What is the Zig Forums consensus on gun control? I know that many are against it...

What is the Zig Forums consensus on gun control? I know that many are against it, and this pro-ownership stance is common among a variety of groups from MLs to anarchists. However, I've also talked to supposedly radical leftists whose beliefs on the subject are the same as that of the liberal establishment. What do you have to say on the subject?

pic unrelated

Attached: 40d.png (600x617, 118.44K)

Other urls found in this thread:


So long as the enemy has and uses guns, we have no chance of achieving anything without them too.
I have however always been happy living in a country without guns, and I'd probably be freaked out walking around in America with crazy burgers packing pistols when going to McDonalds.

Pretty sure everybody here apart from a few socdems opposes gun control. I personally would support a well armed population even after socialism is established, using something like Switzerland's militia system as well as permissive private ownership laws like in the US, Canada, or the Czech Republic. I would want some light controls, like needing to purchase a license which would require passing a safety course. This would grant unrestricted access to rifles and shotguns, including semi autos without registration or tracking of purchases. Handguns may require a special license with additional training and possibly registration since they are far more likely to be used in a crime, but that would be it. Unfortunately apart from Albania I don't know of any socialist states that actually did this.

Attached: 450.PNG (550x400, 144.92K)

Depends strongly on whether the police are also armed.

Mandatory gun ownership for every household.

t. Hoxha

Under a capitalist state, you should be able to overthrow the state, at some point armed struggle is inevitable.
Under transitionary socialism, weapons should be mandatory for the general population along with training and strict rules of usage as to avoir counter-revolutionary elements.
Under communism, guns would be useless.

no such thing

i'm overall pro gun.

But i live in brazil and i can't defend gun ownership here. People are batshit crazy and already kill themselves for dumb reasons enough. We are a really violent country with shit revolutionary potential. Legalizing guns would not arm the good proles, only the reactionary middle class(i know they are still proles, there is no such thing as middle class, yaddayadda) would have access to guns.

Besides any revolutionary group can get some smugled guns it's hella easy.

Extremely light regulation, hell maybe even this unironically

We should push "gun control" only if its applied on all levels of the state and economy. Fight the American weapons industry, military, and police force instead of persecuting citizens owning arms to protect themselves.

In America "gun control" could easily escalate into a "war on guns," in which black proletarian "bad guys with guns" are shot and imprisoned, while the reactionary white middle class "good guys with guns" are glorified.

This isn't a question of "gun control" vs. "no gun control," you have to think about specific policy choices, how these affect the working class, and how they relate to future revolutionary prospects.

Good points.

In the US, the police (and military obviously) are extremely heavily armed, as is the most reactionary element of the civilian populace. These people will not willingly disarm themselves, and if they were required to by law they would simply hide and stockpile their weapons. As such, "gun control" in the US would necessarily involve the disarmament of the revolutionary and potentially revolutionary people while leaving the forces of reactionary as well-armed as ever. For that reason, I can't support gun control in the US.

However, I think the American cultural attachment to guns is extremely unhealthy. In a global communist society, I would support the elimination of firearms.

This and make firearms safety and training a part of the school curriculum.

i feel like what's always missing in these discussions is a sense of the current reality around guns. citizens are not using guns to defend themselves from authorities. and when they do it's usually a paranoid, right-wing, up in the mountains type situation. when i think of a gun being used in america i think of:

a huge portion of gun activity has to simply be around drug prohibition. so while we're preparing an arsenal to defend ourselves from authority we're just being fucked over as in any other area of life. i'd imagine gun manufacturers love that they exist within an industry that has existential meaning within the united states

yeah, and start teaching gun safety at least 2 years before letting them handle the guns


Using guns to defend yourself against authorities is useless because it is a lone person against the system which you are likely to lose regardless. They are needed for an organized revolution against capitalism or self defense

You listed a bunch of anecdotes

Who is being "fucked over" by who in your mind?

i used to be against gun ownership when i was a liberal. but now as a full on insurectionary commie anarchist, im loaded to the teeth

Attached: 1525252684681.png (1184x992, 143.87K)

what? i want to shoot fascist, alongside black militias similar to the black panthers.

which is really just a fantasy i have and not an actual thing i will be doing just incase fbi here.

