another question. But we need to acknowledge this fact going forward.

[Forward Union]

Y'all can't be serious. For better or for worse, at least as far as I know, nobody who's family member died from a car accident or oven has seriously urged the abolition of cars or ovens. However, plenty of families who lost someone to firearms have called on banning guns. This indicates that when it comes to guns, whose raison d'etre is to kill or cause serious harm anyway(unlike the automobile or an oven), people are much more emotional and more likely to tune out of an otherwise leftist message.


I think there is a large base of support for pro-gun politics, so I expect it{s probably good to publicise it.

Furthermore, people will either support or not support our politics based on what we do, not what we say. But to change our politics to something they are not in order to gain a footing in a certain section of the community is absurd.


Let me paraphrase: So it is your own damned fault your son was killed. What an appealing message.

"Your son was killed" is a factual statement. The impliment used is a side issue. In Australia, homicides went up 13% after guns were banned. Clearly the problem is murder, and not the murder weapon.


Maybe it is a matter of semantics, but I consider the likes of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr just as revolutionary as Lenin and Che

Gandhi never won the nobel peace prize because he advocated race war, the massacre of black people from India, and encouraged the British to tighten up its immigration policy and go harder on its black colonies.

His tactics also failed and were bailed out by the brave and millitant action of the Indian people.

[The Intransigent Faction]

"Your son was killed" is a factual statement. The impliment used is a side issue. In Australia, homicides went up 13% after guns were banned. Clearly the problem is murder, and not the murder weapon.

I support the right to bear arms for purposes of revolution, and am currently on the fence about post-revolution, but I feel obligated to note that this is a misleading statement:
Firearm homicides are actually down quite significantly. The weapon itself is relevant in terms of the fact that we don't see 13-30 people killed in "school stabbings".
To say that "homicides went up x% (13 in this case) is misleading because it focuses on the hard number of homicides rather than the homicide rate. So if a country of, say, 2 million people has 200 000 incidents of gun crime one year and in the following year it's population increases to 3 million and there are 300 000 homicides, we could essentially say that "Homicides went up 50%" when in fact the homicide rate remained the same as before.
Just wanted to clear that up.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think there is a large base of support for pro-gun politics, so I expect it{s probably good to publicise it.
I don't know about where you are from,but where I come from the kinds of people that are pro-gun at this particular political moment, are among the most unreceptive to a leftist political message. They are usually male and often admire the military and what they consider to be "sacred" authority. This is not an audience that has a particularly open mind about the left and our feminist, nurturing agenda.



Furthermore, people will either support or not support our politics based on what we do, not what we say. But to change our politics to something they are not in order to gain a footing in a certain section of the community is absurd.
I am not advocating changing our beliefs. For all KD also believes that health care is a right, but that doesn't mean his/her action is going to consist of becoming a doctor and provide free medical service. What beliefs we emphasize in our praxis and what beliefs we don't is (or at least should be) largely a strategic question. What is absurd is to claim otherwise.


In Australia, homicides went up 13% after guns were banned. Clearly the problem is murder, and not the murder weaponYour source? The Australian National University looked into a similar argument and found it to be bullshit:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-credited-as-lifesavers/2007/04/22/1177180487704.html



Maybe it is a matter of semantics, but I consider the likes of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr just as revolutionary as Lenin and CheGandhi never won the nobel peace prize because he advocated race war, the massacre of black people from India, and encouraged the British to tighten up its immigration policy and go harder on its black colonies.

His tactics also failed and were bailed out by the brave and millitant action of the Indian people.Spare me.

[freakazoid]

Okeeeey... i didn't realize people felt so strongly about this... let me take the points one at a time.

What, you haven't seen some of the threads that have been made about firearm possession? Here is one, http://www.revleft.com/vb/gun-regulation-t82656/index.html?t=82656 :D


EDIT: People v Clark established that a weapon is always legal to carry, outside of restricted areas such as school zones, government buildings and the like, as long as bullets are not in a position to fire within the weapon. Clark was carrying a shotgun with live shells attached to the butt of the weapon when he was arrested. The decision was overturned and the definition of "in position to fire" was made more clear. Essentially, a citizen who owns a weapon legally has the full right to carry it unloaded and in full view. Unloaded means, "with bullets not in the chamber or magazine."

