A socialist perspective on gun-control...

[SteveM]

For democratic socialists, this perspective will not be surprising, supporting as it does the right to keep and bear arms to protect not only oneself, but to protect against the excesses of the military, national guards, state and local police forces. Gary Bills cites what he considers the proper use of arms during Shay's Rebellion when various "goons" were finally given "military weapons" (including artillery) to put down Shay's popular forces in the latter's tax revolt (fittingly, he cites Howard Zinn's account of the Rebellion). While Bills doesn't consider the gun-control debate as important as other issues threatening democracy in the U.S., he strongly supports the Second Amendment. He takes a swipe at commentator Randi Rhodes' gun-control position which would allow guns only for law enforcement personnel and the military.

"Rhodes evidently does not recognize in those armed powers the ultimate class power of the ruling rich, which has often used force to defeat strikes and other struggles of the labor movement. Many workers have died at the hands of the police, the National Guard, the Army and privately hired goons.

"Sometimes this use of violence by the state and employers has backfired badly; the result has been like pouring gasoline on a fire. Workers come to the defense of other workers instinctively, and under certain conditions they see the necessity of taking up arms for their self-protection, unlike Rhodes."

-- And this interesting take on why the 'ruling class' allows small arms for workers in lieu of "democratic militias" --

"The ruling class has made a quiet determination to allow workers to have small arms and to accept the ugliness of gun crime if the working class will refrain from asking for democratic militias for defense—instead of the National Guard and standing armies, set up to maintain the capitalist state and to fight its wars abroad.

(no supporting evidence as to how such a ruling class determination was made)

"Meanwhile, liberal gun controllers continue to whine about gun violence on a small scale while refusing to demand democratic control of the huge forces of force and violence that carry out U.S. foreign policy and that can be used against us domestically at any time if the ruling class only dares."

From Gary Bills, May 2007, Socialist Action Magazine
http://www.socialistaction.org/bills1.htm

The notion of "democratic control of the huge forces of force and violence that carry out U.S. foreign policy..." may strike most as naive and unworkable, but the position underlines how Bills deals directly with the troublesome "militia clause," seeing it as in no way an impediment to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

[geckosfeet]

1. The notion that any private citizen would have any chance of (or want to try)

defending self or home or even neighborhood against a swat team or national guard unit seems far fetched. Something more appropriate for a teen war movie theme than a rationale for gun ownership.

The military and police forces have the citizens out-fire-powered a million times over, and yes, they are directed by the rich corporate and moneyed interests. It is my belief that these same moneyed interests are at least partly responsible for stirring up the debate on gun rights, playing both sides against the middle. They want to stimulate gun ownership. They want gun sales. They want ammo sales. Because they rake it in.

In fact they don't really give a bats dingo about gun ownership. It's about control and making money. So I am not so worried about gun control as I am about control in general.

[DonCoquixote]

2. Far fetched?

Consider that the past 5-0 years have seen poor, ill equipped militias send home soldiers from rich rations, especially ours. Private Citizens have been quite capable, ask any Veteran.

[provis99]

7. you are missing that fact that the US Army would be defending their OWN country

they are less likely to give up if faced by armed lunatic civilians trying to take over the United States than if faced by a bunch of guntoters in a foreign country protecting their country from American invaders.

[ManiacJoe]

12. You mean attacking its own citizens?

About the time that the army gets involved, it means the number of armed citizens has grown past the capabilities of the local government. Should that be the case, some serious thought needs to be given about how out of touch the government has become.

Years ago multiple studies were done regarding the use of US troops to quell citizen uprisings and disarming them. The most common response from the participating officers was something like, "Good luck getting those orders followed!"

[geckosfeet]

16. How is the jihad going for them by the way?

[DonCoquixote]

23. Well enough

To where we are in the same damned mess as the Russians, English, etc. However, the idea of the US army taking on their own citizens is even uglier. Yeah, they may get a few Redneckers to shoot Yankees, and vice versa, but when the rubber hits the road, the US citzens would start handing the soldiers heads to them, especially when you consider that there are already many paramilitary organizations that would play the role of organizers; call them Mafia, The Teamsters, The Crips, The Bloods, The Klan, Black Panthers, Hell's Angels, Tongs, Russian Mafia, etc. The race does not matter, all that matters is that they are already operating nicely well under Federal radar, and already have a command structure in place. If the US military were to try and declare martial law, these outlaws could very easily find themselves playing the role of Robin Hood, even if they do not seek that role out. It would be the ugliest guerrilla warfare any nation has seen.