I’m against gun control because A) While a standing army is nessicary for self-defence, when it is supported by a militia system it can operate much better in home territory, you don’t want your socialist republic being annex by fascists. B) hunting is fun. C) A militia system should replace the police force which should be abolished.

The solution to this is to get leftists to man up and stockpile guns

Nah bruh, shooting cans and drinking whisky is mad fun.

When a revolution happens it oftentimes leads to civil war, so if leftists are armed and trained this would make winning said civil war easier.

Does anyone think that armed struggle would happen with "legal" weaponry?

Revolutionaries should discuss self-defense regardless of bourgeois law.

Ever heard of LCP, fellow br?

But more realistically, I'd want some kind of license and basic safety/training course to be a requirement. That said, I'd also remove most of the other regulation and do stuff like legalize automatics, no gun registration, no mag capacity limits, no minimums on barrel length or suppressors, open/concealed carry legalized, etc.

It sucks cause I think all the liberal pro-gun control memes about how gun owners are mostly just deranged racists looking for excuses to shoot black people, but pragmatically I would want gun rights only for revolutionary purposes.

Ideally I'd want them to be banned after the revolution, but who knows, maybe we won't have the huge problem with nihilism we have today, so it wouldn't be a big problem.

yes i did, what about them?

4 words: treat them like cars

Replace them with electric powered publicly owned guns?


If we honestly believe that the police are closely tied with many of the fascists and other dangerous elements of the right wing then we have every reason to believe that the police are going to target the left and the poor for firearm seizure and control and leave fascists and violent right wingers and bourgs continue to accumulate weapons.

There is no reason to give them further legal recourse to do so.

Attached: chairman Moe.png (740x640, 60.56K)

They police are against the general population not just leftists

Stop, I can only get so hard

I'm aware of that, but a lot of them have very close ties to many fascist groups that they'll just overlook or put last.

Even if they'll do it, a lot of cops are going to drag their feet and "forget" their friend has a stash of AR's.

And the police over look antifa harassing people in portland.

They don't have a preference they just do as they please

There’s basically three logically consistent positions one can take.

1) The democratic institutions of my country are strong enough that positive change can be made purely through them and there is no need at all for violence or the threat thereof. (If this is your position, you’re probably a liberal and don’t belong on this board.)

2) The state is ultimately a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and state power can be effectively challenged purely by militias. In this case there’s literally no reason to not openly support full access to weapons. In fact, you should advocate that every leftist arm themselves.

3) The state is ultimately a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and cannot be effectively opposed by militia groups, overthrowing it requires a split in the military and police. In which case, you should be advocating active infiltration into the military and police and active agitation among their ranks. Militias certainly wouldn’t hurt, so you should probably still support gun rights, but I can understand taking an anti-gun stance to appease liberals.

What I can’t stand are the people who try to take none of the above by either implying that everything can be solved by escalating the protest movement (with vague references to “masses in the streets”) or by saying that revolution is only possible in foreign countries, thus implying that people from other countries should do your revolution for you while your useless ass does little more than provide moral support. At least in Burgerland, the left has generally coalesced around what you might call “protest culture” and both of these positions have the effect of putting the endless fucking impotent protests front and center, either as the ultimate act of political organizing that will eventually bring about the socialist revolution in some completely vague way or as the only thing one can do. The other element is the infiltration of liberalism into left politics.

Attached: BC385E90-69F6-46BD-9941-BF6AEDE488E6.jpeg (225x224, 25.63K)

A large number of members of dangerous far right organizations have been active police members who engaged with the group, intentionally and actively to persecute often racist or otherwise bigoted agendas. There is no similarity with left-wing organizations, police in those organizations are almost always informants.

