I'm not so sure you can be against state militarism and pro-gun ban.

[Gravitycollapse]

It is an issue I have a very serious time reconciling. On the one hand, I think the issue with our gun culture is the gun culture itself, the ideology that glorifies firearms, and not simply the legality of gun ownership. In other words, I'm not so sure firearms should be illegal. But I would argue there should be a limit on gun ownership endorsed by our social standards. We have to stop glorifying guns and violence.

On the other hand, we have the militarism of police departments, over-expansion of national defense and the very clear intrusion of the state into our private lives. Which also represents an overabundance of thugs with guns who just happen to be carrying some sort of badge.

Now, those who represent the more fringe elements of leftist ideology, which is where I have made my home, have a very serious issue on their hands. If, for instance, you are are a supporter of decentralization of power, as many radical leftists believe, the threat of government intrusion in the form of literal physical force is a real dynamic of political resistance. If you wish to break up the state monopoly on violence, you cannot do so with mere words.

I realize this is an extremely volatile subject on this site and I completely understand why. We are constantly bombarded with the image of racist conservatives marching in places they do not belong with sidearms and assault weapons. This is mostly to induce fear in their political enemies and partly to continue the illusion of their own superiority through threat of violence.


I use to have a very solid argument on the subject of private gun ownership. I use to say that the United States has exited the realm of violent oligarchs. If that were so, there is no real need to maintain the 2nd amendment as it was originally intended for a very narrow purpose that no longer exists.

Now, I'm not so sure. I see the further centralization of military power and wonder what our country will look like 20 or 50 years from now. Is it really possible for a country to exist in such a way that ensures it will never fall victim to the corruption of total power? That is a very risky hypothesis and I am afraid of the consequences if, after testing it, we find out we were wrong. That the corruption and death we export to other nations can only be shielded from ourselves for so long before our demise becomes inevitable.

I have had many discussions with a couple of my friends who are devout pacifists and I simply cannot ever agree with their final conclusions on the subject of conflict and peace. They take a far more optimistic view of non-violent intervention. And they tend to believe that state violent identity is born from social violent identity. In other words, the state is a mirror of the people and acts in such a manner that is indicative of the people who endorse it. In a perfect world, I would agree. But this is not an perfect world. The state does not always or even often mirror the people. So it might be the case that simply willing the state to abandon its militarism would be a fruitless endeavor. An important question that must be answered is this: Have we reached a point of no return when it comes to the build up of the military state?

Right now, I believe we have a set of political leaders who, more often than not, act in a benevolent manner. But the state apparatus, the military machine, the operators strap themselves into will continue to exist long after these "good" men and women are gone. And I fear for the day when an evil group is mistaken for lovable fools. Americans are nothing if not unfortunate fans of lovable fools. Isn't that the sort of identity fostered in the neoconservative movement?

This is the kind of insanity we fall into when we allow the military state to grow beyond its design limitations. Without intervention, we will reach a point where it becomes necessary for private citizens to arm themselves. I am young enough to see at the very least 13 more presidential terms. That is an abundant number of opportunities for things to sour.

I'm not saying we need to arm ourselves. What I am saying is we can not so easily dismiss the issue of private gun ownership. At least not in the long run where there is no way to make accurate predictions of politics and society half a century into the future.

[Bjorn Against]

1. I don't see any contradiction in those positions at all

I think both private individuals and the state need to have limits on the use of guns, I oppose gun violence whether that gun violence occurs in the US or Syria. As far as the state having a monopoly on the use of violence, they already have that. They have drones and chemical weapons, anyone who tries to take on the government with guns is going to be taken down in a heartbeat. If people want to fight the government they should look to Ghandi for an example of how to do it, non-violent resistance is far more effective than guns at fighting government oppression.

[digonswine]

2. this seems like a re-hash of the old argument-

I agree with the first paragraph-

The rest reads as one big straw-man. Or a naivete of the past.

