Marxist position on gun control?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I generally support the ownership of guns, although I don't own any.

But the issue is the way it's all frame and perspective.
Certain people want to frame it one way or the other.

I support restriction to weapons, like checks and sale restrictions.
The NRA want to frame restrictions as some sort of "slippery slope" to full outlawing of gun ownership.
Certain liberals also play this "all or nothing" game to a certain extant.

In Florida (and a few other states), the most troublesome laws are those around "gun show sales" or "private transactions" where people can get their hands on all sorts of weapons without any checks, etc. I think this needs to be restricted.
In fact, many people who own weapons agree that this element is kinda wild and should be restricted.

I also support restrictions on automatic weapons ("machine guns") although many ARs and such sold for the civilian market are semi-auto types. I think semi-auto rifles are ok.

It's extremely difficult to get automatic weapons, you need a federal permit. 99.999999% of AR-15 and AK-47 type rifles you find in the US are going to be semi-auto unless someone, some rogue gunsmith, modified them.

[MarxSchmarx]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, but is crucial to any "Marxist" analysis of the issue, is to understand that guns are ultimately a commodity produced under capitalism. A corollary of this is that the prevailing discourse about guns is intimately linked to the issue of marketing guns in a capitalist society. In America, gun manufacturers are the backbone of the NRA, and they frequently use their considerable financial wealth to facilitate the sale of their product, as any sane capitalist would.

If anybody ever wanted to look for a clear case of an "ideological superstructure" being buttressed by economic interests, they would really be hard pressed to find a better example than the American gun lobby.

Even the capitalist press, normally hostile to any suggestion that capitalists pull political strings in America, go ga-ga on this one issue:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercoh...trial-complex/
Bloomberg news has gone so far as having credited the NRA's political activism as single-handedly saving a dying industry from complete economic collapse.

As Marxists, it is important to understand that discussions of "gun control" do not happen in an economic vacuum. The mass production of weapons, the interplay between the marketing and political promotion of guns, and the material practicalities of modern arms manufacturing entail that serious Marxists must go beyond the principles of "armed militias" bickered abut by powdered wigged proto-bourgeoisie in the 1700s. Any serious discussion of the merits/demerits of contemporary gun control must begin with this understanding: the capitalists control the means of production, and that most certainly includes the production of armaments.

[The Idler]

Are you saying that article represents your views or are you just posting it?

It represents my views.

[MP5]

As a Communist who supports violent revolution when peaceful means fail i don't see how Communists could not be in favor of gun ownership. I am at odds with many of the so called left here in Canada as well as in the US as well as they all seem to be in favor of gun control. I am totally against it in any shape or forum. Although i do practice gun control the way it was meant to be which is both hands . I not only believe that people should be allowed to own any gun they want including fully automatic assault rifles, submachine guns and automatic shotguns but as i believe that the governments of the world are not accountable or representative of the people they hardly have any place telling the people whether they can own guns or not. The price of guns or atleast assault weapons is well above what a working class person could afford and this is one thing that is never addressed by the pro gun people because of course Capitalism is good . I can get a pump action Winchester shotgun for a few hundred bucks if i buy it off someone else instead of brand new (a good pump action shotgun is pretty hard to break) but with a assault rifle such as a AR-180 or AR-15 you are looking at a few grand easy. With submachine guns or machine pistols forget about it the price is ridiculous. So it smacks of elitism to say the least.

I do hate the NRA lobby in the US with a passion and i hate many gun owners in all countries including the ones here in Canada. Or atleast the political ones. They are all conservatives who ***** about Socialists trying to take away their guns . So needless to say i have nothing to do with that sorry lot of losers.

Gun totting Communists must be a Conservatives or fascists worst nightmare .The government is not the least bit afraid of the NRA types as they pose absolutely no threat to the power structure. In fact in cases in the past the NRA has gone out of there way to support discriminatory gun control. Such as Regan's Mulford act in 1967 which prohibited the carrying of guns in public in California. This was nothing but a measure to stop the Black Panthers from carrying guns to protect the black communities against violence by white supremacists.

[The Idler]

Communists with fully automatics aren't gonna be able to do much apart from lose public sympathy very quickly. Nor will the fully automatics be much use when the government rolls in armoured personnel carriers and tanks.

[RevisioniningLeft]

Violent revolutions usually occur when there is little popular support for the rebelling forces.

When revolutionary movements turn to weapons to support their cause they create institutions within them that will become centres of power.

Complete communism or socialism includes giving up on all arms.

[Leftsolidarity]

Violent revolutions usually occur when there is little popular support for the rebelling forces.
.

Huh? Back this claim up with some hard analysis please because I can think of no example that affirms this. Quite the contrary, in fact, there have been no revolutions in which one class overthrows another in a peaceful way. Revolution, by its very nature, is violent.