Political struggle can happen through different means than full-on armed struggle or guerrilla-style warfare (even though there is almost no historically revolutionary event which didn't include them). Striking and occupying of the economy is an example and might prove revolutionary if applyied strategically as to weaken the reaches of the capitalist state power. When you refer to a possibility of spilt within the military, this often results in a civil war, so you better be armed when this happens.
There is no point in advocating for counter-productive praxis just as to "appease" your political enemies, unless this is purely strategical and has no real effect on the masses (propaganda and such).

Well if you mean leftists as anarchists abd communist only and far right and any rightwing person you're creating a false dichotomy. The FBi is overwhelming liberal and most media outlets college campuses are hostile to the far right

I’m not saying that protest is bad, but that it has limitations and has been basically impotent for the left groups that treat it as some kind of magic bullet rather than simply one of a variety of political tools in their tool belt.

And my point was not that you would appease liberal parties, but that you might attempt to broaden your appeal to the broader masses who may have liberal sentiments by providing lip service to some basic popular gun control policy.

We have this thread every week and the answer is always the same

Attached: orwell.jpg (850x400, 56.1K)

i think a nuclear device should be given to every single citizen regardless of sex, race, gender or mental stability


Nice argument from analogy there

lmao this fucking board outs themselves as gun grabbers yet again. Stay off Zig Forums please.

Pro-tip: the left in switzerland constantly pushes for tighter laws. The SP and Greens all support stricter laws, whilst it is the right-wing nationalist party (the SVP) that opposes it.

licensing, registration, tests literally only apply towards operating cars on public roads. none of that shit is required to drive on private land or even buy and own a car that will not be taken out on public roads.

Also don't forget corrupt cops and driver instructors that fail you a couple of times since you have to pay for each try out.

Kys. Also I post on Zig Forums regularly and have no plans to stop so eat my ass.

Attached: 959E566B-0F4B-4546-9C2D-08E2802B1870.jpeg (603x460, 126.1K)

Marx was referring to an arming of the workers to overthrow capitalism. That text is not about an individual right to bear arms, nor does it say what would happen to the guns after the revolution. If you think that it is equivalent to an individual RTKBA that is supported by the right, you are clinically retarded.

Lenin said the same thing; all the workers should be armed and form a militia: marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/20b.htm

So what did Lenin do after the revolution? He confiscated all the arms owned by peasants and imposed draconian gun laws.


Nobody likes you or wants you. Trusting a leftist to uphold gun rights is laughable.

Imagine being this much of a retarded single-issue voter. I bet you're one of those idiots who thinks than muh Burger freedumbs were upheld only by dipshits with rifles in their bedrooms, when Burgerland's gun laws have never, ever been effectively used to resist the US state and have more often been used to further the interests of the American political establishment. When a particular group was considered a threat to the Burger agenda, the US was just as gung ho about restricting weapons as any other nation.

That was when the soviets got invaded by every imperialist power out there, every government confiscates weapons in such a situation. Through the military, militias, shooting clubs and hunting a lot of soviet men and women knew how to handle guns. They had higher gun ownership than most western countries but with none of the school shootings.

Think before you post.

Attached: 1517799541348.jpg (397x814, 103.5K)

All able- bodied, sane, adults should be armed. Communist groups should provide safety training, and promote working class gun culture. We should push for the state to subsidize gun ownership.

Attached: smonkkk.jpg (833x960, 86.53K)

Like clockwork. I own guns so gun grabbers like yourself can be shot.

Bullshit. You have no source for private gun ownership in the USSR being higher than most western countries.
Bullshit. The ONLY gun you could own in the ussr after the wars was a double-barrel hunting shotgun and you had to register as a hunter, read the rest of the article retards. Meanwhile Hitler loosened gun laws massively for the vast majority of German citizens.

When leftists talk about gun rights, it's about a collective right such as serving the state or a worker's militia. I don't give a fuck about about gun ownership in a collective sense, but an INDIVIDUAL sense. The right to bear arms is an individual right and firmly a right-wing position as are most negative liberties.

