such a funny time for this discourse again ☕
You must log in or register to comment.
Look how black panthers existence changed many laws in carry permits, and you understand why both sides needs to be pro-guns
Ironically, leftists are more in line with the constitution with our reasoning around gun ownership. In my book, anyone who isn’t happy with the lax state of gun laws is equally an ally and we shouldn’t draw lines in the sand for no reason. You can both own a gun and want it to be harder for people who shouldn’t get them to get them, it’s almost as silly as the “you criticize society and yet you participate in society” argument.
I don’t know. I don’t think we really are good at deciding who should and shouldn’t have a right. there seems to be something fundamentally broken in that
Circumstances change, that’s the main fundamental issue. At the same time, we don’t even check for problems during a lot of gun sales. I would say domestic abuse charges, history of suicidal behavior or terroristic threats, etc. There are at least lines we can draw without it being a free for all or a massive lockdown. Admittedly, it’s mostly so we can feel we’re at least trying something in the face of our children being killed that may actually make an impact in some of the examples.
okay that’s valid and noble. I would like to live to see society change like that
but why do you think they want us disarmed before the change happens?
Well, with conservatives, it’s always about targeting those they don’t like. I wouldn’t be surprised to see anti gun legislation coming from the right that holds those already owning guns immune, but new buyers since November 2024 ineligible. I think we more or less agree?
yeah, probably. I’d bet on them somehow rolling it into concerns about immigrants and how “only real citizens get 2a rights”.
Gotta tap those new markets. Almost a million dead Americans from gun violence in the last twenty years and corporations laughing all the way to the bank.
As a Canadian I’ve always found that even left Americans defend gun rights, it’s weird. But I guess if you’re born and raised in that culture it’s just normal to have such easy access to guns
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers should be frustrated, by force if necessary
See? To the rest of us that’s weird. And we’re more free than you guys. But again that’s the tea you were steeped in so it’s not weird to you
Listen wise guy, that’s a quote from marx, not an American culture type of thing.
So? It applies to American culture. Otherwise you wouldn’t have mentioned it.
It does however not apply to any civilized countries.
Don’t be dense, you mentioned american culture first, i was obviously replying to that.
And the quote applies to anywhere the working class is in actual conflict or protest, the fact that the situation is worse in the united states specifically is because the democrats (and largely liberals) keep to useless bullheaded “civility politics”.
Who is “the rest of us”?
Not Americans.
Non-Americans like me?
Leftists have guns. Liberals don’t. Leftists realize that force has to be countered by force. Liberals don’t want to contribute to the problem of too many guns and don’t want to buy from the gun manufacturers. Leftists have arsenals.
The problem is there are more guns than there are people. You can’t close Pandora’s box, or ignore the fact your stupid, drunk, Trump-worshiping neighbor takes his guns for walks around your neighborhood. The concept of being anti-gun here is asinine.
Not everyone needs one, but ignoring the fact many should have them is ignoring reality. When the school bully is an old, racist, angry dude with an armory, you either learn to meet them where they are, or risk the lives of you and your family.
I think it’s Pandora’s box, once opened it can’t be closed.
I understand there have been instances where it’s been closed in other countries, but I just can’t see that vision working in the US society.
The divine rights of kings was also thought to be impossible to disappear, yet here we are.
If it were swords, we wouldn’t want to the only people without swords in a place bristling with swords.
Weapons are force-multipliers and we have too many people willing to use force, including our own fucking government, which was the idea to begin with; don’t have a government that can do whatever because they have all the force.
In fact, you can even demand a kingdom without swords while carrying a sword. They do not cancel each other out.
I think a lot of us confuse the tool capacity (hunting, self-defense) with actual “safety” and the powers that be in the government let the gun rights argument continue so that people keep wasting money on arms and ammunition, and the businesses lobbying those in charge get to keep selling generally unregulated or underegulated.
It’s a weird mindfuck all around cause I’m Canadian and don’t need a gun, but if I moved to the US I’d get one, to protect me from crazy Americans with guns. Keeping the cycle going.
if I lived almost anywhere else I wouldn’t. NZ voted away their rights recently and I respect that. Japan probably should have thought it through a little more. but America is insano-country. legal corruption, the wealthy using indirect forms of violence, direct violence from the police. it’s the kind of conditions that require communities to build ways of defending themselves. also the people in power want us unarmed for different reasons than you want to be unarmed.