[stevenelijah]

3. "defending self or home or even neighborhood against a swat team or national guard unit seems far f"

The insurgency in Iraq seemed to do ok against our military...

[geckosfeet]

17. What do mean by "ok"? Not being wiped out on day one?

They are simply surviving against overwhelming firepower. But that is their game. Certainly not one I want to play against anyone. Especially the US military.

[Angleae]

4. You seem to think it will be even numbers.

There are 80 million gun owners and only 3 million military personnel (active & reserve) of which about 20% are combat troops. Quantity has a quality all its own.

[sharesunited]

6. Quantity without solidarity is useless. Every gun worshipper would be staging his last stand solo.

[PavePusher]

10. Read any military history.

There is always a "weeding out" of new, unblooded troops.

Not pleasant to contemplate, simply the cold, hard, Mother-nature's-a-frozen-hearted-bitch reality.

[ManiacJoe]

11. Maybe your gun worshippers would go at it solo.

The rest of us normal owners would be getting together for mutual support.

[proteus_lives]

13. Ahh, SU ignorance.

It's the only way to start the day.

[provis99]

8. I don't think gunowners would put up with 80 million deaths to their own members.

Gunnuttery extends only to oneself, not some abstract idea of protecting the country from an armed military.

[geckosfeet]

18. So -you presume that all 80 mil will want fight their own countries army?

This "discussion" is absurd.

[SteveM]

24. Well, I believe you started the military-vs.-armed-citizens argument. nt

[spin]

5. If only a few people owned firearms, SWAT teams would be very effective...

But you wold need a LOT of SWAT teams to invade the homes of the millions of firearm owners who would refuse to comply with confiscation.

Study this article on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

The Ghetto fighters (numbering some 400 to 1,000 by April 19) were armed primarily with pistols and revolvers, which were of limited value in combat and practically useless at larger distances. Just a few rifles and automatic firearms smuggled into the Ghetto were available. The insurgents had little ammunition, and relied heavily on improvised explosive devices and incendiary bottles; more weapons were supplied throughout the uprising or captured from the Germans. Some weapons were hand-made by resistance: sometimes such weapons worked, other times they jammed repeatedly. In his report, Stroop wrote his forces were able to recover the "booty" consisting of:

Seven Polish rifles, one Russian and one German rifle, 59 pistols of various calibers, several hundred incendiary bottles, home-made explosives, infernal machines with fuses, a large amount of explosives and ammunition for weapons of all calibers, including some machine gun ammunition. Regarding the booty of arms, it must be taken into consideration that the arms themselves could in most cases not be captured, as the bandits and Jews would, before being arrested, throw them into hiding places or holes which could not be ascertained or discovered. The smoking out of the dug-out by our men, also often made the search for arms impossible. As the dug-outs had to be blown up at once, a search later on was out of the question.

***snip***

Ultimately, the efforts of the Jewish resistance fighters proved insufficient against the German forces. The Germans eventually committed an average daily force of 2,090 well-armed troops, including 821 Waffen-SS Panzergrenadier troops (consisting of five SS reserve and training battalions and one SS cavalry reserve and training battalion), as well as 363 Polish Blue Policemen, who were ordered by the Germans to cordon the walls of the Ghetto

***snip***

Imagine if 35% of the houses in the Warsaw Ghetto had had rifles and handguns as is true in the U.S. today. Also consider that many gun owners are ex-military with extensive training. Realize that many people in the State National Guard would refuse to disarm their friends and the fellow citizens of their state. In fact, in some states the National Guard would be part of the opposition.

I seriously believe that the "moneyed interests" that you refer to would actually like to see draconian gun control where only the rich, the influential and a few other privileged individuals would have the right to own firearms. Remember, gun control has its roots deeply planted in racism. Even today, the object is to keep "those people" from owning firearms. However, they also understand the size of the mountain that they would have to climb to achieve confiscation. They will continue to attempt small steps by passing restrictive laws and attempting to get nationwide registration of firearms. Registration is the first real step to confiscation.

