Can we talk about his gun stance?

*people like Che

Truth is, many leftists out there are still entangled in liberal feelzland and as a result show it when making a point. Even if he was a little spooked on guns, I think he was just pointing out the recent spike in gun purchasing in the context of a capitalist society falling apart. I think you're a little nit-picky here and don't think this should keep you from donating.

I do appreciate the levered response. However, in light of your response I'd ask you to consider what would be the interpretation of our sponsorship of the man. Do we thereby co-opt his stance on guns? Even in light of his stories about professors being (paraphrasing) afraid of his students who carry?

Your point does make me second think. However, being staunch communist in afraid he will take it further and perhaps give people the wrong idea about communists in general.

im pretty sure wolfe just supports banning semi-automatic weapons and implementing more stringent background checks. at least, that's the stance of most liberals. i really dont know of anyone who wants to ban all guns. the idea is that semi-automatic weapons are unnecessary for self-defense. banning them wouldnt decrease the overall amount of gun violence significantly, but it might decrease the number of mass shootings as it did in australia. those incidents are incredibly rare, but the fear they invoke is powerful. of course, you will never stop the main contributor to gun violence–inner city violence–without economic reform.

also, the working class isnt being attacked by police (at least not directly). there are a few instances where it looks like police officers overreacted (eric garner is a good example) but a few lapses in judgment dont mean that the police is targeting the working class. there are some laws that disproportionately hurt the working class. drugs laws definitely affect poor people more than middle and upper class even though the drug use rate is virtually the same for all. blame the litigators for that, though. remember that police officers are blue collar workers, too.

As expected, no actual discussion about his stance on guns is being conducted, but plenty of action-calling and collective-rousing.

Bet you feel like a dummy after

posted huh?

user, do you know what semi-automatic weapons are?

Don't take offense, I mean none. But when you start a point off that way I can't help but dismiss it.

And by the way, gun violence isn't going to be stopped by doing antthing related to guns. It is stopped by dealing with the fact that the VAST majority of American gun violence is between poor people, and suicides.

As far as working class people being under attack, BLM is a level response to the amount of violence being perpetrated against working class Americans of the mostly black variety. This isn't some absent minded lapse, it happens too much. This is not going to be a case of "yeah people are dying, but…) Communists can't tell black people that and expect support.

His stance on guns was but a minuscule part of his lecture. One of Wolff's greatest strengths is to reduce large ideas into manageable ideas for non-class conscious proles. His ability to raise class consciousness is probably why many of us support him in the first place. With class consciousness achieved, I am sure that the new proles will recognize the necessity of an armed revolution or at least be MUCH more receptive to the idea of gun ownership.

By the way to be clear, I still donated my $50. I would still like to talk about this, and hopefully bring it up with Mr. Wolff sometime as a community if we get sponsorship of a talk.

kek

▶Cavalry user 07/19/16 (Tue) 12:32:50 No.797482>>797495

this, and tbh there are enough right wingers in this country who would take up arms against anything they perceived as degenerate or communist (they have them ostensibly to resist the tyranny of the gvmt, but really is just a front for wanting to shoot their neighbors and any darkies they encounter - see Gretna Bridge incident and Danzinger Overpass, both related to Hurricane Katrina ), that to be an unarmed leftist in this climate is foolish and will likely result in being a dead leftist.

Guns are supposed to be a right in America for self-defence, not for starting a revolution, comrade. You will not go in a store and say "Hi, I'd like a semi-automatic weapon in order to overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize the means of production".

Personaly, I just don't feel very comfortable with a society being trigger-happy and ready to kill a "tresspaser who stepped on my private property". So I understand leftists that are troubled with this kind of gun freedom. The majority of people supporting right of gun owning are in no way class-consious. In fact, most of them are quite conservative, to say the least.

And after all, you shouldn't feel fear that in a revolution "people would be unarmed". In every revolution preparation, guns are found. And no, they are not legally bought from the local store. Also, we may need to keep in mind that, with today's conditions, in order for an actual revolution being succesfull, we'll need also revolting soldiers, who would join the revolt. A fight of people's militia againist a well organised and high-tec equiped army would be almost futile; the possibilities of success rather low, even with greater numbers.

Anyway, the debate of gun control is an interesting one and I'm conficlted overall. But for the reasons above, I'm slightly leaning towards gun control.

another excellent reason for leftists to be armed.

Problem in US isn't guns, per se.
It's the whole fear culture.