Been around guns my whole life. Shot them, loaded them, cleaned them, but IV never owned one myself. Mostly for a lack of wanting. But now seems a good time to have my own for better or worse.
Girlfriend really don’t want me to have it tho
Why though? It’s not like people are getting kidnapped off the street oh wait
Same here.
To me it’s a useless item.
I saw a competition where competitors would stand on a blue square and quickly shoot all the blue targets that popped up, then move to a red square and shoot the red ones. It was timed and looked like a ton of fun. I thought, this would be the only reason I would buy one. But you know, I have a lot of hobbies. That looked real expensive. I would have to hang around gun ranges and gun people. There would be a dangerous weapon in the house. We don’t have kids but visitors do. My wife doesn’t want it. In the end I just didn’t want it.
I have a lot of friends who are Democrats and a lot of them own guns. I laugh every time Republicans say Dems want to take their guns. I’m like, no, they just want some simple safety rules and the strange thing is 80% of all gun owners used to to. I don’t know if that’s still true but the number came from the NRA a decade or two ago. Yeah, THE NRA. They even used to be in favor of an automatic weapons ban.
I don’t think more guns is the answer, but I can kind of see the logic for a lefty to want to defend himself…or his country.
It’s not as expensive of a hobby as drugs or cars.so there’s that, I guess. 🤷🏼♂️
I’ve had my FOID for about 17 years. Never felt the need either. Now we’re going to the range and shopping guns. Makes more sense to be armed than not in this current climate.
If you go far enough left, you get your guns back.
Sick of the constant, “Where my 2A people at?!” around here. I am right fucking here, but I’m not in much of a position to mount a personal assault on Washington DC. All I can reasonably do is defend my immigrant wife and our home if it comes to that.
FFS, some of these people even question self-defense. “They’ll just kill you, moron!” Yeah, well that was on the table anyway.
And if any gun-grabbers think the cops and ICE and politicians are fascist enough as-is, imagine how they would be acting if they could kick down doors with full impunity and zero fear. Yeah, the local cops could get a squad of 20 and take this house apart. But somebody’s getting hurt. I guarantee it.
Here’s an interesting thought, let’s see how this plays out. Florida is red enough ATM, governor and state Congress. Why haven’t they passed open-carry legislation? Why isn’t it even under discussion? Think they’ll make it happen?
I’ll give you three guesses, but you’re only going to need one. Fuck no they will not legislate open carry because men like me will be at every protest with an AR-15 on my shoulder and a Colt .45 in my belt.
And if any gun-grabbers think the cops and ICE and politicians are fascist enough as-is, imagine how they would be acting if they could kick down doors with full impunity and zero fear. Yeah, the local cops could get a squad of 20 and take this house apart. But somebody’s getting hurt. I guarantee it.
And there’s the real case for private ownership.
If you have the choice of being disappeared and killed…or being disappeared and killed while taking a few of them with you, definitely choose the latter.
It won’t help you, but if you do it, your neighbor does it, and the next 10, 20…50 people do it, eventually two things are going to happen: if it’s local forces, they’re gonna start needing help, and if it’s not local, it forces those powers into a more difficult decision of having to either get more overt with their fascism or backing off. It’s not ideal but that’s pretty much the options you have.
If they want to do all the shitty fascist things, don’t let them do it easily and for free. The higher ups might not care, but that local cop in the red hat might start to think twice when “his” government keeps asking him to haul away people, and each time, another of his friends goes down. If not from a place of shifting world view, then maybe from self preservation.
The analogy I go to for this concept is “the thorny vine.” A single thorn is a minor inconvenience, but if one were to attempt to grab the vine and tear it down by force, then there’s a lot of pain.
It’s honestly crazy that we have the “right” to bear arms and the “right” to protest, but half the country cannot protest while bearing arms. Meanwhile, police are shooting people’s eyes out and trampling them with horses.
Or burning them alive in houses cause they (the cops) throw flashbangs without thinking.
I’m sick of the 2A people doing fuck all beyond barricading their own doors
Yeah screw those people who :: checks my notes:: cares about their family! Fucking bastards!
