Should civilians be allowed to have firearms?

[Os Cangaceiros]

The quantity of weapons in a region has no notable effect on the economic preconditions necessary for revolution and I never said anything to the contrary. I was simply saying that when the quantity of weapons is increased that it has no effect on the circumstances demanded of revolution, and that in some situations it can actually be more of a potential threat to a proper marxist revolution in the implementation stage than anything else.

I don't think that it would be a threat. I think the only threat are those who would try to drown the revolution in blood (i.e. the state).

And to those who think the state needs an excuse (i.e. armed action on the part of the opposition) to use deadly force: think again. No excuse is needed.

[Dogs On Acid]

I know a reactionary that says that the US government will never be able to "take over" because we are allowed to carry firearms. I want to know what the 50 untrained people in his town, ages 18-60, with 9mm to assault rifles, are going to do against a battalion of Marines with air and artillery support, besides get annihilated. Fucking idiots.

Exactly, the military will only crush armed civilians (in a 1st world country atleast).

[Dogs On Acid]

I don't think that it would be a threat. I think the only threat are those who would try to drown the revolution in blood (i.e. the state, the counter-revolutionaries, the religious organizations and external powers).

Fixed.

[Psy]

Exactly, the military will only crush armed civilians (in a 1st world country atleast).

That assumes there is no split in the military, it also assumes the insurgency lacks imagination and won't use explosives available to them, for example miners using mining explosives to build tank mines to rip through M1 Abrams.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Fixed.

I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this argument, honestly. Ultimately it all boils down to state power, even if you're refering to a para organization like the AUC.

[~Spectre]

That assumes there is no split in the military, it also assumes the insurgency lacks imagination and won't use explosives available to them, for example miners using mining explosives to build tank mines to rip through M1 Abrams.

Splits seem more likely to occur when you aren't shooting at the military.

The idea of IEDs isn't new nor novel. They have those in Iraq.

Dead Americans: aprox 4800
Dead Iraqis: over 1 million.

Marx warned against this type of fanciful thrill seeking type of thinking. The comparative advantage that workers have to militaries like the U.S. isn't ability to do violence. It's their numbers and relationship to the means of production. So let's fight through their. Educate, agitate, organize.

[thesadmafioso]

I don't think that it would be a threat. I think the only threat are those who would try to drown the revolution in blood (i.e. the state).

And to those who think the state needs an excuse (i.e. armed action on the part of the opposition) to use deadly force: think again. No excuse is needed.

I don't know if you are familiar with the typical right wing fringe type who has a penchant for weaponry, but I'm sure they would not be the sort of people to welcome a social revolution with open arms. And there is a notable amount of such individuals in certain regions of the US, enough to be considered a threat to a civil approach to revolution. Perhaps the threat would not be enough to cause such a hypothetical movement to falter, but either way their existence is still unnerving for any leftist with a decent grasp on history and who would like to minimize the shedding of blood.

[The Man]

So the U.S.A. is a Libertarian Socialist state, because guns aren't banned.

I also Lol'd at "Libertarian Socialist STATE"

[El Oso Rojo]

I'd like to see a world without guns, but we would hope that in a communist society, based on fraternity, mutual aid, solidarity and equal freedom over the means of production and the world's resources, then the need for guns in the way that they are needed now would diminish.

That's if we consider the alienation and isolationist aspects of capitalistic society the reasons behind many murders and what not. With that in mind, I can't really see the point of guns in a proper communist society, unless we say hunting. I can also understand why guns are prohibited in many parts of the world too, and I don't think this is right, yet I am quite glad that some parts of society don't have access to guns sometimes, but that is personal and not a materialistic view.

It naive to think, that reactionary will not be still around. I mean, it best to keep them just in case.

[xub3rn00dlex]

That assumes there is no split in the military, it also assumes the insurgency lacks imagination and won't use explosives available to them, for example miners using mining explosives to build tank mines to rip through M1 Abrams.

I agree with you that there will most likely be a split in military in case it ever comes to that. And I'm pretty sure there would be a rapid spread of information into homemade devices to counter their forces, ie. an M1 Abrams would be a sitting duck if you take out the treads.

What about self destructive nuclear annihilation though? Does anyone here ever wonder wether the bourgeoisie would adopt a "if we can't have it no one can" policy and literally nuke us all into oblivion? Seems counter productive, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

[The Man]

You would fit right in at a tea party rally with that rhetoric. Musing about the government taking away your guns and how such a terrible act would be tantamount to fascism.

I also fit in with the leftist rhetoric as well. Government taking away your guns is basically taking away your basic rights. What the hell are you supposed to do if a violent person breaks into your house? Call 911, and wait for a cop to magically appear right in front of you?

Gun confiscation is a part of Fascism. Italy did it. Germany did it too.

[Dogs On Acid]

I also Lol'd at "Libertarian Socialist STATE"

I was taking the piss.

You fail at sarcasm.

[thesadmafioso]

I also fit in with the leftist rhetoric as well. Government taking away your guns is basically taking away your basic rights. What the hell are you supposed to do if a violent person breaks into your house? Call 911, and wait for a cop to magically appear right in front of you?

Gun confiscation is a part of Fascism. Italy did it. Germany did it too.

Once more, you are simply falling back on the typical talking points of the far right. You would get along quite well in most tea party circles with that sort of stance, what with your irrational defense of your point through the use of baseless paranoia.

You do not have a basic right to shoot lead into your fellow man at your own whim, such is far too much power for most any individual to wield of their own accord.

[Dogs On Acid]

What the hell are you supposed to do if a violent person breaks into your house? Call 911, and wait for a cop to magically appear right in front of you?