Also, tell me more about how having guns has made you more "revolutionary" than europe that doesn't have "guns".

I have a hunting shotgun. Is that a "gun"?

NO PLS
MUH FUNS

Switzerland. Tons of guns, no violence. It's the ideological allure.

Guns are metal tubes with nails at the back. I could kill you with a nailgun or a buzzsaw if I wished.

We co-opt his frankly much more important stance on socialism.

That is a longer conversation that would probably best deserve its own thread on "why America has a tradition of gun ownership". A lot of people would side with the opinion that America's tradition harkens back to the minutemen, and the belief in the armed people's militia instead of standing armies.

Again, no offense comrade but things rarely are comfortable in this ever more dangerous world of our's. I've done a long, long report for a law class on the ins and outs of weapon ownership in America according to different laws (among them being Florida's Stand Your Ground law that spawned similar laws). Factually, you cannot kill someone just for stepping on your property in the vast majority of America's states (deadly intent and imminent fear of harm play into this heavily in most of the states). So gun ownership being tied to this kind of attitude is incorrect and non-factual.

And the point that many of America's gun owners are conservatives is a non-factor. It more points to our trouble's with a Democratic Party that again shows itself to be an enemy of the working class, and just a party pandering to the working class in order to keep them satiated enough not to rebel as well as uphold the "two party system" of dictatorship.

This is why I'm glad I'm here and bringing my experience. Comrade, guns being found isn't just the end of the battle. To truly be effective on any battlefield you need:

1. To zero your rifle and be able to aim down the sites. This is one fundamental difference between an idiot with a gun shooting at you and someone who is going to kill you with said gun. I CANNOT STRESS how important zero-ing is to be able to be effective with a weapon.

2. Gain familiarity with your weapon. Recoil, trigger pull, making sure you aren't fighting the recoil when aiming at a target. This is something you need to gain beforehand, and which is important when looking at your point that people will just "find guns".

3. MUCH further down the line you'll need small unit leadership that won't wilt under fire and duress. NCO's and small unit leaders are the backbone of every effective military force, and these people need to be able to serve as both leaders and trainers to instill confidence in their subordinates. This will be the difference between an armed mob lobbing metal at people and a militia that can effectively fight.

I implore you user, please think. Do you really trust gun control when the purpose is to make sure you can't fight back against the people oppressing you? Would they give you a ballot box if that could change anything?

Think about the legacy of the Black Panthers. They talked to talk, and walked the walk. They complained about violence and racism against Black People, and they actually stood up and defended them. In my perfect scenario, armed workers would walk out of their homes every time policeman harassed someone. Someone could have come outsides and defended Eric Garner with deadly force and prevented the death of an innocent man.

Yes, guns make you more revolutionary. And I'm sorry Europe gave up on that initiative, although I'm glad the US didn't.

Name a single revolution that failed because the masses didn't have access to arms. Every revolution starts with either storming an armoury or the army handing out guns.

Ugh, reading his post made my eye twitch when he started with "banning semi-auto…"

SEMI-AUTO: One pull of the trigger, one round comes out. Vast majority of pistols, shotguns, and rifles are semi-automatic. Your grandpappies hunting rifle is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapon.

AUTOMATIC: Rounds come out while the trigger is depressed. Machine guns, *actual assault rifles, and anything with select fire counts as automatic. These are currently banned under America's assault rifle ban.

Such a simple concept, yet so many people are pushed this way and that in America's discourse because they have no idea what they're talking about and get spooked when some talking head says "MUH SEMI-AUTOMATIC BLACK WEAPON WITH A BARREL SHROUD". They don't know what semi-automatic means, or what a barrel shroud is. Its just scary, and some of you here are falling for that same bullshit.

Its why I donated my money in the end. I am still, however, pissed about his spooked stance on guns.

So you gonna ignore that SWAT teams, and the fact that police use armored vehicles given to them from the armed forces and storm that armory? You gonna ignore that this is 2016, and you'll probably (if in America) be dealing with other proles who are armed and very ready to stomp out any "gommunists and socialists" in these deadly scenarios?

I'm not in America, the police here is not trained to shoot at everyone because they might have a gun.

Good for you. Instead we have policeman ready to tackle and break the hips of elderly Indian men. And they get away with it.

nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/assault-charges-dropped-alabama-cop-who-partially-paralyzed-indian-grandfather-n573806

I'm a reformist and I think you people are retarded.
Maybe when the fascist death squads kick in your door you can stop them with dialectical analysis and memes.