Attached: 1543713447770.jpg (1024x700, 94.6K)

what part of "nehm de Gewehre zum Hand" did you not understand?

lol why you want a gun for yourself retard only gun needed is for defending socialist motherland what are you gonna do shoot yourself

Are you forgetting about how he banned guns for jews? Pinochet confiscated guns from all the Chilean citizens. Reagan said there's no reason for american citizens to be carrying weapons.
That's a bit of a generalization, don't ya think? Revolutionary Catalonia and the Ukranian Free Territory didn't ban guns and they were leftist.

Gun control occurs in the hands of an experienced operator


why do you keep posting this everywhere e.e

Deer don’t hunt themselves.

I think “universal gun rights” is more effectively carried out through a program of universal conscription. The shit you’re praising has never been used for anything other than upholding the murderous settler-colonialist regime of the US through a clandestine terror state of right-wing militias.

Jews were literally less than 1% of Germany's population at the time. The laws were loosened so much that long guns didn't even require a license, and you didn't have to be part of the NSDAP to own guns.

Because they were fighting a civil war for the entirety of their existence. Of course they had to arm the workers to fight a fucking war. Again, this has nothing to do with an individual right to bear arms. Again, what you are describing is a collective arming of a militia so they can fight a conflict. This is not comparable to an individual right to bear arms espoused by the right at all.

I don't care. Conscription has nothing to do with individual gun ownership. I don't give a fuck about guns if it has to do with being required to serve a collective duty because it has nothing to do with it being an individual right.

Firstly, neither anarchists nor communists would be going on about natural "rights" period because such things are based on the idealized notion that the "right" already pre-exists the law and is something which already "naturally" exists in a state of nature, with the law simply reafirming what is already "endowed" by nature. In reality, your ability to do something is limited entirely by what law the governance creates. There is no natural law or natural rights.
Secondly, they are fucking anarchists. I'm not even an anarchist and even I understand that this wouldn't even be thing they would do because it would necessitate a government and a strict legal system to draft.

This may shock you, but you're never going to find a communist country that doesn't engage in universal conscription or have laws which require military service. In that regard, the collective duty is equivalent to your individual "right". Whatever you gain in your required collective duty is what you gain as an individual. They are not separate in the condition and society we are talking about. If you want a good example of this, Communist Albania (an example of very hardline ML state) had extremely lax gun laws (as in weapons moved very freely between people and we're unregulated as shit) and had compulsory military service. Neither of these were viewed as separate to each other because they are inherently interconnected. There is not a situation where you would not be in the military or be eligible for conscription period, so no law guranteeing a "right" exists because practically it would have zero meaning because the conditions it would be used in a court or whatever would never happen. You would never not be in the military or prepared for conscription. Ever.

Name one thing that “individual gun rights” accomplishes that universal conscription doesn’t do better other than the maintenance of a clandestine right-wing terror state.

I didn't say shit about natural rights. I said individual right. As a right to gun ownership for the individual independent of any militia service or duty.

If a state has conscription, but at the same time affords an individual right to bear arms for its citizenry that's fine with me. The issue is that virtually all Marxist states had the former but extremely restrictive gun laws for the individual. The USSR might have conscripted the populace and trained them in the usage of arms, and hell even had armories stocked with weaponry in case of an invasion, war or whatever, but the laws concerning private possession of firearms was extremely restrictive.

See above. Can you link me to a single source detailing Albania's gun laws for the private citizenry? If so I will concede my argument and freely admit that there is an example of a Marxist state with lax as fuck laws for the individual. If, however it required licensing, justification for ownership, etc, etc, my point still stands.

Because an individual right to gun ownership has nothing to do with serving the state or community. It's so the state cannot infringe on my rights and I can own guns freely be it for personal reasons of sporting, hunting, collecting, personal defense, or because I simply want to. Not everything has to serve the fucking collective.