When revolutionary movements turn to weapons to support their cause they create institutions within them that will become centres of power.
.

That's out of nessesity of cementing the class rule of the revolutionary class not because they use weapons. They pick up weapons for the same reason they create their own state. They don't create a state because they picked up weapons.

Complete communism or socialism includes giving up on all arms.

Why? The masses should remain armed so that they can always defend themselves.

[The Idler]

These topics like this on revleft used to remind me of CoD but now they remind me more of the 1983 classic with Matthew Broderick

[Philosopher Jay]

In the United States, about 1.3 million people have been killed in the last 50 years by guns. About 8-10,000 people die from guns a year, approximately 200 people every week. At the same time the gun manufacturers reap $1 billion in profits off of $12 billion in sales.

Communists should oppose this. Under a communist government, not one single gun should be produced and sold for profit.

It would be the highest priority of a communist government to protect the lives of all its citizens from murder by guns. In order to do this, the government should know and control the whereabouts of every single gun and should determine who carries a gun and who does not.

Every gun potentially is a murder weapon. A communist government should control every gun to make sure it never becomes a murder weapon.

Communists should demand that the United States protect its people through 100% gun control. If it cannot, a communist government which can and does protect all the citizens should take power.

People have a clear choice: to live freely by creating a communist government or to live in fear and terror and die bloodily shot by a private gun owner under a capitalist government.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

In the United States, about 1.3 million people have been killed in the last 50 years by guns. About 8-10,000 people die from guns a year, approximately 200 people every week. At the same time the gun manufacturers reap $1 billion in profits off of $12 billion in sales.

Communists should oppose this. Under a communist government, not one single gun should be produced and sold for profit.

It would be the highest priority of a communist government to protect the lives of all its citizens from murder by guns. In order to do this, the government should know and control the whereabouts of every single gun and should determine who carries a gun and who does not.

Every gun potentially is a murder weapon. A communist government should control every gun to make sure it never becomes a murder weapon.

Communists should demand that the United States protect its people through 100% gun control. If it cannot, a communist government which can and does protect all the citizens should take power.

People have a clear choice: to live freely by creating a communist government or to live in fear and terror and die bloodily shot by a private gun owner under a capitalist government.

Are you going to keep track of kitchen knives, too? Did you miss my post where gun deaths in the US pale in comparison to other, more socially acceptable, forms of death that nobody seems to be crying about?


Go back to democratic underground.

[Leftsolidarity]

Someday I will manage to sit down and give a full and serious rebuttal to those with an "anti-gun" stance. I haven't been able to yet because everytime I read those posts I get very frustrated and start pulling on my hair and only think of insults that I wish to say. Someday I will be able to calmly respond. Someday....

[The Idler]

Someday I will manage to sit down and give a full and serious rebuttal to those with an "anti-gun" stance. I haven't been able to yet because everytime I read those posts I get very frustrated and start pulling on my hair and only think of insults that I wish to say. Someday I will be able to calmly respond. Someday....

Its called being hot-headed and one of the reasons armed citizens with guns are a bad idea.

[Philosopher Jay]

This is a typical apples and oranges false comparison.

Knives have an entirely different function than guns. I use knives practically every single day of my life to cut food. On the other hand, I have never used a gun in my life and neither have the vast majority of people in the world. I would guess that 95% have never used a gun. The number of people who have never used knives is probably under 1%.

A better comparison would be demolition explosives and guns. The acquisition and use of explosives is strictly controlled in the United States, so entire years go by without any one dying in explosions. Here is some of the restrictions to having explosives:

C. USER PERMITTEE

1. An applicant (e.g., individual, company, partnership, corporation) who intends to purchase explosives from a
licensee (FEL) across State lines or transport explosives across State lines must obtain a user permit from
the ATF, § 842 (a)(3)(A), up to 10 years if violated. Criminal background check will be conducted of
the applicant, § 843 (h).

2. A user permittee must keep records of its acquisition of explosives, have proper storage facilities, keep
accurate physical inventories, and maintain records of the disposition / use of explosives,
§ 842 (f), § 555.125, 10 Yrs.

3. A user permittee must allow the ATF to conduct inspections of its records and explosives inventory,
§ 843 (f).

4. A user permittee must report the theft or loss of explosives from his stock to the ATF and local law
enforcement within 24 hours, § 844 (p) (theft), 5 years or § 842 (k) (loss), 1 year.

5. A user permittee may distribute surplus explosives to another licensee or permittee, § 842 (b).

A user-permittee may not distribute explosives to a:

a. Non-licensee or non-permittee, § 842 (b), 10 years.
b. Person under 21 years of age, § 842 (d), 10 years.
c. Prohibited person, § 842 (d), 10 years.

