Gun control and the revolution

[Ptah_Khnemu]

Lately I've been thinking about the debate around gun laws in the US (I'm Canadian, though). Until now I've been staunchly anti-gun, for reasons with which I'm sure I don't need to go into. Now, however, I've started thinking that if there was a popular uprising in the US (or any country with similar gun laws) guns would be very useful. I was also thinking about the reason the 'right to bear arms' is in the constitution. I believe it was put in so that if the government ever became too powerful, the people could rise up against them. After listening to a talk by Naomi Wolf about how the US under Bush was moving in the direction of a faschist dictatorship, it seems like this could happen. If this ever did happen, guns would be very helpful. Because of their usefulness in a revolution and in keeping the government in check, I'm considering taking a more pro-gun stance. What do you think?

[ernie]

Now, however, I've started thinking that if there was a popular uprising in the US (or any country with similar gun laws) guns would be very useful.
IMO, the determining factor for success of a popular uprising is numbers, not firepower. That is, we need an overwhelming -- and organized -- majority of the population to revolt.

We're never going to surpass the state in firepower, so I don't know how important it is that we have access to many weapons. And if it does turn out to be important, I'm sure we can get our hands on guns one way or another.

The point is not to get caught up in the pro- vs. anti-gun debate, which is, like most bourgeois politics, irrelevant.


I was also thinking about the reason the 'right to bear arms' is in the constitution. I believe it was put in so that if the government ever became too powerful, the people could rise up against them.
I think it's idealist to think the constitution means anything to the ruling class. They do as they wish. The constitution is all for show.


What do you think?
Again, I think that we musn't waste our time engaging in bourgeois political debates. Whether guns are officially allowed or not is, quite frankly, irrelevant to us.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, yes. Anti-gun is pro-pig. If, as the above poster claims, we got our hands on guns when they were banned... The government would have a legitimate reason to imprison us, while otherwise they couldn't imprison us simply for being revolutionary without much more protesting, while in this case, the only people who would protest are the NRA, and for a bunch of socialists? Probably not. On the other hand, if we didn't get our hands on guns, the police and such would have a monopoly on them. Sure, I'm not proclaiming that we can at any time simply defeat them, as they are better equipped, but at least the threat could perhaps deter them, and do some damage. Yeah, pretty much, the debate is generally fairly superficial (guns don't kill people... Capitalism kills people), but giving the government (and thus the capitalists) a monopoly on guns would be a bad idea.
Anyways, yes, that was the reason in the original Constitution, IIRC. To quote James Madison, "We are free today substantially but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A republic cannot stand upon bayonets, and when that day comes, when the wealth of the nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation to the changed conditions."

[Hessian Peel]

Obviously the people should be armed.

Handguns were just banned in Ireland recently. Apparently this will end gangland killings. :blink:

[mykittyhasaboner]

Handguns were just banned in Ireland recently. Apparently this will end gangland killings. :blink:
Ha! What great logic. All that would happen is an upsurge of stabbings, and beatings. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[ernie]

Anyways, yes, that was the reason in the original Constitution, IIRC. To quote James Madison, "We are free today substantially but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A republic cannot stand upon bayonets, and when that day comes, when the wealth of the nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation to the changed conditions."
Just because he said it doesn't mean he meant it. And it certainly doesn't mean today's ruling class gives a rat's ass about it.

[Van]

I am absolutely opposed to gun control for the same reasons that I'm a socialist. Gun control is classist.

Just like rich people were able to procure abortions prior to Roe v. Wade and buy booze during prohibition, rich people will ALWAYS be able to buy guns, regardless of the law. Outlawing guns will have the same effect on working people and the poor as the "war" on drugs has today--the rich will get the product, the poor will get prison.

[piet11111]

the point of arming the masses is not starting the revolution but defending it from reactionary elements both domestic and foreign.

just look at the assassinations of trade union people in Venezuela or allende being overthrown where i believe the masses would have been able to (try to) defend their government had they been armed.

weapons are about self defence and giving the people the power to fight back denying that to the people is to me against what we are trying to achieve.

marx said "arm the masses" for a reason.

[Psy]

The thing is gun control at mostly just justifies the bourgeoisie bureaucracy, prohibition doesn't work, as long as criminals want guns they will get guns it would just makes smugglers richer.

