People commonly quote Marx communicating that the possession of firearms must not be infringed, but I’d like more general principles and justifications than an appeal to Marx.
I’ve done some reading but when I cannot I just think about things on my own, maybe bounce ideas off a friend.
Word Vomit Contained inside
The view that I’ve come to currently is that violence (defined in this case as the obstruction or frustration of another’s plans and ambitions) is a core universal tool which all living things employ. Language and cooperation were evolutionary evolved as a complement to violence (communication and cooperation allowed group violence which greatly improved survival odds). However, in cases where communication/cooperation with an outgroup breaks down, violence in some form will be fallen back on.
What’s more, between two non-cooperative groups, if one group can obtain what they want through violence without losing more than they gain, they’ll quite often choose that option as it is enticing.
Because of this natural progression, force-on-force is almost inevitable. To prevent being trodden upon by others, it is wise for a community to arm itself and train, thus greatly raising the cost of confrontations, hopefully beyond what others are willing to pay.
I would like to hear more from folks though, maybe just wise words on operation, maybe some sources to check out in my free time. Anything to better build my understanding is welcome.
Most propaganda from the right wing stems from the 1996 australia gun confiscation after the port Arthur massacre. Prior to then right wingers were the ones mostly obsessed with gun laws, and preventing minorities and poor people from owning them. The NRA having always been well known as the public face of the KKK and used to spend most of their time promoting gun laws against black people. Even as recently as Reagan when the black panthers brought machine guns to the steps of the california state house, reagan began nationwide gun laws, some of americas strictest gun laws were passed by reagan. After 1996 that all changed, since communism is whatvever racist white people don’t want, gun laws all of a sudden became communism, the stricter the gun laws the more communister they became. Those quotes from Marx and the fact that the USSR had such a strong gun culture, they literally had a machine gun on it’s coins, doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t suit the propaganda. Therefore it can be discarded. So who knows, ten years from now they will change their minds and decide gun rights has actually been communism the whole time.
I think this is an apt summary, though I think it’s also good to talk about historical events which the right does NOT mention, such as the Battle of Blaire Mountain - where Miners used their arms to clash with local lawmen for their right to unionize -, or the bombing of the MOVE organization at Osage avenue - a movement who protested while armed to defend themselves against the Philadelphia police force.
Those events directly undermine the actual aims of US firearms propaganda, which is to pit the workers of society against all who would attempt to redefine the power structures within the US (of course, trump’s been made an exception to that aim).
Under the dictatorship of capital, the possession of firearms by the working class ensures that they have an effective medium to combat the bourgeoisie and their collaborators should class struggle be heightened to an unprecedented degree. It also allows for marginalized groups of people (minorities, communists, LGBT, etc) to defend themselves in case they come under assault by an armed, reactionary majority.
Under the dictatorship of labour, there will be no need for individual workers to possess firearms since the proletariat, as a class, will be armed to defend the revolution; however, I have read one suggestion on Reddit whereby a locked armory stores all of the firearms in a community, which can only be accessed by a key should the need to employ them arise.
