Gun "Rights"

I recently organized a philosophy club on my campus. For our next meeting, we're discussing gun rights, as it was brought up the last time we met and a lot of liberals were spouting stupid shit, such as:

Obviously, they do have legitimate arguments as well. Point is, I'm looking for some advice for what will inevitably become a debate. As far as my argument goes, I'm going to dismiss the notion of "rights" and demonstrate that every supposed right must be backed by force if it is to mean anything. I'll probably then spin it into the argument for the right to live, in which I'll ask what good the right to life is if you don't have a right to defend that life. Otherwise, I'll reference stuff like in pic related.

So leftypol, what's your best argument for arming the proletariat?

All politics are the systems of dominance. If one wants and values democracy, you need a system in which the general mass of working people dominate. Its difficult to imagine a system where the working class dominates when the working class isn't armed.

Of course, you need to go deeper than that, but an armed general populace is, in my opinion, a basic requirement for a democratic society.

If you ban guns only conservatives will have them.

Relevant to that, only criminals and the state/police would possess firearms as well.

One possible response I'm foreseeing is something along the lines of "you can just call the police if you find yourself in trouble," of which I think I could counter in 2 ways.
1. Police are not an omnipresent force, nor should we desire for them to be (hopefully no one is pro mass surveillance)
2. What is one to do when it is the police themselves causing the problems (then reference the Black Panthers and their whole watch the police thing)

This is what I don't get about coastie liberals

They're the first to criticize the police for unjustified shootings, but they also want it so police thugs are the only ones to have guns.

Any bourgeois state that has gun rights has them in order to defend class rule, so any attack on those rights is in itself an attack on the ruling class imo

uh
explain

So gun rights should be dismantled, and the ruling class allowed to disarm the population? For supporting an armed proletariat is at the same moment supporting class rule?

Hope you clarify yourself - hard to think someone is that stupid. Wasn't the right to bare arms written into the American constitution for the very purpose of making it possible to oppose the ruling order when necessary?

Abso

Absolutely not, it was precisely the opposite, the right to bear arms is there to defend the constitution, to defend bourgeois rule if it is ever in peril.

The workers will have to be armed in a revolutionary situation of course but that will never happen legally with official sanction.

So, you're telling me that the people who have the military and police on their side need a law to make sure they can own an AR-15 or two to protect their rule? I uh. I think you're imagining a very unique revolution.

Well why do you think the second amendment exits?

Jefferson himself said something along the lines that it was necessary a revolution occur ever few generations (i think he says 2 or 3?) in order for the nation or democracy to maintain its vitality.

Because while the founders of the US were pretty smart porkies, they weren't the best porkies and a sentimentality about being rebels slipped in. It continues to exist because it is useful to one of the two political parties as its voting base believes it to be useful thanks to scaretactics from the gun industry about immigrants and Obama.

But "democracy" here means bourgeois rule, the bill of rights is not universal and never has been, which is why black workers get shot when unarmed and the white petty bourgeois people can walk around armed to the teeth.

To attack the second amendment is to attack the legal basis for reactionary civilians to carry weapons, and in the same way as it is good for the workers to have guns, it's good for the reactionaries to be robbed of them.

Everybody says that it's so a people are ready to rebel or defend against invaders. So the real answer is probably for killing Indians.

Then why do all USA gun laws end up being used to throw poor people in jail? Stop and frisk anyone?

i guess you're right standard civilians with rifles are a lot more dangerous than Everything Else a state has to use against rebellion

I can agree with that, though now it leaves the revolutionary proletariat in a quandary as to how they are to arm themselves.
As kinda says, I'd rather have a gun and have to fight some reactionaries than not have a gun and still have to take on the state (which has a far greater arsenal than any citizen could possess).

That's my point, "right to bear arms" doesn't mean workers can have guns

He's more saying that gun restriction is yet another excuse to profile and harass the proletariat. The police's sole job is to find a reason to shut down organizing of the workers, how will the revolution get underway if any small group of people getting together with guns leads to the police cracking in all their skulls?

Lets open up a gun club that is not run by the NRA.

If you are in america check out redneck revolt

God, I'd love a leftist pro-gun organization.

I liked this discussion about the "right to bear arms" in the constitution and how in reality it only serves the interest of the bourgeoisie, as the right isn't applied equally. However, I'm apprehensive about mentioning that kinda stuff during the meeting, simply because I want people to be able to at least mildly understand what Im talking about. I feel as if this sorta discussion would throw them off.

You can get more with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word.

The right may not be applied equally, but that doesn't make the "right to bear arms" inherently subservient to the bourgeoisie. In it's current system, yeah, it's fucked up, but that doesn't mean it's okay for the individual to be completely defenseless against other individuals and rely entirely on external forces to protect themselves. So long as guns exist, an equal or more powerful force must be distributed among the proletariat to combat the misuse of them.

This is horseshit. The standard is for the state to consider itself the only source of legitimate violence, which in practice translates as the bourgeoisie having monopoly over its means. If we are guaranteed by right the opportunity to challenge this, even if this right will have to adapt to the existing inequalities of society, that's a huge victory for us.

Mass shootings maybe but not mass killings

...

Non-burgers, friendly reminder to check the laws about starting a private security firm inside your borders

a worldwide worker's co-op for private security that can defend the rights of political prisioners, union organizers and so on is necessary