I did some research and it seems that this only deals with California, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California "In the case of People v. Clark (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_v._Clark&action=edit&redlink=1) (1996) a shotgun shell attached to the shotgun, although not chambered or placed in a position where it was able to be fired, was declared to be legal under California law and the charge of having a loaded firearm against Clark was dismissed."
Here is the actual case http://lee.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/people-v-clark-1996.pdf It wasn't that he was carrying them it was that it was in his possession in his home when it was found. California is kind of special when dealing with firearms because it is more restrictive than most states.


They are usually male and often admire the military and what they consider to be "sacred" authority. This is not an audience that has a particularly open mind about the left and our feminist, nurturing agenda.

These are the same people that believe that all communists/socialists are anti-gun. We need to change that.


The weapon itself is relevant in terms of the fact that we don't see 13-30 people killed in "school stabbings".

Did you here about the person who killed 17 people in Japan with a knife?
Although I think the purpose of this thread is to discuss the idea put forth and not to get into another debate about whether or not firearms should be allowed, just assume that they are and continue from there, and keep all discussion about gun regulation to something like this topic, http://www.revleft.com/vb/gun-regulation-t82656/index.html?t=82656

[The Intransigent Faction]

Did you here about the person who killed 17 people in Japan with a knife?

Well, fair enough but that's a "proof by example". As a general rule it's a hell of a lot harder to kill that many people with a knife.
EDIT: And many were stabbed but not killed, it seems.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't know about where you are from,but where I come from the kinds of people that are pro-gun at this particular political moment, are among the most unreceptive to a leftist political message. They are usually male and often admire the military and what they consider to be "sacred" authority. This is not an audience that has a particularly open mind about the left and our feminist, nurturing agenda.

Anecdotal evidence. It's meaningless and based on nothing but your own personal experiences.

In the U.S., pro-gun control liberals often write off workers and farmers in south and midwest as backward hicks that love guns, the government and the Republican Party. People get tired of hearing that and often even embrace that sort of image as a sort of defense (that's why you have people running around with "redneck" bumper stickers and such).

These workers and farmers support the right to bear arms. The only people they see vocally supporting any kinds of gun rights are rightists like the NRA and some Republicans, while what passes for "the left" in this country talks about the need to take guns away from individuals (leaving them only in the hands of the state. Guess how they react to that?

[KC]

Who the hell would be pro-gun-control? Seriouly, do you honestly think that gang members are going to abide by the law in purchasing guns? Are you really that stupid to think that if someone is going to murder someone else, that they'd abide by the law in purchasing a gun?!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Who the hell would be pro-gun-control?

Liberals in the U.S., social-dems in Europe, rightists, and a whole host of others. One would hope those claiming to be communists would not fall into that group, but the reality is that they sometimes do.

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't know about where you are from,but where I come from the kinds of people that are pro-gun at this particular political moment, are among the most unreceptive to a leftist political message. They are usually male and often admire the military and what they consider to be "sacred" authority. This is not an audience that has a particularly open mind about the left and our feminist, nurturing agenda.
Anecdotal evidence. It's meaningless and based on nothing but your own personal experiences.

In the U.S., pro-gun control liberals often write off workers and farmers in south and midwest as backward hicks that love guns, the government and the Republican Party. People get tired of hearing that and often even embrace that sort of image as a sort of defense (that's why you have people running around with "redneck" bumper stickers and such).

These workers and farmers support the right to bear arms. The only people they see vocally supporting any kinds of gun rights are rightists like the NRA and some Republicans, while what passes for "the left" in this country talks about the need to take guns away from individuals (leaving them only in the hands of the state. Guess how they react to that?
Anecdotal generalizations: a valid argument when I do it, and a logical fallacy when others do it.

Yes, we are all worried about the opinion of the 2% of Americans that are farmers.


I hope to foster the idea of the right of the people to carry armament in my central California city

This is precisely an area where petty prejudices of the white, protestant mid-western peasantry plays such a crucial role:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresno,_California#Demographics
:rolleyes:

[freakazoid]

Anecdotal generalizations: a valid argument when I do it, and a logical fallacy when others do it.

lol, at least you admit it, :lol:


This is precisely an area where petty prejudices of the white, protestant mid-western peasantry plays such a crucial role:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresno,...a#Demographics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresno,...a#Demographics)
:rolleyes:


What do you mean by that?


Yes, we are all worried about the opinion of the 2% of Americans that are farmers.

And that?

[MarxSchmarx]

Anecdotal generalizations: a valid argument when I do it, and a logical fallacy when others do it. lol, at least you admit it, :lol:



Well that's one interpretation, my intent was paraphrasing NHiA.


This is precisely an area where petty prejudices of the white, protestant mid-western peasantry plays such a crucial role:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresno,...a#Demographics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresno,...a#Demographics)
:rolleyes: What do you mean by that?