Yeah, fuck all of those other families!
you seem to be riding the, fuck all families, train so you don’t have a good argument here
deleted by creator
Be the change
The fact that we have millions of people willing to barricade themselves while ready to defend their homes with weapons, is what will keep this tyrannical administration from knocking down random doors and dragging people out for looking at porn or leftist youtubers.
Nobody, NOBODY in the US wants to be the one breaking down the door of another US citizen, because everyone knows how many people are ready to open fire.
It’s not ideal, but it’s what we have.
If you think it would be better to “rise up” and form an armed revolution… you’re insane and dumb. They have fucking missiles and tanks.
Lol
Lol
Well thought out rebuttal, I didn’t have time to read it all but I will try to address each point later.
You typed up all them words in a country where citizens are getting disappeared right now
so your argument seems to be, ‘there are 2a people not sacrificing their lives to murder my enemies, curious…’
seems to me that in order for the next step to happen there needs to be an armed movement, which you are actively are at this moment suppressing. there needs to be more guns in progressive hands, and a collective movement else it’s just sparkling mad gunman, and thoughts and prayers.
and i guarantee you would be the first to claim the shooter would be a republican plant
And the best thing you can do to prevent that is to keep a fucking gat pointed at your door when they come, and that way we turn a potential takeover of our nation into a house-to-house meat grinder, effectively preventing that kind of action.
You are not going to win an offensive game, no matter how many people you recruit to throw their lives away in the face of machine guns and ordinance. It’s delusional roleplay thinking from watching too many movies or youtubers who make careers on LARPing.
Well what ya do is meet up at protests and devise some shenanigans
I tried several times in the last few days to articulate the points you’re making. well said
Anti-gun sentiment doesn’t belong in a country where there are more firearms than people.
It’s always been idiocy. Stupid democrats saying stupid things because they know their idiot followers will lap it up. It’s been bullshit the entire time.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
And nothing, certainly not military technology, has changed since he wrote that in 1850.
Human nature and society hasn’t changed since then. Hell, it hasn’t changed since wide spread written history. Go read ancient Greco-Roman graffiti. We are not fundamentally different than our ancestors, and it is the height of arrogance to pretend we are the enlightened peak so far above them.
The reasons for Marx’s statements and the reasons the founders wrote the 2nd amendment have not changed, and technology has not changed sufficiently to invalidate that.
Human nature might not have changed, but warfare definitely has. The tools of war that might have made it possible for a peasant army to rise up and overthrow a government are no longer suitable in an age of satellites, tanks, bombers, drones, etc.
Somewhat true, though the US loosing for 30 years to peasant armies in the Middle East proves military technology hasn’t changed as much as you might feel it has, but that wasn’t my point. Disarming and giving all power to the elite is still neither preferable nor a good idea.
Labor gave up their economic weapons (unions) because times were peaceful and prosperous and their overlords promised they’d be safe, and now they are debt slaves working gig jobs with shit or no benefits. The monopoly of economic violence belongs to the FAANGs and Walmarts.
Doing the same for guns and the government is rolling out the red carpet for the jackboots to break in because there is nothing to fear. Giving up freedom for safety means you will get neither still holds. A government that doesn’t righteously fear (as in healthy respect) it’s governed is not of and for the people, but over and above the people.
Those “peasant armies” that were un-tightening the US had access to machine guns, grenades, RPGs, unguided rockets, mortars, IEDs, surface-to-air missiles.
You’re making a leap by saying that disarming is giving all power to the elite. The elite already have power, and guns in the hands of civilians are not actually power, they’re the illusion of power.
Labor gave up their economic weapons (unions) because times were peaceful and prosperous
Not in France. France doesn’t have a gun problem, but they have strong unions, and in France people are happy to use their power to hold strikes and force the government to acknowledge their demands.
Doing the same for guns and the government is rolling out the red carpet for the jackboots to break in because there is nothing to fear.
That’s my point, there never was anything to fear for the rich. They don’t fear guns in the hands of the people because they know that they’re safe. They know a few AR-15s are not a threat to them. What’s a threat is unions, taxes on the ultra-rich, limits on the use of money in politics, etc. Plus, as we’ve seen recently, even when there’s a actual fascist taking power and trampling on people’s civil liberties, people aren’t actually going to use their guns.
