Increasing Restrictions on Gun Ownership

(CNN) — A federal task force looking for ways to curb gun violence will have a set of recommendations by Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden announced Thursday.

Speaking during a week of meetings with disparate groups on various sides of the issue — including some for and others against stricter gun controls — Biden, who oversees the task force, said the recommendations to be given to President Barack Obama will serve as a beginning.

"This doesn't mean it is the end of the discussion, but the public wants us to act," he told reporters.

FULL ARTICLE

As our American members are undoubtedly aware, bourgeois politicians have been using the tragic school massacre which occurred in Newtown, Connecticut last month as a pretext for enacting stricter gun regulations. Harbor no illusions, comrades: this has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the fact that the economy has failed to recover for five years and the ruling class is becoming increasingly anxious regarding the possible manner by which the working class may respond to this ongoing crisis of capitalism. Ideally, they would prefer if guns were completely banned, though that is not politically feasible at the present time. As revolutionaries, I believe we should oppose these new regulatory proposals and recall the following statement Karl Marx issued to the Central Committee of the Communist League in 1850:

"...the workers must be armed and organized. The arming of the whole proletariat with rifles, muskets, cannon and ammunition must be carried out. . . . Arms and ammunition must not be surrendered on any pretext; any attempt at disarming must be frustrated, if necessary, by force."
“Address to the Central Committee of the Communist League” in Jon Elster (ed.), Karl Marx: A Reader (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 273.

Disarming the proletariat will place them at the mercy of the state and surely result in revolutionary activities being more easily quelled in the future. That is unacceptable.

But even from a purely apolitical perspective, regulating gun ownership remains indefensible, in my opinion. First of all, criminals seldom purchase guns legally, so all this would serve to do is further disarm lawful citizens—guns of every variety (including assault rifles) will continue to be manufactured abroad, imported illegally, and sold on the black market. It certainly won't prevent mass shootings from occurring, as the 2011 Utøya massacre attests (Norway is among the strictest countries in terms of gun control). Secondly, and most importantly, guns create a critical leveling environment which we shouldn't overlook. Simply put, two individuals with guns are on far more of an equal grounding in terms of defense than are two without. In other words, confrontations without guns would simply result in physical supremacy being the determining factor in outcome—think of a woman being physically overwhelmed by a rapist, for example.

I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of other forum members (including non-Americans) on this subject.

Well this is something we can agree on. The government is getting way too big for its boots. Hopefully most people will rise up if the Feds go too far.

I don't think groups such as the so-called "teabaggers" and other "patriots" are likely to give into this without a fight. Although they are definitely all lacking a few brain cells, they're paranoid about the evil fascist/socialist government enough to resist this sort of thing, or at least make a noise about it. I don't know enough about the general American population to try and predict the outcome of something like gun regulation, since the hillbilly-with-a-gun image is mostly limited to television. All I can say is that it does indeed sound a little bit too convenient that the government wants to take away what little protection citizens do have at a time when they are already being shat on from every direction. Essentially, this is the old-fashioned "look out behind you!" distraction.

As a revolutionary applying a Marxian analysis to the current situation of gun ownership, I am inclined to fully agree with you, Celtiberian. The proletariat must possess the means by which to liberate itself, up to and including armed insurgency. However, I must express my profound distaste for "gun culture," particularly the American brand. I believe that firearms are anathema to the ultimate spirit of socialism, which aims at a society founded upon principles of equality, solidarity, and camaraderie. I also support some sensible measures to regulate the distribution of firearms, including psychological screenings for buyers.

I believe an enlightened society would seek to transcend, to whatever extent possible, human relations mediated through violence, which all gun usage, no matter how justifiable, presupposes. I think that under a socialist economy, especially one which has abolished the market, violent crimes will be mitigated to such a great extent that gun ownership will no longer be justified, serving scarcely more than to intimidate fellow citizens.

No matter what the political persuasion of the Powers that be the fact they have access to firearms means that same level of access to firearms should be legally (be that regulated in the American or European model) available to the citizenry aswell.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:Well this is something we can agree on. The government is getting way too big for its boots. Hopefully most people will rise up if the Feds go too far.

The size of government doesn't concern me, it's the role of government which does. Under capitalism it remains the "executive committee of the ruling class," as Marx put it, and is therefore objectionable from a working class perspective.

DSN wrote:I don't think groups such as the so-called "teabaggers" and other "patriots" are likely to give into this without a fight. Although they are definitely all lacking a few brain cells, they're paranoid about the evil fascist/socialist government enough to resist this sort of thing, or at least make a noise about it.

The teabaggers' influence has waned considerably since last year (fortunately), so even if they should succeed in organizing a few protests over the Second Amendment, I doubt it will have much of an impact.

The problem is that the regulatory proposals currently under consideration can be implemented by executive order, and since this is Obama's last term in office, he doesn't have to concern himself with whatever political repercussions may result therefrom. The most we can hope for at this point is that the Democratic Party, under pressure from its constituency and the NRA (a detestable lobbying group that represents gun manufacturers) strongly advises Obama to refrain from enacting new gun policies.

