What do leftists think of gun control?

The proletariat must be armed

Guns should be heavily regulated by the state as should all other types of weapons. In before LARPers. There will be no violent revolution. Nukes mean that the minute your Leninist vanguard seizes a state you will be vaporized.

I have mixed feelings. On one hand, it's a fact that in countries with stricter gun control laws, less people are killed with guns, which sounds obvious but believe me, it needs to be spelled out for most Americans. That's good obviously but on the other hand, I do believe that citizens have to right to arm themselves and protect themselves from their government.

It's one of those issues where I really don't know where I fall.

That didn't happen in Paris May1968 because?

???
I'm saying gun control is a right-wing policy.

This is good comrade, we need more morons in our cause! Your luke-warm, room-temp Autism Level is exactly why you belong on the left side. It is only through massive, overwhelmingly disproportionate numbers that we can surmount the strategic advantage of the stronger, smarter, and militarily savvy right wingers. Like great mother Russia in WW2, our only strategy is to send millions of cannon fodder, underarmed, border-line retarded NEETS into the fray until the mountain of their corpses can slow the enemies advance and the rotting flesh can clog their guns.

how about you apologize instead?

...

Wrong.

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1chqUZHuY6cXYrRYkuE0uwXisGaYvr7durZHJhpLGycs/edit#gid=0 (data from 2012 but still)

we need to remove guns to keep trumptards from getting them

...

It's more about the threat of violence than "revolution". The state should fear the people, not the other way around. But your'e a socdem, so you probably think the workers are too dumb for power.

Guns should be controlled by the workers.

All violence is in the long run the end of freedom, so no guns. They're useless for defence. Gun is a tool designed for killing, and no other valid function is yet to be known.

That sure worked the last time

Holy lol another liberal.

How do you want the revolution then dummy unless you are just a liberal

One shouldn't appeal to the current state to hold up the rights which will allow it to be overthrown. The more armed the people are, the even more armed the state will be.

Name one successful revolution conducted through methods of terror. Any one that didn't blow itself in the head afterwards.

True revolution comes through subversion of hierarchy, meanings and values. It needs merely to use the tools of current social order to utterly discredit the foundations of said social order.

And how, pray tell, are you going to deal with when the police or national guard comes in with some shotguns/rifles to violently disperse your strikes, break up your meetings and local assemblies, and disperse your protests? How are you going to assemble this subversion of hierarchy without a means of defending your subversion?

No, how about you name your ideal peaceful revolutions and I'll tell you why you're full of shit.

...

Stop thinking "groups" "communites" "strikes"
Start thinking "individual" "exploitation" "semantics"

lurk moar

Gun control is historically a rightist policy. Mulford act in particular comes to mind as it was a measure used against the Panthers. Just let us have guns.

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Oh, so you have literally nothing. What a surprise.

Neither do you. Well go on blow yourself up or something you great revolutionary.

This, the gun control measures implemented by Reagan (for which liberal laud him because he was such a sane conservative) were largely meant to keep guns out of the hands of BPP and blacks in general

questions seem kinda loaded to me. i'm pro-gun considering revolution and ideal socialist societies but as long as armed people are interested in dicking around in state capitalism, they might as well not be armed at all

...

THIS

...

No guns for cops, military, or bourgs.

Workers are fine though.

As expected from a fascist

We can in fact count that it won't. That's how to overthrow it - by predicting and exploiting it's reactionary nature in creative ways.

They didn't do it last time.

AKA
A P O L O G I Z E

Armed proletariat is fine, Lenin approved. Btw I think that people have to pass a medical exam to prove that they are not psychos not to be previously convicted. And maybe bring some good characteristics from their neighbours and workplace

Huh, what about murrica. They got guns everywhere and traded all freedums for spare change

gun ideology in the US is basically "this is for protecting my house from nig-i mean criminals" or "muh national identity". they're pretty much the opposite of revolutionary tools

What does it matter? How does a gun changes magically from Wand of Nigslaying to Tool of Liberation?

..it doesn't. that's my point. leftypol acts like gun rights in the US are inherently a good thing but they really aren't. we need to see a major ideological shift in gun owners first.

Cultural bias is strong in US left. Here in Europe we laugh at vidyas of random shootings and rejoice we don't have such stupid problems at home.

european-inspired gun control definitely isn't the answer

Pretty sure he was saying gun control is a right wing position. Therefore gun ownership is perfectly compatible with the left.

Why is that? USA is just like Russia and China from where we stand. They're all porkier than EU, and it only truly got shit when left imploded and embraced liberalism.

Don't get all high and mighty, EU isn't less porky than america just because it's weaker and sneaky.

Two tiered military system, where a national army that answers to the central government works alongside local militias that answer to citizen's assemblies. The two would balance each other, with the national army being limited to one third the total combined manpower of the militias. This will ensure that the central government doesn't overpower the citizen's assemblies but also that local communities don't kill each other with their own militias. In addition the local militia serves as local police and national army gendarmes serve as national police. Every citizen has three years compulsory service in their local militia and two years service in the national army. After their service is up they remain within the militia reserve until age 45. They take their rifle and kit home with them and spend one weekend every month refreshing their training and having their equipment inspected. In addition recreational gun laws are loose, requiring proof that you have completed your conscription and proof of mental stability.

I understand the reasoning for this, but don't you think it's a bit dangerous to hamstring your military so arbitrarily?

No, since in the case of an invasion the militias would form the backbone of the armed forces. You could have pre set command structures, putting militia forces under the command of national army officers in the event of an invasion. This would mean that if there is an actual war that both the militias and the army would fight as a unified force, they would just answer to different sections of government during peacetime.

gun ownership is too ingrained in american culture to make severely legislating ownership a possibility
any attempts to enact gun control laws will be fought tooth and nail by a really big portion of the population
to me, it just doesn't seem like how we should be attacking the problems of gun violence in the united states
i know this is vague, but a more efficient method would be to attack the uniquely american social aspects that promote gun violence
guns are just the tool used

...