That’s my point, there never was anything to fear for the rich. They don’t fear guns in the hands of the people because they know that they’re safe. They know a few AR-15s are not a threat to them.
Looking at the difference in how the police handled peaceful protests when the protesters were openly and obviously armed compared to when they weren’t, the boots on the ground doing the enforcement are the ones who care.
It’s not the rich who will be breaking into your house in the middle of the night to disappear you.
Plus, as we’ve seen recently, even when there’s a actual fascist taking power and trampling on people’s civil liberties, people aren’t actually going to use their guns.
Do not trust that the amount Americans will bend in the face of tyranny is infinite. They colonists attempted years of bargaining and peaceful solutions before the revolution. Only 20-30% of the population at the max think Trump is an actual fascist who will seize power and overthrow the democracy, and that group is both the least armed and most violence averse. It will take something completely overt and undeniable to get people to throw what comfort they have in life away to initiate armed rebellion.
This doesn’t mean the right move is to give up that option completely and hope that capitulation isn’t too bad.
It’s not the rich who will be breaking into your house in the middle of the night to disappear you.
It’s not the poor either. In fact, it’s nobody.
Do not trust that the amount Americans will bend in the face of tyranny is infinite.
Why not?
They colonists attempted years of bargaining and peaceful solutions before the revolution
Which of they colonists are you talking about?
It will take something completely overt and undeniable to get people to throw what comfort they have in life away to initiate armed rebellion.
Which is why it will never happen.
Are you talking about people in the USA or people elsewhere in the world? The USA is always “special” when it comes to matters like this.
Definitely just the USA. I mentioned earlier that I really respect NZ deciding to disarm after their last public shooting. That’s something that could really happen when corruption is that low and people are educated and healthy.
It’s definitely not just an American thing.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” -Karl Marx
America does have a “unique” culture around guns, but that’s not all that prevalent on the left. What’s driving interest in guns is the sad fact that we might need to use them.
The thought process that “we might need to use them” is evidence that the left in America does think about guns differently than the rest of the world.
You should mention that that was Karl Marx before the US civil war. Not Karl Marx in an age where drone-based warfare is common.
Are you suggesting we build weaponized drones?
I’m saying that if Karl Marx had written things in 2025, what he would have said would undoubtedly have been different than what he wrote in 1850.
But the need for workers to defend themselves from the capitalist system/state has never been more pressing as the capitalists are once again choosing fascism. I doubt Marx would be advocating for disarmament in today’s world.
The need might not have changed, but the option to use weapons to do so might no longer exist. OTOH, in Marx’s time communications technology was primitive, there was no way to coordinate instantaneously with other people was limited to people who were within earshot. Maybe a 2025 Marx wouldn’t talk about giving up weapons, because he’d know taking up arms against a state was pointless in 2025, and instead he’d be all about mesh networks and encryption.
The potential to need to use guns is a statement of fact. The alternative of counting on law and order to correct the overreach of a fascist cop is no longer valid. When people start getting disappeared without due process, that changes the calculus entirely.
I’ve got no clue what drones have to do with this. That’s just one more threat of extrajudicial state violence we might very well have to face. I’d rather try to defend myself from a drone with buck shot than a slingshot.
The potential to need to use guns is a statement of fact
It’s your opinion that you might want to use guns. That doesn’t mean that guns are the only possible solution to the problem. As I said, American-brained people think Americanely, which distinguishes them from the rest of the world.
Ok Mr big bad, you live around a bunch of idiots and cops that have guns and want to kill you, let’s see how cavalier you are about not wanting to protect yourself especially given the current state of affairs in the US.
Big Ukraine giving up it’s nuclear arsenal just to end up getting invaded by Russia energy.
you live around a bunch of idiots and cops that have guns and want to kill you
Why would I live there? I’d leave.
Not everyone has the financial resources to up and move countries.
I think you will find that anyone who can’t rely on functioning courts thinks about guns this way. It’s not just Americans. There are dozens of countries where you would be braindead not to have guns for home protection. The thing those countries have in common is a rational lack of confidence in the rule of law. Russians see it that way. Afghans do too. Pretty much everywhere but Europe sees it that way unless they have a government so oppressive as to make private gun ownership nearly impossible.
I think you’ll find that it’s mostly Americans who jump to guns first. There are dozens of countries Americans look at and say: “Gee, those people should have guns”, but the locals disagree.