Individual gun rights have never, not once, stopped the state from infringing on anyone’s rights. If anything, the American system of free individual gun ownership has been an aspect of state repression by, once again, creating a clandestine terror state run by right-wing militias.

Contrast this with universal conscription, which effectively turns the military into a public institution, grants all citizens martial training and a weapon, and you have an actually effective way of arming the citizenry.

When can I own towed field artillery

Literally a free AK-47 for everyone.

Mandatory gun ownership and marksmanship classes tbh

Couldn't give less of a shit tbh. The majority of legal gun owners belong to the reactionary middle class. When SHTF most proles would mostly have to rely on guns procured from stormed police stations and smuggled over by revolutionary orgs. Believing the bourg will let you go to walmart and stock up for the revolution smacks of muh american dream idealism tbh

Did you miss the point of you never not being in military service or duty? Individual people are allowed to own multiple firearms as individuals not for a seperate milita duty they go to where only then you can use the gun, but for the the fact that they are collectively the milita. That is to say, any weapons you own will immediately relate to your militia duty upon purchase as a requirement of your service, just as with any other thing you buy which could be utilized for defense.
The USSR was in an entirely different position than say Albania. It's was larger and so had the immense security problem of it's enemies being able to train clandestine pockets of counter-revolutionaries more easily and had to constantly deal with the US trying to fund terror cells in it's states. As such, the restrictions that were put into place were done exclusively to combat this. It was done out of necessity because not doing so would be freely giving the west an advantage and open up within themselves an exploitable weakness they simply could not afford at the time. The US through Europe could move agents into USSR territory more easily then the USSR could move agents into the US. Such a reality requires difficult decisions and precautionary measures. Next time don't keep forming terror cells repeatedly.
I think you misunderstand. The only laws from Albania that we can discern regarding gun ownership requires every individual to own a gun/a cache of guns. That is to say, there is no law whatsoever we can find restricting gun ownership. There is zero documentation of the government attempting to restrict it or restrictions ever being in place. When I say "lax", I mean that in it's truest form. When I say guns moved freely, I don't mean they just moved between depots. Guns moved between household to household and person to person with no written documentation at all.
As an the user mentioned here , individual gun rights have never stopped infringement once. Your "rights" are things which are easily crossed over or ignored because the state is the one providing the "right" in the first place. They are not concrete, and if the gun ownership was truely unregulated then there wouldn't even be a law "granting" your ability to own one. Conscription and military service on the other hand provides concrete "rights" because they are not rights at all, they are a requirement demanded by the necessity of defense for you to own a gun and for any further guns you purchase to be applicable to be used in the militia. Whatever you want to do with those guns on your free time is your choice, but you cannot separate it from your military duty.

Dude my state passed a bill that has nullified all federal laws. The only states dogshit for gun rights are the ones where many self-described socialists and faggots who have their pronouns in their twitter bio congregate in.

Don't care. Unless I can literally fire up a website find someone selling a fun and pay him cash in a parking lot for a gun the laws are not lax. Deal with it.

For shits and giggles I googled Albania's gun laws:


LMAO. """"""""""""Lax""""""""""""" laws my fucking ass.

To quote Albania Defiant:
And before you say "but they could never recreationally use those weapons!", they could and in fact nearly every village had shooting range. Every indivdual had their own personal firearms and pistol shooting was an extremely popular past-time for woman. Of course their wasn't very much of a variety, but that is all they had was waht their allies provided them, what they produced, and what they had leftover.

Bullshit, if the state decided tomorrow that X person or group was a threat justifiable of confiscation, you bet your ass your "gun rights" would stop mattering in the slightest. "Gun rights" existed in the 1960s, but that didn't stop the government and law enforcement from raiding communist and black liberation groups and seizing all of their caches and firearms. You don't even have socialists currently in any state government anyway, so I have no idea what you're blathering about.