Treating guns as explosives and carefully regulating their purchase, storage and use would save the lives of about 10,000 people a year in the United States.



It is because the gun manufacturers are making huge profits that guns are not treated as the dangerous explosives they are. It is certainly odd for people who call themselves socialists to be defending the profits of capitalist gun manufacturers and ignoring the annual murder of thousands of workers.

Are you going to keep track of kitchen knives, too? Did you miss my post where gun deaths in the US pale in comparison to other, more socially acceptable, forms of death that nobody seems to be crying about?


Go back to democratic underground.

[Leftsolidarity]

Its called being hot-headed and one of the reasons armed citizens with guns are a bad idea.

Being frustrated at liberal ideology and so called "revolutionaries" speaking about how bad guns are is not being hot headed.

Just read this article and it was decent.

http://www.gonzotimes.com/2013/01/wh...nd-everything/

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As a partisan advocate for working class hegemony, my position is simple - absolute opposition to any move or attempt to disarm the proletariat.

It doesn't matter if the workers only have pea-shooters and the ruling classes have orbital battleships - no disparity in firepower, no matter how great, excuses attempts to disarm the proletatariat.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

This is a typical apples and oranges false comparison.

Knives have an entirely different function than guns. I use knives practically every single day of my life to cut food.

I've used guns my entire life for food acquisition, vermin control, and fun (target practice).

On the other hand, I have never used a gun in my life and neither have the vast majority of people in the world. I would guess that 95% have never used a gun.

Source

The number of people who have never used knives is probably under 1%.

A better comparison would be demolition explosives and guns. The acquisition and use of explosives is strictly controlled in the United States, so entire years go by without any one dying in explosions. Here is some of the restrictions to having explosives:

[snip]

Treating guns as explosives and carefully regulating their purchase, storage and use would save the lives of about 10,000 people a year in the United States.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...81&postcount=4

"Treating alcohol as explosives and carefully regulating their purchase, storage and use would save the lives of about 40,000 people a year" according to the CDC link I posted in that thread.

It is because the gun manufacturers are making huge profits that guns are not treated as the dangerous explosives they are. It is certainly odd for people who call themselves socialists to be defending the profits of capitalist gun manufacturers and ignoring the annual murder of thousands of workers.

It's because explosives have virtually no legitimate use aside from mining operations. Nobody wants to mine coal in their back yard. How am I supposed to kill a coyote that's been stalking my dogs? Chase him with a bat? If I'm out in the woods hunting hog on foot, without a .45 side arm, would you like to take a bet on how long it would take me to be mauled to death by a sow protecting sucklings? I'll give you a hint, it's extremely difficult to use a scope with something running towards you in the woods in dusk or at night, when they're out, and I'm going to want more than a measly 10 shots because ... it's dark, I'm scared, it's angry, and it wants to kill me to protect its babies.

[Leftsolidarity]

Communists with fully automatics aren't gonna be able to do much apart from lose public sympathy very quickly.

Why? If there's an armed struggle going on then the masses should already be on the side of the communists. You're detaching the left from the working class. The left is part of the working class and if it's to the point of armed struggle then the working class should be on the left as well. This also just isn't "should self described communists have guns?" it is about the masses having guns.

Nor will the fully automatics be much use when the government rolls in armoured personnel carriers and tanks

I hear this a lot but it really doesn't make much sense to me. What about all the guerilla struggles that beat out much stronger and heavily equipped enemies? This comes down to particular tactics not a general defeatist "they out gun us so lets just give up now" ideology. If you think this way why are you even a communist? The bourgeois state is the strongest the world has even known and the odds are stacked against us. Might as well just give up on proletariat revolution now.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

As an addendum to my previous posts in this thread I'll just put this here. The whole thing is a good read, and it's really short, but I'll quote the applicable part below


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...e/1850-ad1.htm

... the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition ... Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. ...

[Ostrinski]

I am not arguing for "disarming" the proletariat (such would be an impossible feat, even for the bourgeois state), but of reasonable limits on certain kinds of firearms as well as restrictions on the purchasability of them for certain people such as the mentally unwell.

also brb people's war

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am not arguing for "disarming" the proletariat (such would be an impossible feat, even for the bourgeois state), but of reasonable limits on certain kinds of firearms as well as restrictions on the purchasability of them for certain people such as the mentally unwell.

also brb people's war

Do you really want those "reasonable limits" to be defined by the bourgeois state though?

If one can't trust the bourgeois state to define "reasonable limits" to poverty or quality of life, then I fail to see how one can trust the bourgeois state to define "reasonable limits" to possession of weaponry.