Russia? You can’t buy a hunting rifle unless you’ve owned a smoothbore gun for 5 years without an incident. Fully automatic guns? Forbidden. Pistols and revolvers? Heavily restricted. If you own one you have to keep it in a gun safe which is inspected by the Russian version of ATF. And you need to pass an exam and a psychological check to own one.
I don’t know where you got the idea that Russians have a similar fetish for guns as Americans.
As for Afghanistan, is that really a country you want to compare the US to? A country that has been at war more often than it has been at peace?
Almost nobody in the world sees it the same as the US. Not in Africa. Not in South America. Not in Europe. Definitely not in Asia. And not even in other countries in North America.
I think you’ll find that it’s mostly Americans who jump to guns first.
What does that even mean? First before what? It’s been quite a few years since our civil war. We’ve “jumped to” quite a lot of things before guns, and the left hasn’t really jumped to them yet. I’m not saying there isn’t a massive gun fetish here, because there is, but it exists almost entirely among right wingers. God, guns, and hate are their culture. The left hates the idea of using guns, but we also see the reality we live in, and a lot of us choose to be prepared.
You don’t see lefties going to gun shows unless doing some kind of investigation of the right. We don’t hand our kids AR-15s for the family Christmas photo or celebrate shooting an overly rambunctious pup. We don’t have collections of dozens of guns in private arsenals. We generally do support sane gun control and responsible ownership. We don’t brag about our guns or make them part of our identity.
Russia? You can’t buy a hunting rifle unless…
Don’t you mean “can’t legally buy”? Are you seriously unaware of the rather infamous scope of the Russian black market in guns? Russia has a bit of an organized crime thing going, as in it’s everywhere. Their black market represents a quarter of their GDP, and everyone pays bribes to someone.
As for Afghanistan, is that really a country you want to compare the US to?
What the fuck? Of course not! I don’t want to compare it to Nazi Germany either, but the similarities are kind of hard to miss. Where did you get the idea that I was talking about my aspirations for America?
A country that has been at war more often than it has been at peace?
LOL. As of 5 years ago, the US had been at war for 222/244 years. I don’t know if even Afghanistan can match that.
Almost nobody in the world sees it the same as the US…
Again, the US is a big country and can’t all be lumped into one big group. Different groups relate to guns very differently here. Gun ownership on the left is largely driven by gun ownership on the right, and now our newly fascist government. We don’t relate to guns the same as the right, but many of us do own them and know how to use them.
The American left is not that dissimilar to the left in a lot of other countries as it relates to guns, except that our situation is quite different.
US people ☕️
Mag dumping each other for fun and profit.
I don’t believe in the horse shoe theory except when it comes to gun owners larping about rising up against the government.
Rising up against the government is a LARPy roleplay fantasy by people who don’t have community or culture.
However, making your insane, fascist government think twice before knocking down random doors in random neighborhoods lest they face a hail of gunfire, that is almost a necessity right now.
This country has too much wealth and resources that a lot of people would love to control, Trump is just the first to succeed at getting into the vault, but there have been many, many others who would have taken the US by force from within given the means.
Yes, better social policies and better international relations would have done a better job mitigating that, but we didn’t get that, so here we are. Huddled behind our weapons and hoping they scare the monsters enough that they leave us alone.
First of all the, majority of gun owners fully support the fascist regime. So you will be fighting them and the military.
Second of all, you would be fighting against the government. Spy drones, tanks, missiles, etc. You will be killed and you won’t have a fighting chance. There is no escape.
Guns have already destroyed our society from within. Tens of millions of people live in fear of gun violence. Millions of partners can’t leave their relationships because they fear death. Tens of thousands of people are raped at gun point every year.
The amount of human suffering is staggering.
I guess? Mutually assured destruction is a form of brinkmanship that I’m not sure if I’m comfortable attempting. I won’t judge you for how you choose to defend yourself against this administration but I will say that guns rarely deescalate a situation. I truly hope that ICE or the FBI or whoever actually do back down from more violent actions if they fear for their lives, but I feel like it’s more likely that they will simply engage in greater shows of force. Maybe that will wake more people up to what they’re doing.
I will say that guns rarely deescalate a situation.