Attached: cd2011a4142694e5a5169d401b3392bf52e927ce.jpg (870x864, 73.01K)

That doesn't debunk anything I've said. If the ammo was stored in bunkers while the guns kept at home had no ammo then my point still stands.

Link me a source for Albanian laws regarding personal ownership under Hoxha. Could you keep ammo at home? Can you provide concrete proof?

The ATF would have to do that. None of the sheriffs in my state will enforce such laws and there isn't a registry so good luck. I can make fully automatic guns in my state and the police will not come after you. Again, good luck enforcing that garbage.

So why did virtually all socialist states have extremely restrictive gun laws regarding private ownership? The only counter-examples you have are Albania in which the details of the law have still not been established, and former anarchist societies that were marred in civil war for the entirety of their existence. Passing extremely restrictive laws is counterproductive in such cases because they needed as many workers armed to fight the war. It's not like these societies existed in peacetime in which they could effectively pass policies that governed day to day life.

Absolutely weak examples. If you are a Yurofag than you certainly know about the EU directive that banned certain magazines because muzzies attacked Paris with illegal AKs. How come when the parliament was voting on this law, almost all the actual communist parties in Europe voted in favor, while almost all the opposition came from the nationalist right-wing parties? Fuck out of here.

Your source for what you've said is an 1984 times article with no link and no results when searched. Show me a proper source which states that Albanians could not keep ammo.
There are no real laws besides what we know which is that the government required the ownership of weapons and for families to keep caches. Albania has always been a gun-friendly country period, given its history of blood feuds and the sort and the expectation for individuals to defend their family during them. If large ammo deposits were kept in stores, it was most likely due to the fact that the Albanian government stressed thrift and austerity given its limited supplies to the point that it was a popular saying in the armed forces to "Hit the bull's eye with the first bullet."
That obviously didn't stop multiple states from cracking down on communist and black liberation groups regardless faggot. The black panthers were allowed to own the firearms they owned, yet that didn't stop the local law enforcement from barging down their doors in the middle of the night, shooting the people inside, and taking their weapons.
I like how you have this double standard in regards to socialist societies. We can't pass judgement on them or accept the gun ownership that existed because of the predicament they found themselves in, but suddenly we can pass judgement on them in predicaments which require restriction. We can't accept the example of when they have no laws restricting gun ownership due to civil war, but we can accept the example when they have gun restrictions due to the US funding terror cells and counter-revolutionary groups. You accept certain circumstances as legitimate for analysis and others as illegitimate for analysis. Fuck off.
There was no "peacetime" for any socialist state. Preparation for war and conflict was always.
I'm just going to ignore your usage of a capitalist super government (which contains Social Democrats at best) as an example. If we are talking about the "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons", then I believe you forgot to mention the "leftists" from the Czech Republic that occupy the council voted against it. votewatch.eu/en/term8-directive-of-the-european-parliament-and-of-the-council-amending-council-directive-91-477-eec-on-con.html#/##vote_list_tabs_content_2

Attached: aeb2d96b6630af142cb39e777d640d459f022fcde5d2500b366d291f04b7eb3a.jpg (825x635, 57.68K)

So you don't have a source, and the Wiki citation doesn't lead back to any sources, let's assume that gun laws were lax in Albania, as we don't have concrete information regardless.

This is literally one example. While there are a shitton of socialist states that had extremely restrictive gun laws. This is NAXALT at its finest.

Here's the thing: When gun grabs happen by the right, they target a tiny minority. When its by the left, they target the vast majority of its regular citizenry. This is like pointing out Hitler grabbed guns from the commies and jews. No shit, they were an enemy to the state. However the VAST majority of Germans saw far laxer gun laws that was passed by the socialist democrats. Whereas Maoist China, the USSR, Cuba, Vietnam (after the war), Khmer Rogue, etc imposed very strict laws on the vast majority of the populace.