I don't know enough about the general American population to try and predict the outcome of something like gun regulation, since the hillbilly-with-a-gun image is mostly limited to television.

It's not as far removed from reality as you might think. In the Southeastern United States, guns are an integral aspect of rural culture. And so-called 'gun enthusiasm' isn't confined to that demographic either, as such individuals can be found throughout the entire nation.

All I can say is that it does indeed sound a little bit too convenient that the government wants to take away what little protection citizens do have at a time when they are already being shat on from every direction. Essentially, this is the old-fashioned "look out behind you!" distraction.

Indeed.

Rev Scare wrote:As a revolutionary applying a Marxian analysis to the current situation of gun ownership, I am inclined to fully agree with you, Celtiberian. The proletariat must possess the means by which to liberate itself, up to and including armed insurgency. However, I must express my profound distaste for "gun culture," particularly the American brand. I believe that firearms are anathema to the ultimate spirit of socialism, which aims at a society founded upon principles of equality, solidarity, and camaraderie. I also support some sensible measures to regulate the distribution of firearms, including psychological screenings for buyers.

I believe an enlightened society would seek to transcend, to whatever extent possible, human relations mediated through violence, which all gun usage, no matter how justifiable, presupposes. I think that under a socialist economy, especially one which has abolished the market, violent crimes will be mitigated to such a great extent that gun ownership will no longer be justified, serving scarcely more than to intimidate fellow citizens.

I share your abhorrence for gun culture, and fully agree with the notion that the use of firearms is at odds with the egalitarian ethos of socialism. However, as you are aware, I'm skeptical of social engineering. Consequently, I'm of the opinion that the decline in the manufacture and use of firearms should occur organically—i.e., as a result of communist social relations succeeding in ameliorating the conditions which precipitate the use of guns in bourgeois society—and not by state fiat. Having said that, I'm quite certain that the existence of deranged individuals which present a danger to society will persist into communism, thereby rendering some degree of gun ownership defensible for the foreseeable future.

With respect to psychological screenings, I believe that, while it is a sensible form of gun regulation, it's nevertheless completely unacceptable under capitalism. The problem stems from how the state will choose to define 'normal' and 'abnormal' mental health. In The Future of the Brain: The Promise and Perils of Tomorrow's Neuroscience, Steven Rose outlines various methods by which the state can misuse the latest findings in neuroscience for the purpose of social control, which should be of concern to revolutionaries.

TheocWulf wrote:No matter what the political persuasion of the Powers that be the fact they have access to firearms means that same level of access to firearms should be legally (be that regulated in the American or European model) available to the citizenry aswell.

Agreed. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." (This, however, presupposes a government divided from the people, which I, as a Marxist, regard as historically specific to slave society, feudalism, and capitalism.)

Well, i already discussed this matter in a more broader sense(and i was against the people owning firearms) but, i n this particular case, and others that there is still to be a movement that will transcend the state as an agent of capitalism, i am against stricter rules that the us government my wan to enact, although i think my american comrades overestimate the role of small firepower against the might of the military machines of today.

Rebel Warrior, since your views conflict with those of the forum, not to mention that they are infantile, convoluted, and completely fucking asinine--a waste of time to seriously respond to--you have been restricted to the OV section a long while ago. You are not to post on the main forum, in any capacity. Simply because you are a backwater dipshit does not place you in a position to speak on behalf of working class culture, as though a unitary and timeless "culture" exists; indeed, any proletarian should be offended by your inane caricature of working class life. Kindly go fuck yourself.

[To the moderators, this post was in response to another long-winded but vacuous post by RW. He stated nothing that was not addressed before ad nauseum, and so I deleted it from the thread.]

I for one am against guns being taken away considering I am a gun enthusiast, and also an avid hunter.

It's pretty sickening that yet again a massacre is being twisted to the politicians agendas.
Of course the role of small arms(Assault rifles, shotguns, handguns, rifles, etc) isn't of much value in modern day warfare in first world countries because of the advances in technology there is little disputing that.
Insurrection does nonetheless have the chance of enacting change, but that would of course require arms which are not permitted.

I don't feel gun restrictions should be raised, they are largely up to what county you live in. Some counties have loose gun laws, other's have extremely strict ones.

Getting guns illegally though isn't very difficult though.

I still cant believe though that people think making gun laws stricter is really going to stop spree killings.. These recent publicized ones were done tactically, and had a lot of thought put into them.

Guns aren't going to be outlawed anytime soon in the United States to put it shortly. It's one of the few issues people actually have fucks to give.

Just a distraction anyways like the gay marriage, prolife/abortion, immgration debates.
People get up in arms(c wut I did there?) about these issues, so they are used as rallying points in elections.

Damn, these guys are manipulative lol.