Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

13

BlackFlagged wrote

Wouldn't I have to support the state before I could support its right to deny me stuff?

4

EdgyIndividualistBuffoon wrote

The funny thing is that people pretty much anywhere outside of the US think this is incredibly stupid logic. Talk to a European or a Canadian or an Australian socialist some time, guns figure far less into their revolutionary fantasies to the extent where it's almost shocking to hear. So much of this shit is just macho hero fantasy and it's boring.

12

_ziq_ wrote (edited )

I support disarming all cops and soldiers, that's for sure.

9

mofongo wrote

No, we the working class must be armed.

2

EdgyIndividualistBuffoon wrote

Great, so let's build the groundwork for a revolution before engaging in fantasies about playing the revolutionary hero and waving around guns. This isn't necessarily aimed at you, but there's a ton of that sentiment around here.

4

sudo wrote

It's better to have guns and know how to use them before it's time for the revolution. Nobody is LARPing or fetishizing violence - we recognize that war is hell, but a revolution in better than continuing to live under capitalism until it destroys the world. If your comrades are trying to start a revolution before it's time, then you're engaging with the wrong people.

4

mofongo wrote

An armed proletariat IS groundwork for the revolution, you cannot expect things to go smoothly without a way to defend ourselves.

7

surreal wrote

I support stopping the production of guns, so many wasted resources.

7

DeathToAmerica wrote

Yes. I don't think any Americans should have guns, including the state. They're only used to oppress minorities and terrorize the world.

The rest of the word doesn't fetishize guns the way America does.

5

ExLibris wrote (edited )

Yes, I'm in favor of gun restrictions. I live in a country with more guns than people, where gun violence claims lives every day and increasingly in mass numbers.

Bringing in more guns and loosening restrictions doesn't work.

We're now at a level of technology where guns can be fingerprint-locked and keep GPS records of when, where, and in what direction every shot was fired.

With this we could bring a great deal more personal responsibility to gun ownership and take away the firearms from people who act stupidly and dangerously with them. That alone would be a huge step in the right direction.

Keep in mind that the purpose of the right in america was supposedly to act as a bulwark against the encroachment of governmental tyranny. At this point I question the ability of the citizenry, even when armed with personal firearms, to mount any kind of serious armed resistance against the forces of the US military.

1

Buchkinn wrote

Keep in mind that the purpose of the right in america was supposedly to act as a bulwark against the encroachment of governmental tyranny. At this point I question the ability of the citizenry, even when armed with personal firearms, to mount any kind of serious armed resistance against the forces of the US military.

This! The firearms of US citizens can't do shit against the military so the whole argument is just preposterous imho.

3

1sAnd0sAndAFew2sToo wrote

I think the question that's necessary, given the responses to this, is:

Is an armed revolution against the Powers That Be

  • necessary?
  • imminent?
  • plausible?
  • likely to make things better, both in the short- and long- term?

I can't help but feel that trying to topple the system violently is only going to bring terrible, terrible things. We'll just be burying our children.

3

EdgyIndividualistBuffoon wrote

A undeniable, absolute right to deadly weapons sounds to me like the right of the bourgeois to own property and order people around.

Wanting reasonable gun laws or even wanting reasonable discussions on the topic doesn't mean you favor the authoritarian state accumulation of power, it just means you don't want to get shot up by some rightwing maniac.

I want functioning societies where people are free from oppression in various forms. Sometimes the short term requires compromise with dangerous institutions like the nation-State instead of being 100% against everything at all times, dooming yourself to total irrelevance.

So yes, I'm in favor of gun restrictions.

If it helps, I'm also in favor of other laws, like those regulating finance (such as they are) and those supporting Medicare and Social Security.

2

zer0crash wrote (edited )

First off, rights, as bestowed by a state are a spook. The only rights we have are those we are capable of enforcing.

By bestowing the state the powers to control arms you do in fact enable authoritarian state accumulation of power, whether it is to avoid getting shot or not. There is no magickal formula of words or twist of logic that can avoid that. I would not consider this a practical compromise by any extent.

Fact is, unless the state is all-knowing and can predict the future, the state/police are very, very unlikely to save you from any mass shooting to begin with. It's simply a matter of resources and the fact that the police are a responsive force.

Gun control will merely ensure that a black market supplies arms to those who really want it. So ultimately someone who acquires a gun illegally (or makes one), and intends to use it against innocent people will very likely not be prevented by any law and its enforcers no matter how many controls you implement.

edit: mobile