We can't not have personal weaponry because we don't know the future?

The MIC is dangerous? No shit.

Is this some ham-handed way of promoting personal firearms?

You say that there are abundant opportunities for shit to sour--when has this not been the case? Get with the program.

You have built a mighty fence to sit on.

[Gravitycollapse]

3. That is kind of the point. That the argument we have dismissed may not be so dismissible.

Maybe we have dismissed because of the people who endorse it rather than considering the legitimacy of the argument.

I mean, is there no room in political and social thought for long-term consideration?

[digonswine]

6. Fine-

anything is possible(w/in limits)--yes-we can dismiss it based upon those who endorse it.
When we have a credible source, a logical consistency, then we can plan.

Just spit-balling future possibilities is not a way to make any sort of social acceptability.

A possibility of a military/oligarchical power-coup does not make personal weaponry sensible.
They already have done well, anyway.

[Gravitycollapse]

10. I think the evaluation of history and sociology would lead us to conclude...

That military states inevitably devolve into violent oligarchies unless a clear attempt at a diversion is made. My question, as I posed in the OP, is whether or not we have passed that fork in the road.

[mick063]

4. We were able to negotiate a reduction in nuclear weapons with the Soviet Union.

Mutual and verifiable arms reduction. Only on a domestic level.

It has to start sometime or we will inevitably have a chaotic, bloody mess on our hands.

[Gravitycollapse]

5. Was the negotiation done in the name of peace or out of fear of mutual destruction?

Given the proclivities of both nations in the Cold War era, my guess is it was the latter.

[mick063]

8. "Fear of mutual destruction"

It has a ring to it.

I believe it applies to this debate.

[Gravitycollapse]

13. It seems that fear of mutual destruction is different from the desire for peace.

As, at least from my perspective, the desire for peace is at least a vulnerable position to take. Whereas the fear of mutual destruction is motivated by the fear of violence.

[mick063]

16. So is there equivalency to "desire for peace" and packing a gun?

Should one believe that open carrying of assault guns falls in to line with a desire for peace? Or does it fall in line with fear of mutual destruction?

The young men mentioned in the OP claimed they carried the assault guns for self protection. It would seem to be an argument based on fear. Perhaps some proper gun control would alleviate some of that fear.

Then again, I don't believe these men are fearful. I believe they are carrying these weapons for bravado. An aggressive based emotion.

This increases my own personal fear.

I believe arms reduction is the solution to this.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

7. "we need guns in case we take up arms against the gubmint!

Reading you loud and clear.

[Gravitycollapse]

9. You don't have to participate in this thread if you don't want to.

It is suppose to foster a meaningful discussion and not simply catchphrases and poo-pooing.

[rustydog]

11. Guns, in today's world will not protect us

against the militarized "state".
Civilians are not equipped to take down the "Black Copters" coming for us, or the armored police vehicles rumbling down the street.
Red Dawn was a movie, a horrible movie, not historical documentary.

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. That presumes the entire military would be on one side.

I don't consider that likely in any genuinely plausible scenario of widespread insurrection in this country.

[G_j]

12. a good discussion

Last edited Sat Sep 14, 2013, 01:54 AM - Edit history (1)

I hear exactly what you are saying. Personally, I am committed to the MLK Jr. version of nonviolence as a way of life. This
is somewhat reminiscent of the discussion that was had with Malcolm X.

Because I so strongly believe as King did, in nonviolence, I would prefer to see no, or far less arms carried and used by police, and the MIC dismantled and retooled for peace.
Of course this is wildly unrealistic. But nothing happens unless we struggle to make it so. I am used to struggling in losing battles. That's part of the territory for the "left". We won't give up though.
Never have, never will. Waiting for the critical mass to reject violence once and for all.

[rrneck]

14. Violence is only acceptble as a last resort after all other means have failed,

but it's never off the table.