As for revolution super numbers is nice, super numbers and being armed is nicer. For example the Detriot armed riot of 1967 led by disillusioned black Vietnam vets was only crushed when tanks were sent in, logically if the black Vietnam vets had anti-tank weapons they would have been able to escalated the conflict, image how the late 60's would have unfolded if auto works in Detroit took over their factories and started making heavy arms to defend the Detroit commune from the US army, image how different Paris 1968 would unfolded with this example.

[ZeroNowhere]

Just because he said it doesn't mean he meant it.
Just because you say that, it doesn't mean that you mean it.

And it certainly doesn't mean today's ruling class gives a rat's ass about it.
Nobody said that they did.

[#FF0000]

I remember a very good George Orwell quote on the subject.


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat
or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy.

The vast majority of gun-related crimes are caused by class-related issues. I, for one, have never been mugged by a rich man.

[ernie]

Just because you say that, it doesn't mean that you mean it.
Surely you realize that I have absolutely nothing (material) to gain by posting things I don't mean. However, James Madison, a member of the ruling class, had every reason to lie about...well, everything. Do you really think Madison or Washington really believed that if the government became too powerful, the people should overthrow it?

I guess part of the reason I am saying this is that people in the US hold the "forefathers" in some sort of sainthood. Even some leftists are guilty of this. We must remember that the "forefathers" created this system in order to look after their own interests (they were all very rich bastards), and not out of some love for democracy.

[#FF0000]

Surely you realize that I have absolutely nothing (material) to gain by posting things I don't mean. However, James Madison, a member of the ruling class, had every reason to lie about...well, everything. Do you really think Madison or Washington really believed that if the government became too powerful, the people should overthrow it?

Yes. Yes he did. He just has a different idea of what constitutes "tyranny". We would say the order he put in place was tyrannical. James Madison would believe socialism is tyrannical. So, yeah, he'd want the people to overthrow the government if it became what he considered tyrannical. It's not like he was lying.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes. Yes he did. He just has a different idea of what constitutes "tyranny". We would say the order he put in place was tyrannical. James Madison would believe socialism is tyrannical. So, yeah, he'd want the people to overthrow the government if it became what he considered tyrannical. It's not like he was lying.
Wait, what? Socialism was a developed and feasible alternative at the time?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I oppose "gun control" not because of the "armed proletariat" aspect mentioned in the OP, but because there's no good reason for a blanket ban on individual arms posession.

[#FF0000]

Wait, what? Socialism was a developed and feasible alternative at the time?

No, no. If it was, I'd be willing to bet Madison would have been opposed to it, though.

I'm going to make sure I have at least 6 hours of sleep before I start posting from now on.

[ernie]

Yes. Yes he did. He just has a different idea of what constitutes "tyranny". We would say the order he put in place was tyrannical. James Madison would believe socialism is tyrannical. So, yeah, he'd want the people to overthrow the government if it became what he considered tyrannical. It's not like he was lying.
I don't think it's that simple. That quote (as well as the rest of the constitution, the declaration of independence, etc.) explicitly gives the illusion that "the people" rule. I'm sure all of the "forefathers" knew very well that this was bullshit. They thought they should have power, and the system they invented was designed to keep power in their hands. In other words, they were lying.

That he would have opposed socialism is not even debatable. How could he not be? Socialism would have meant he'd have to get rid of his power and privileges.

[RedSonRising]

I beleive that gun control in its present state is a classist means of restriction, though that does not mean that unsupervised flow of weaponry among citizens is the best route to go either. I think for the most part the right to bear arms should be respected; the whole "people kill people" thing stands true, but it is also easier to kill people with guns. I beleive harsher punishments and specific restrictions (such as certain necessary provisions with people with children) and less blanket-bans on citizen weaponry is the best way to go. It is a gray issue, and as long as the masses aren't closed off from handguns and rifles, we can still protect ourselves against a fascist government, no matter how advanced their weaponry gets.

As far as the founding fathers go, I beleive they are rather "pre-capitalist in their worldview" as Chomsky put them, and as the effects of the Industrial revolution hadn't fully laid out the foundations for modern capitalism, I do not beleive they understood the threat of a free market on the people's choice. Jefferson himself despised banks and warned us against them, and while a few of the founding fathers may have had interests in oligarchy, all of them were looking to establish a better form of government. They were part of the ruling class, but revolutionaries seldom come from uneducated and oppressed groups of people. I beleive they had good intentions, and the constitution has made progress for the people, and one cannot deny that simply because the main problem of capitalism hasn't been abolished in the relatively brief time civilization has adopted a moral compass in their legal institutions.

[Comrade B]

There is already a topic on this in the OI section