In life, you’re right. And I am speaking as a former self-defense teacher. I really believe the average person should not be carrying guns. Home defense, sure, but they’re NOT an answer to 99% of potential daily problems with others and just make everyone crazier.
That said, political defense is a different ball-game. You need force behind your politics when your enemy is also putting force behind their politics. This applies to everything from international relations between allies and enemies to domestic movements. This is why Trump has so much political capital, not only does he have a raving cult behind him, they’re literally armed lunatics. It may seem unstable and it is, but it IS power. It’s why he managed to carve such a deep swath through the GOP, that kind of assured power is intoxicating to people.
I guarantee you if the left were more willing to take up responsible gun ownership broadly, we would have both more cards in the political game, AND we would have greater influence over the gun laws our country desperately needs. (Gun lobbies listen to gun buyers, not the people trying to put them out of business.)
Super unrelated but anyone ever hear the song John Brown’s Body? Lovely ditty!
Because fascism is here and guns are a requirement now if we don’t want to live in an authoritarian future.
I’ve been anti-gun my whole life. That’s because I had some faith that our society was intelligent enough that we could create a less violent nation that respects democracy and votes our way into a better future.
Reality Check: That isn’t our society.
Guns may not save us from authoritarianism, but not having them guarantees it. Wish it wasn’t so, but it is.
If this train keeps derailing, they will end up coming for you. That’s how fascism works. You want a way to defend yourself or not?
Pretty much my thoughts. I had someone ask me if I would give up my guns to save children, and or course I would! Thing is it wouldn’t. It just be one less rational person unarmed and neck presented for stepping on. If we had a main wide disarmament(which would include the fucking cops!) I ain’t giving up shit.
Leftists have always been pro gun. There’s just not that many leftists. It’s the Democrats and neoliberals who think only Trump and his government should have guns.
I’m not American, but I consider myself left wing, and I am pro gun but I am also pro gun control. I don’t think outright banning them is a solution but I also don’t think letting them out in the world unchecked is a good idea either.
Fr, I’m from Texas and can’t count the responsible gun owners with one hand.
Actual leftists have always been pro gun though…
Like, I’m all for gun laws. But unfortunately a lot of crazy shit is legal, and a lot of people are crazy.
Prepare for the world you live in, not what you think it should be like.
Prepare for the world you live in, not what you think it should be like.
That is an amazing way of wording a sentiment I’ve had for a long time
Yes, Karl Marx wrote:
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
“To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party [bourgeois], the workers must be armed and organized.”
Sage advice… for the 1850s.
deleted by creator
Just because an idea is old doesn’t make it valid either.
See for example:
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.
deleted by creator
No, I said: “Sage advice… for the 1850s.”
Whether it’s currently sage advice is debatable.
Followed shortly after by:
The former Soviet Union established gun control in 1929 and as a result, Stalin’s government killed 40 million Soviets. This is a clear example of how gun control can be used to oppress a population and take away their right to self-defense.
You think Stalin wouldn’t have killed all these people if they had guns?
law enforcers tend to be cowards. an armed community is harder to oppress
What?
Like…
I legitimately don’t know what you’re trying to say or why it’s relevant.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
“…and as a result…”
Read your own pull quote.
And then they call everyone else revisionist
The former Soviet Union established gun control in 1929 and as a result[citation needed], Stalin’s government killed 40 million Soviets.
This is going over a lot better than when I said it, in progressivepolitics@lemmy.world no less. What a difference a month makes these days, I suppose.
I would fuck with that sub Lemmy. I got into an argument and they deleted every single comment I made in another separate post, even though it was at +14. Idk if they’re tankies or punks, but they both quacking to me.
You have 16 upvotes there though.
There are 12 downvotes that I guess your instance/client doesn’t show, making it a 2:1 up/down ratio. Sure it’s not downvote oblivion, but much less favorable than here, as I said, in the “progressive” politics community, to boot. I also know at least a few people upped it when I posted the above comment.
I don’t think being anti-gun makes one not an actual leftist.
Sure, Marx wrote that stuff in Resplendent606’s comment, but:
- I think it’s worth bearing in mind that when Marx wrote that, guns were still using powder and percussion caps.
- Not everything Marx said was gospel.
Anyone not in favour of recreational nukes is in agreement that there should be a limit on the amount of lethal force a person should be allowed to own, and I think reasonable people can disagree on whether or not guns are within that limit.
