So, how was the gun control situation on the various socialist republics of the last century...

So, how was the gun control situation on the various socialist republics of the last century?A quick research only appointed to right-wing blogs spilling the usual bullshit
I'm totaly against gun control as most people here probably is, but how was the situation at the actual socialist countries?Did civilians were able to get their own guns for self defense, sport and/or hunting?Or was it more restrict?

According to a Pole I used to know, due to military and militia participation in the eastern bloc, gun possession (this not being ownership) was quite high, however you could not just go out and purchase a gun for civilian use, and firearms were kept strictly regulated. Apparently it was nigh impossible to get anything but a bolt action for hunting.

Not exactly the best source, I know, but it's better than nothing.

Why would the Soviets want people to have guns? From their perspective, they were already on the road to Communism and guns would only make it easier for reactionary rebellions to take place, no?

Pretty much this, sadly i cannot provide any sources other than "hear-say" either, however it was a very broad military education for the whole population and access to weapons was given, however not or barely for private use. It was very much only collective, organized access, such as for the Betriebskampfgruppen for example in the GDR.

Sorta. Bourgeoise terrorism would be very much individualistic.
The objective was a broad military education for the whole working class and access for it to strike as an organized class in case of foreign attacks or internal coup.
Remember, them not having each a gun at home doesn't mean that they couldn't grab guns in an "orderly fashion" - even against the state, which would even be more of a problem for it than some untrained right wing individualist terrorist bafoon.

What i'm trying to say:

Yes, there was no american style private gun ownership, it was possible but rare and regulated.

However, to debunk the myth of the "free american gun owner" and the oh so oppressed people under socialism,
they did have access to guns if there were unrests through their armed organisations and also had the proper training to actually take on an enemy and even the state, unlike the delusional american libertarian that has a gun but no force.

And how may I ask would they do that? Would they just knock on the door of the nearest armoury, and politely ask if they could borrow a gun so they could shoot the party bureaucrats?
Or would they just grab and use their 100 year old Mosins against main battle tanks and attack helicopters?

Everyone should be armed to the fullest extend possible. Every community. Every council. Every family.
This "muh terrorism" fear mongering is just an excuse to keep the working class down.

I am not in favor of gun control right now but why the fuck would we allow the people to be armed under socialism?

So we can shoot vanguardists such as yourself.

Because most people here are American and feel incomplete without their deadly phallic object which serves no purpose outside of a total armed insurrection except to increase the amount of murders. Let us remember all those time private gun ownership ended oppression, like… literally never. Or that time the October Revolution failed because every peasant in Russia did not have his own gun - oh wait. Gee, it's almost like civil war is a matter of a substantial part of the army defecting and turning against the ruling class rather than untrained civilians saving the day with their dad's old hunting rifle…

the quality of this board has dropped so much by tankie retards that I cant tell who is Holla Forums and who isn't anymore

Reactionary af, stay mad kid.

poorly armed guerilla soldiers never defeated greater forces before, never ever

where's hoochie

Kys tankie fossils.

What do you mean, "how"? Through their armed organizations.
Since practically everyone in society has the military training and a huge portion is organized in some armed forces, the access is already there.

What are you proposing instead?
Everyone just has his own little bunker, filled with Gatling Guns and armor piercing bullets, looking angrily at each other and constantly overthrowing someone because they disagree?
Jesus fuck you anarkiddies are dense and primitivist through and through.

Not an argument

these have to be Holla Forums

Marx said "workers", not "individuals". He's talking about an organized class. You must be trolling. At least quote one of your retarded ideological head figures on how disorganized individuals without any competence and training run around armed constantly and shoot anyone who they feel might be a "bureaucrat". Fucking infantile joke.

This is the level of retardation we're dealing with when talking to anarkiddies.

I am not saying that workers shouldn't be armed under capitalism, but there is literally no reason to have them armed under socialism.

Wrong. They need to be armed but also organized and with proper military training to effectively use them, and that for obvious reason. Reaction can strike anytime.

What if the people turn reactionary tho?

Then you fight them? Look at what the YPG has done in Rojava.
Porky ethnophobe party advocates ethnic cleansing? Raid their offices and kick them out.

Disgusting. You sound like one of those people that fantasizes about a nice desk job and luxurious dacha after the "revolution".


Who do you think the individuals in a socialist society are? Bureaucratic paper pushers that double as commissars?

Seems to work pretty well in Rojava!

Forgot to take off shitposting flag.

I know that the original constitution of the USSR included the right to bear arms. Also gun control was strict in China but their plan in the event of an invasion was to basically arm their entire population.

"An unarmed people are slaves, or subject to slavery at any time."

-Huey P. Newton

If you disagree you're a red fascist.

Dismissed as retarded.
Says nothing, means nothing, adresses nothing.
If you want to have individuals armed so they can supposedly use their individual liberty for societal change you are - again - retarded and have no fucking concept of reality in the slightest. Seriously, you gotta be brain damaged.

Comrade, you forgot your flag

What about slave armies like Mamluk`s trough?

Not an argument.

cooperativeeconomy.info/the-economy-of-rojava/
kurdishquestion.com/oldarticle.php?aid=the-social-economy-in-rojava
opendemocracy.net/5050/rahila-gupta/rojava-revolution-on-hoof

How do you think DemCon came to be? It starts with an idea and an individual's willingness to take up arms in favor of that idea.


Needs to go further. No "national" army. Only local militias - operating within a centrally directed framework - that may recruit from and get supplied by other communities.

I know that communist Albania had high gun ownership due to Hoxha's defence obsession but also due to the pre-communist tribalism that existed in the country.
I know OP said socialist republics but the various anarchists revolution plus Rojava have high amount of gun ownership, I believe.

It makes revolution substantially easier.