Good post.

Into the trash.

It's stupid to worry about guns. It's already easy to make them from scratch using relatively basic metalworking machines. That's only going to get easier in the coming decades as desktop manufacturing technology improves.

If there is ever any hope of a revolution in America, a shortage of guns will be the least of your problems. Worry about shit like the media being co-opted into a propaganda platform and three letter agencies manipulating social media to push their own agenda. Those are by far the biggest threat to any leftist organisations. Occupy Wall St. wasn't killed off by a lack of guns.

Nothing you've said negates the need for people to be able to defend themselves. Especially in times where backlash against police has gotten so hot that people have taken to killing said police.

By the way, easy to make from scratch? Can you make me an AR-10 please?

This is Zizek at his most flippant. His view generally goes on the fact it'd take an intense amount of manpower and resources to process all this information. Even if they didn't, his views are plain to see. Since he's so public with his views, it's not a problem to him. I can see where he's coming from with his arguments, however I think he simply doesn't realise the extent in which new technology can be used to process a vast, vast amount of information in an automated manner.

The amount of information about themselves people post onto the internet when they think they're safe is ridiculous. In the future, or even right now, developments in technology could be used to take this information and process it on a massive scale. Perhaps even creating a colossal databank of the majority of their populace.

If they're a communist? It's in the databanks. If they have an odd fetish? It's in the databanks. Do they have secrets that they mentioned online in a moment of weakness? It's in the databanks. This could be used in many unscrupulous ways by our current government as it is, but in the hands of a fascist dictator?

It could be aid to the of the most brutal and efficient purgings of "undesirables" by fascists history has ever seen.

I actually agreed with him, he's 100% right that people are grabbing up guns because they're scared of whats happening, and the porkies running the gun companies are making hand over fist because of it.

I don't think they should be banned of course, but that doesn't make what he said not true.

There I don't disagree. I feel terrible that porkies running things like S&W can profit off of fear. I also feel terrible that they, along with media manufacture fear due to Fudd's not knowing what the fuck is really going on.

However, after watching I came out feeling like he thinks anyone who owns a gun is simply crazy and subscribes to overblown fears about self defense.

Thanks fam. You're a cool guy. Maybe if a dialog is ever started with him, he could explain his position and we could convince him.

So he's basically offering his opinion on something he doesn't actually know anything about.

I think he thinks he knows what he's talking about. I mean, shit, he's not a scientist. Perhaps because we're engaged with computers and internet (especially IT people like me) we gain more knowledge over time of the power of these sorts of things.

His flippant nature is one of the disappointing aspects of his personality, but if he were shown the extent of technology and could speculate for a minute about the direction in which we're heading, he might change his mind.

He hasn't talked about it as much as I'd like him to. Perhaps if he clarified his opinions more in-depth then we'd see a more rational backbone to his argument.

It's just another example where he's softening Marxism so he doesn't scare liberals away. People rag on the US for its gun culture, but in reality liberals are giga-spooked about guns. I grew up with some ridiculously shitty irresponsible parents in the deep south who advocate killing all the niggers, not vaccinating kids, and distrusting doctors generally, but when I learned how to use guns from them, I learned how to use guns responsibly. Gun culture has a thing with safety, because safety is paramount with guns. People who do not treat guns with respect leave the gene pool rather quickly. Most of the idiots who misuse guns are the ones who don't normally mess with guns and don't know how the fuck to handle them.

Exactly.
When they were using them for revolution "GUNS ARE BAAAD!"

Now that faggoty rightwingers use them "GUNS ARE GOOOD!"

I think it's more he grew up with that shit and looks to that to inform his opinion
He didn't give a fuck in yugo and spoke out so he probably just feels like it's something that won't get in his way

...

that's hilariously wrong

I don't disagree with your post, but Jesus Christ how much common knowledge bullshit that everybody knows about guns to pretend you're some kind of expert?

There are more ex soldiers here than you think. I promise.

Get fucked, feminist. Showing your true colors, tearing someone down because they know more than you. You might do well to shut the fuck up and listen when someone else has good input.

If some other veteran wants to chime in, I'm all ears and ready to listen if I said something wrong or they have something to add. Unfortunately they aren't, and I don't see your useless ass doing anything except shitpost and flaunt how much of a cancer you are to this board. You added absolutely nothing to the conversation, and did nothing except try to piggy back on what was a good post.