How exactly should we enforce the rule of no recreational nukes? It typically comes down to shooting the guy trying to get a nuke - so by who, then? I don’t think it’s reasonable to conclude the existence of nukes dooms us to a state forever.
I personally don’t believe a non-anprim stateless society is feasible so I wouldn’t know.
I think it’s worth bearing in mind that when Marx wrote that, guns were still using powder and percussion caps.
The Gatling Gun predates came out a 5 years before Das Kapital. Sure arms hadn’t had the revolution they’d get during WW1 yet, but they were plenty capable.
The quotes from Marx about guns were from 1850, before even the widespread adoption of the metallic cartridge.
Marx made regular writings and letters to contemporary movements up until his death. At no point did he back down on violent, sudden revolution as the path to achieving Socialism. Marx was many things, but he wasn’t anti-gun.
I think it’s worth bearing in mind that when Marx wrote that, guns were still using powder and percussion caps.
More importantly than that, there were no machine guns, no tanks, no airplanes, no helicopters, no guided missiles, no rockets, no cluster bombs, no satellites, no drones, etc.
The quote is from Marx’s address to the communist league in 1850, so approximately the time of the US civil war. This was a time where the most powerful weapon of war was the cannon. Most cannons at that time were smoothbore breech loaded weapons. They were slow to load and inaccurate. In WWII up to 75% of all casualties were the result of artillery, but in the civil war it was only 12% of all casualties.
Aside from cannons, everything else was weapons carried by individual soldiers. Grenades sort-of existed at the time, but were very unreliable, and very difficult to use. So, it all came down to individual soldiers and their muskets.
Also, consider that in the 1850s a professional standing army was rare. At the peak of the US civil war there were 700,000 soldiers on the Union side, but it started with only 18,000 soldiers. That means that in wars during Marx’s time, most soldiers were conscripts or newly recruited and barely trained.
All that to say that in Marx’s time, it might have been possible for civilians armed with personal weapons to take on a government and win an armed conflict. The “proletariat” army would more or less be on an even footing with the army of the state / bourgeoisie. They’d have more or less the same weapons and the same level of training. The only thing they wouldn’t have would be the slow, inaccurate and unreliable cannons that were more scary than effective. But, presumably they could more than make up for that in sheer manpower.
Finally, even though it probably didn’t matter to Marx, consider what having a gun at home would mean in the 1850s. If an intruder comes and breaks into your house, are you going to defend your property with your musket? Probably not. It takes minutes to load and once fired, minutes more to reload. Are you going to use your musket in a “road rage” incident while riding your cart to market? Probably not. Were there mass shootings by musket? Of course not. Were there homicides and suicides? I don’t know, but I assume it happened occasionally, but it was a very different weapon back then.
Marx was concerned with the great forces of history, so he probably wasn’t the type of person who was going to consider the negative consequences of firearms lying around the house. But, even if he had considered it, back in the 1850s having a musket at home probably wasn’t a major danger to the household or to society at large.
So, let’s say what Marx said was gospel. Even in that case, it was gospel for the 1850s. What would a modern-day Marx say about things today? Maybe a modern-day Marx would say that modern standing armies are so overwhelmingly powerful that it’s pointless to pretend that they can be beaten by civilians with small arms and no training. Maybe he’d take lessons from Gandhi and MLK and suggest non-violent resistance. Or, maybe he’d be a prepper and suggest that civilians stash grenades, machine guns, rocket launchers, etc. But, IMO, his advice probably wouldn’t be that civilians just have muskets (or their modern day equivalents) because he’d have to know that in the modern world a bunch of untrained dudes with AR-15s isn’t going to win against the US military.
deleted by creator
No, I’m saying that what was possible for a bunch of civilians in the 1850s may not be possible today.
Look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Algeria, Libya, Ukraine
Which one of those is a war where a force of civilians defeated a well trained and equipped modern military?
Aussie Comedian Jim Jefferies in Boston dissing US gun obsession. He covers all the points in our thread.
EDIT: Not all points. The guy here making a good point about “defending” his immigrant wife isn’t covered by the comedian. It isn’t really defence, it is suicidal pre-emptive vengeance - still valid though.
The ICE raids were unimaginable at the time.