Use non-lethal weapons you tool.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't know if you are familiar with the typical right wing fringe type who has a penchant for weaponry, but I'm sure they would not be the sort of people to welcome a social revolution with open arms. And there is a notable amount of such individuals in certain regions of the US, enough to be considered a threat to a civil approach to revolution. Perhaps the threat would not be enough to cause such a hypothetical movement to falter, but either way their existence is still unnerving for any leftist with a decent grasp on history and who would like to minimize the shedding of blood.

I most certainly do know about those folks, as I live in the USA and live in a rural area of a red state, no less! You'd think they'd be hiding behind every tree, but they're not. The right-wing survivalist paras have been greatly exaggerated by the media...it usually happens whenever a Democrat president is in office (or at least it certainly did under Clinton). Most of the actual survivalists out there just hate the government and want to be left alone. They're interested in carving out their niche, and most likely won't form Contra death squads or whatever in order to counter those darn commies.

But then the question arises: what if they did? They certainly wouldn't wait for us to fire the first shot, anymore than fascist paras in European countries like Spain or Germany did in the 30's. So either leftists would defend themselves, in which case the cover of "civil revolution" would be blown, and according to the OP we'd then face harsh state repression, or they'd be slaughtered as they preached pacifism. I'm not a pacifist at all, but I also don't think that armed action would be the primary driving force against reaction (as I've already said).

[Dogs On Acid]

I most certainly do know about those folks, as I live in the USA and live in a rural area of a red state, no less! You'd think they'd be hiding behind every tree, but they're not. The right-wing survivalist paras have been greatly exaggerated by the media...it usually happens whenever a Democrat president is in office (or at least it certainly did under Clinton). Most of the actual survivalists out there just hate the government and want to be left alone. They're interested in carving out their niche, and most likely won't form Contra death squads or whatever in order to counter those darn commies.

But then the question arises: what if they did? They certainly wouldn't wait for us to fire the first shot, anymore than fascist paras in European countries like Spain or Germany did in the 30's. So either leftists would defend themselves, in which case the cover of "civil revolution" would be blown, and according to the OP we'd then face harsh state repression, or they'd be slaughtered as they preached pacifism. I'm not a pacifist at all, but I also don't think that armed action would be the primary driving force against reaction (as I've already said).

Why is it all about America to Americans?

It's the last place revolution will occur.

[The Man]

Once more, you are simply falling back on the typical talking points of the far right. You would get along quite well in most tea party circles with that sort of stance, what with your irrational defense of your point through the use of baseless paranoia.

You do not have a basic right to shoot lead into your fellow man at your own whim, such is far too much power for most any individual to wield of their own accord.

I'm sure the far right would absolutely love my views on Capitalism and Nationalism .

Who the fuck said I have a basic right to shoot lead into my FELLOW man? Is the Burglar, Rapist, and Murderer that I protect myself from my 'fellow man'?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I live in the USA, so I'm speaking to my own experience.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The key question for our leftist friends who join their liberal allies in the call for restricting firearms is who exactly is going to do the restricting? Who stands over "civilians" deciding when and how they can access firearms, and why?

Of course none of this has anything to do with the fight for a human community, for an end to exploitation and oppression and a world fit for human beings.

This has been discussed here many, many times before. I'll repeat what I've said in previous threads:

"Gun control" is an aspect of liberalism, bureaucratic control (of those who know what's best over the "unwashed masses"), etc. It has nothing to do with the revolutionary struggle to do away with all exploitation and oppression.

The First, Second and Third internationals up until Stalin's reign argued for the right to bear arms.

"...the disarming of the workers was the first commandment for the bourgeois, who were at the helm of the state. Hence, after every revolution won by the workers, a new struggle, ending with the defeat of the workers." - Engels

"Education of all to bear arms. Militia in the place of the standing army." - Eduard Bernstein

"No standing army or police force, but the armed people." - Lenin

"Every possibility for the proletariat to get weapons into its hands must be exploited to the fullest." - Guidelines on the Organizational Structure of Communist Parties, on the Methods and Content of their Work (Adopted at the 24th Session of the Third Congress of the Communist International, 12 July 1921)

Timothy McVeigh didn't need guns to level the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Aum Shinrikyo didn't need arms to launch the sarin gas attack in Tokyo. Kim Dae-han didn't need arms to start a fire in the Subway in Daegu. You can kill someone with any number of things, from cars to kitchen knives to lighters to explosives. Should they all be "controlled" too? Do countries in which gun ownership is more restricted not have murders, assassinations and violent attacks by rightists and people with mental issues?

Firearms aren't the problem.

* * *

The people making the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan so difficult are mainly using small arms.

Firearms were/are usually present in miners strikes in the coal fields (West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania) from the early days up until the 70's, 80's and even 90's. Ever see the documentary Harlan County U.S.A.? I have stories, friends and family with experiences, etc. that would surprise a lot of people, "leftist revolutionaries" included.

* * *

When you call for limiting gun ownership, for whatever reason you, you are arguing for the capitalist state to regulate our lives further, since that's the only force capable of regulating such a thing.

The bourgeois armed the proletariat when it needed it, and tried to reverse that when it didn't. Some countries went through mass revolutions involving huge swaths of the population. Others did not.

It should be mentioned that Switzerland has wide firearm ownership, and makes firearms training available to any boy or girl who wants it. All Swiss men enter boot camp around age 20 and remain a part of the militia until they reach 30. All those people keep their firearms (mostly Sig 550s) at home. After their militia term ends they're allowed to keep their firearms after having the autofire function removed. You need a permit to carry firearms.

There are some 3,000,000 firearms in homes across Switzerland. There are 7,600,000 people. There were 34 instances of gun violence in the entire country 2006. There were nearly twice as many instances of knife violence.

[The Man]

I was taking the piss.

You fail at sarcasm.

I fail at sarcasm on the internet. I cannot detect your tone of voice through text.