[paulsby]

15. as a firearms instructor myself

let me explain that SWAT makes up a small fraction of police officers, and certainly in a state like WA could never overpower the armed citizenry (nor would they want to. we are all on the same side. well all of us, except for the 2-3% of the criminal assmunch population).

there are tons of VERY capable shots out there with some very powerful weaponry, and i'm not talking cops.

and that's how it should be

the cops are vastly outgunned by the law abiding citizenry

[paulsby]

14. certainly not true in regards to police forces

i work for one. we have nowhere NEAR the firepower of the people we serve. not even CLOSE.

i work in the seattle area.

i wont' comment on the military. i don't know nearly as much about the military as i know about cops. but i'm a firearms instructor and i know how many guns and how much ammo we have. it PALES in comparison to the population we serve.

note: AS IT SHOULD BE IN A FREE COUNTRY

as a police officer, and a firearms instructor, do i fear an armed citizenry? no, i respect it. it's how it should be. we are not subjects, we are citizens. we don't cede to govt. the sole power to protect us. we can empower ourselves. and we do.

the vast majority of people support the police. poll after poll shows it. and in a "oh fuck" situation, i've seen people RUN TOWARDS a cop in trouble to help him out.

as it should be

also, let's please not mythologize swat teams. they have somewhat better equipment and training than the average street cop. they are still no match for an armed citizenry if it ever came down to it.

not to mention that very few cops would turn on their fellow citizens and likely many, if not most, would join the uprising.

but that's a prediction, not a fact

the fact is that in many areas (like WA state), in many jurisdictions (such as mine), armed citizenry are in possession of WAY more guns and ammos than the cops that respectfully serve

[geckosfeet]

19. I can abide with that perspective. But I find it unsettling that people would

consider fighting against their own countries army and/or law enforcement.

[paulsby]

20. that would only happen if our own country

ceased to be our own country.

i;m talking about a fourth reich taking over.

or god forbid... the french :)

[rrneck]

21. Good common sense and rationality

on a subject that rarely sees it. Well said.

[paulsby]

22. thanks nt

[rusty_rebar]

28. It would not come to that

It will just take a few incidents. Think Ruby Ridge, Waco, Disarming citizens after Katrina. When this kind of stuff starts happening more and more often, the citizenry will get unsettled (long before a general uprising). Lets think about it. Obama won with 66 million votes. There are over 80 million gun owners. With numbers like that, it is a huge base of voters that will be able to exert a lot of power on politicians.

[rrneck]

9. More important than the fight itself

it shows a willingness to resist. And that's the best defense.

[SteveM]

25. I think that is what Bills had in mind...

"It shows a willingness to resist. And that's the best defense." -- rrneck


"...the huge forces of force and violence that carry out U.S. foreign policy and that can be used against us domestically at any time if the ruling class only dares." -- Bills

I don't go along with Bills' complete analysis, but even when conceding the "huge forces," he also believes the "ruling class" must "dare" to take the action. Perhaps this class is not at all confident about the outcome.

[rrneck]

26. Yep.

We're a successful species largely because we can remember and anticipate. Especially when we are able to anticipate what somebody else might do. A mugger likely won't assault someone that looks like they will be able to fight back. The same holds true for entire societies. And that's doubly true today. The interconnectedness of modern technology makes it fragile. Making war on the people is making war on the infrastructure that maintains upper class lifestyle.

Looks like it's movie quote day again:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/quotes
"Tyler Durden: Hi. You're going to call off your rigorous investigation. You're going to publicly state that there is no underground group. Or... these guys are going to take your balls. They're going to send one to the New York Times, one to the LA Times press-release style. Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us."

That was a very popular movie in large part because of its anti consumerism class conscious rebelliousness. The above is just one of many pertinent quotes. When I went looking for it I found that the "memorable quotes" section for the movie was unusually long. I believe that the content for IMDB is contributed by users, so that message must be fairly popular.

[DonCoquixote]

27. Oh yes..

I have to confess, there is many a politician that deserves to have their nads removed, both democratic and GOP.