Quote:
Yes, we are all worried about the opinion of the 2% of Americans that are farmers.


And that?

I will say with more words what I tried to say with less.

The environment in which the op wanted to conduct their action is not typified by the kinds of rural mid-western and south eatern communities NHiA appears to have had in mind. Of course there are contexts in which some actions work better than others. But given that the OP didn't propose to do what they said they would in these mid-western and southern white farm communities where gun control is a big issue, generalizing from that very narrow demographic to the entire country is unwarranted and potentially counter productive in deciding what sort of actions to take.

As regards the 2% of Americans that are farmers, my point was that even if every single farmer was a gun lover otherwise open to communism, I see little advantage in bending over backwards to accommodate the petty prejudices of such a tiny sliver of the general population while potentially alienating many more.

[KappaDelta]

Fresno County is a primarily agrarian-based economy, for the record MarxSchmarx. Unlike the rest of California, it is terribly, TERRIBLY right-wing in mindset. I'm hoping to both educate the few with revolutionary hearts about their rights and to swing those who hold with the establishment towards the left.

Quite honestly, I don't think I'm going to be pushing many people away from the left. Those who don't like my ways on principle aren't the kind of people I'd want in a movement, anyway. Note that I am not, in any way, pushing a violent attitude or violence itself. I am merely pointing out to everyone who cares to look around that this is a right that we must maintain.

[MarxSchmarx]

Admittedly, I don't know much about Fresno county. But I do know something about the city of Fresno. It has a heavy immigrant population, as well as failing schools and there is a burgeoning gang problem. It is also a town of working people, people who have better things to do than fret about their, or others', right to bear arms. My impression is that most of the middle class there work in the civil service or in the professions, and are rather apathetic about guns.

What little I know about Fresno county more generally is that the agrarian workforce is mostly temporary immigrants, and that there are very few people who have their own farms or live in small towns like in the midwest or the south. I get the impression that most residents of Fresno county, migrant farmworkers, can barely afford their barrack space, much less a hunting rifle. I could be mistaken, though, and I'll have to defer to you on this point.

[KappaDelta]

It's true, there is a large migrant worker population in Fresno. That said, there is a very large college-age population, and a particularly nut-busting police chief who has recently started to really toss the force's weight around. It's my intention to raise awareness of the general middle-class/lower middle-class to the idea of "cops aren't always right," and "people have rights," which, in Fresno, isn't much of a trend right now.

Of course, it would damn well help the leftist cause as a whole if someone would organize the labor and bring awareness in that respect, but names like Caesar Chavez are tossed around nowadays more as symbols of fucking "Hecho en Mexico" pride than unity and fair labor practices. It really disgusted me back in high school to see the little marches with Mexican flags and chants of "iSi se puede!" on Caesar Chavez day drawing the entirety of my Mexican classmates, of whom I know many had no idea what the man did... And, trust me, when you're one of the white kids in the single high school in the ghetto, it strikes you as odd that a great labor activist and union organizer has become, essentially, a racist symbol.

[Chicano Shamrock]

What EMPIRICAL evidence do you have that wide-spread gun ownership protects anyone from tyranny？



Drop the plan. I am sorry for being so blunt, but this is one bone-headed idea.

I don't know what town you speak of, but what are you going to say to mothers of working class kids who were killed by gang violence or a child safety lock gone awry? How does this console anyone who's relative committed suicide through a fire arm? Not to mention the myriad of potentially sympathetic left-leaners who will not become supporters over your group making such a needlessly controversial stand.
How is it a guns fault when someone commits intentional suicide? I know several people who have been shot by gang members. Every single one of them would have been carrying a pistol if it was legal and could have defended themselves. Those are really stupid arguments against gun ownership.

Gangs with guns won't go down the more guns are controlled. That just makes it harder for people who buy guns legally to own guns. Here in California a stand up person can't own an ak-47 only because it is deemed "bad". Do you think the gang members here are restricted by this law? We can't legally own a magazine above 10 rounds. So that means the gangbanger's rifle is going to keep on going while I'm assed out and trying to reload.

As for carrying around an empty shotgun.... yeah fucking right. Maybe where you are that would be possible but not here. If that happened in LA you would be shot by the police on sight. Shit lately they have been shooting a lot of people who turned out to be unarmed... what's stopping them from shooting someone with a shotgun on their back? And especially picking up trash with a stick in hand? What happens when the cop thinks one of those sticks happens to be a shotgun? That means I'm SOL.