[Eleanors38]

15. I appreciate your honesty. I wish to add what I consider some basic facts:

1) Firearm types and actions available to the U.S. Population have essentially been in stasis since the mid-1930s; i.e., nothing beyond semi-auto, a technology available since the end of the 19th Century. Said another way, machine guns (and true assault rifles) are highly regulated and comparatively rare.

2) There have been numerous wars where indigenous guerilla forces have bested the super powers of the day, or at least militaries equipped with heavy weapons, air power and armored vehicles. The U.S. is and has been involved in some, but not all. Hubert Humphrey cited the possibility (however unlikely) of a tyrannical government as a reason to support the Second. He was speaking of us.

3) A strategy of non-violence in the event of calamity (which concedes the possibility of calamity) would indeed probably be the best strategy, but if such should fail, armed resistance may be necessary.

[LWolf]

17. I left this up when I went to bed last night,

wanting to respond thoughtfully with a clear head. I don't know how clear my head is, although I'm sure it will improve as I finish my cup of coffee, but I'll give it a try.

I see more than two issues here.

First, there is private gun ownership. I agree with you about the gun culture; I think it is a bigger problem than the guns themselves. I also think, though, that there is a connection between the two. I'll come back to that.

The militarism of police departments etc....This is a concern. Any time there is abuse, it is a big concern. I think that there are dysfunctional people who, along with more altruistic people, are drawn to the authoritarian power an officer of the law carries, and that makes them dangerous. I think, as well, that many people who advocate guns for self defense also have that unhealthy need for power over others.

I spent a few days in my state's biggest city this summer with family from another state. They loved our city; one of the greenest and most liberal in the nation. They noted that, no matter what neighborhood we were in, commercial, industrial, poor working, higher-end entertainment, etc., they felt safe. This was different for them. They also noted that every time they saw a cop, he or she or they were interacting in positive ways with everyone; chatting with those waiting for a bus, with buskers, with the homeless, of which there were a few. Nobody tensed up around them. We saw them on foot, on bicycles, and on horses. Until one point, when we were waiting for the Max. There were two sets of cops; one across the rails and one near us. My family noted that the one near us, unlike everyone else we'd seen to that point, seem to be harassing a disheveled looking guy waiting for the max about something. I looked and saw: he was state police, not local police. Apparently, local police who spend time getting to know, and getting known, on their beat make a difference in how we see them. I think this concept is worth exploring and expanding on.

I have a hard time working up a fear of the military state, even though I know it has happened, could happen here, and that we are exhibiting some of the same symptoms that allowed it to happen elsewhere. I DO think we ought to be paying attention, and acting vigorously and relentlessly to keep local law enforcement and militias in check. I don't really think that individual gun ownership is a way to accomplish that. First of all, individuals don't own, and I don't want them to own, deterrents to the kind of weapons the government has at its disposal. Second, I think that is more likely to increase the gun culture, and the culture and existence of a police state, with more acts of violence likely to occur.

I agree with your friends who believe that state violent identity is born from social violent identity. I'll use a familiar metaphor: the story of the two wolves that live inside of us. Who "wins?" The one that we feed. That's why gun ownership feeds the gun culture, even though it's the gun culture that is the problem. Violence feeds violence, war breeds war, fear tends to bring about the very thing we fear faster and more profoundly. This is why we need to be focused on non-violent solutions.

Finally, I'm going to leave the term "pacifist" out, because it comes with some assumptions and associations that aren't helpful. Like passivity, for instance. Non-violent struggle, as G_J mentioned, is not passive, and can be effective. He mentioned MLK, who got his ideas about non-violence from Gandhi. Both knew that the struggle is not without cost. One of the things that Gandhi supported was helping the oppressed by empowering them...not by saving them through force, but by teaching them how to use non-violent struggle to improve things for themselves. That's a much more nuanced, and, imo, evolved, way to deal with conflict than many are ready to understand or engage in. The bottom line, though, is that there are ways to address conflict without violence, and that's what I'd like to see the U.S. do, within our borders and in the international arena.