Congratulations.

Wow, I didn't realize how invaluable this advice was and that nobody but some boot who tattood the soldiers creed on his back could inform us of these well guarded military secrets!

Honestly, did you even get your combat patch or are you just spouting whatever garbage you learned in bct? Be honest.

Also unless your name is Victor Von Doom don't refer to yourself in the third person, just a tip.

...

Thanks for the meme, post above. You sure helped bring the sun to its horizon.

As someone who isn't an American, I still support strict gun control. Sorry commr8

No

I think he was critiquing America's gun culture rather than gun ownership in general.

America isn't the only place where people own guns, it's just the only place where people wave them around like they're an extension of one's own phallus.

Yeah Hitler also didnt mean to exterminate X, it was more of a metaphorical thing, something that aligns better with my current belief and doesn't cause so much cognitive dissonance.

My dude, I support gun ownership, but this is some FOX news-tier shitposting fam

This much strawman

Okay.

No, my analogy was supposed to point out how the parent was tortuously misrepresenting his statements to make them fit his ideology and avoid the dissonance of disagreement.
Wolff is opposed to private gun ownership in general and takes jabs at it purely for the entertainment of his audience, as the charlatan he is.

Where did he say that he was against gun ownership?

Now I know IHBT

The left still has some issues where it feels 'right' to be on a certain side of it. And, to be honest, I feel worried when I look at the tons of hobbyist shooters who have paranoid fantasies or don't take the weapons they own seriously at all. But with that said, the first step to a proper revolution is for the people to be armed so that the state is forced to choose between escalation to a point that will not be seen as acceptable by the citizenry or standing down. The US would never nuke it's own during a revolution, but you fucking bet they'd be fine tear gassing and beating down revolutionaries.

Were we watching the same video? He was just talking about American gun culture and it's relation to the flagging economy.

This is basically how I feel about it. It would be nice to prevent every lunatic out there from owning a killing machine, but we better prepare for a future where home 3D printing enables everyone to have machineguns.

Metal 3D printers are insanely expensive, though, and the guns made of plastic are basically glorified zip-guns.

Next time when any leftists say leftists are pro-gun on /k/, I'm going to link to this thread!

Every technology starts out insanely expensive.

Anyway, there's no reason you couldn't 3D print wax molds to cast parts. Even the most inept revolutionary should be able to set up a simple iron-casting forge in their back yard. Whether cast iron parts are suitable for guns I don't know though.

On the plus side this thread remembered me why I left halfchan.

The smarter of you will jump the boat soon, the rest will be fodder for it's new owners, willing fodder.

Good thing the second exodus is already happening.

Who would decide who is a lunatic and who is not?

At the risk of being dismissed as a huehue STEMfag or whatever, I still don't see the point of gun ownership in a world so close to combat robots in action. It would be like clinging to the use of city walls when you know artillery is about to be developed and deployed, so either gun ownership produces a revolution in the next five years before robots become a thing or we have to persuade the people who hold the keys to the robot command center on the basis of something other than violence or else we're fucked. It's literally as textbook as material conditions can get, and I'm sure if Marx were observing it he would simply see it as a marriage of the principles of automation with state violence.

Just go for heavier stuff then.
I'm pretty sure some ammo had been created with the idea of damaging vehicules… It must not be very different for robots.

There are serious engineering and material procurement issues with those calibers, and the state can restrict access to them with relatively less difficulty. I don't deny that some people, some of the time, could acquire them, but substantially less than can get a weapon that could hurt a SWAT officer in full gear now, which to be frank isn't that impressive to begin with.

Again, thanks for nothing, absolutely nothing at all. Its as if you don't even realize what fundamentals are and why they're important.

This is a fair point, I hope you don't bring him down. However, I'll say that his manner of speech really did seem to put him on the side of "guns are so unnecessary".

There's also the option of reloading brass, and if there were any serious revolutionary groups out there I am pretty sure they would have anti-material rifles.

On your point about combat robots though, you're placing a lot of confidence in technology buddy. We don't even have robots capable of guarding a mall.

No, just like killing people eurocuck

not necessarily revolutions but there are plenty of strikes that have turned into gunfights and then there's the whole black panther thing as well

Why should we allow guns in a fascist country full of classcucks? No one thinks as themselves as worker class, at this point they would go start a Nazi masturbation fantasy. Don't tell me you genuinely think they will take the guns and attack porky? Shouldn't we educate first before thinking about allowing guns?

...