To deny the fact that the it isn't the right-wing who supports gun rights in most of the world is retarded. In Canada, it's the right-wing that supports looser laws, in the UK, it's the UKIP that supports unbanning handguns and semis, in Switzerland, again the right-wing, in Italy, the right-wing just loosened gun laws, in Brazil the same thing. In Germany it's the AfD that supports laxer gun laws. In Austria it's the FPO.

I can go on, and on.

The draconian laws remained well after the world wars. Tell me, why didn't the US impose such restrictions on the vast majority of the populace during the cold war? It also had commie agitators and whatnot. Yet when guns were grabbed as you stated, it targeted tiny groups like the black panthers and communist ones. Not the vast majority of regular citizenry.

Also it's funny how you bring up the Czech Republic. Most of the Czech "leftists" are only left-wing on economics, but easily right-wing on social issues and are quite nationalist. They don't want arabs or nogs in their country for a very good reason.

Lastly, as I originally stated, trusting leftists to uphold gun rights is retarded. Whether or not you want to admit it in almost every nation it's the right-wing parties who support gun rights while the leftist ones stand in opposition be it the fucking socdems, greens, m-l parties, etc. The only example that goes against this is the Czech Republic, and again their "leftists" are quite right-wing socially.

Have the last reply faggot.

than strict ones passed by the socialist democrats

Attached: quote-under-no-pretext-should-arms-and-ammunition-be-surrendered-any-attempt-to-disarm-the-karl-marx-84-63-91.jpg (850x400, 55.52K)

good to know you aren't worth arguing

My source states that everyone owned firearms and that they moved freely in between villages and people, and you tried to counter this by saying "oh but wait, what about the ammunition" with a source which has no link.
So when Hitler targets specific minorities because they are identifiable, this is ok. But when the USSR is forced to pass restrictions because it is dealing with a clandestine threat that is not easily identifiable and can not be easily filtered out, this is not ok? Jeez, I wonder why you would think that.
See above.
That's a bullshit backpedal and you know it. A sizeable portion of those leftists that are from the Czech Republic are DemSoc to boot.
Not only is this grouping a lot of different right-wing groups together, but it's also ignoring that a majority of those governments have literally no communist opposition in their governments. Your only comparison to those right-wing groups are liberals and SocDems. The vast majority of communist groups in the world are pro-gun, but very few of them are in government at all so there really isn't much they can do. Fucking of course communists don't have weight in government, they're barely in any government in the first place.
First, SocDems and greens are not considered on the "left". Second, the number of ML's in government anywhere in the western world I can count on one hand, so I have no idea how they would be able to "stand in opposition". Third, "the Czech Republic might be somewhat left, but here's the reason they really aren't" is not an argument. And fourth, far-right groups supporting ownership for the majority racial/ethnic/ideological group but not for certain minorities is what simplifies their situation given it aligns with their ideology. Communists have no such "luxury" if you can call it that. This is what we mean by saying that your "rights" mean nothing. You'll exclude a portion of the popualtion , and then state "but hey, we gave the right to most people, so it means we support your right to ownership (as long as you fulfill the condition of being the majority ethnic group and support the far-right government)!" It's a duplitious two faced argument that tries to divert the focus away from the intent completely. It tries to move attention away from the reasoning, just like you try to do to communist governments so you can try to pretend those reasons don't matter or that the conditions are parallel to each other. Fuck off your dishonest underhanded bullshit you duplicitous cunt.

I used to be very pro-gun, anti-control, whatever. But now that's so obviously dumb with all the Orwellian "mass shooter drill" hysteria going on, drilling the population for a massive police state that they will be coaxed into believing is necessary, I would be fine with it. Anyone who thinks that you've made progress just because you've bought a gun and ammunition is a bit of a LARPer who shares the same fetishization of firearms as the right-wing militias or Nazis that think if they display their cool outfits enough it's a positive for the movement. I don't think so. People really don't give a shit until you start looking like an army, open-carry* firearms draw negative attention, and overall it's just not where the masses are at. Security for demonstrations and whatever, fine.

Daily reminder that Fred Hampton's BPP chapter made an explicit attempt at trying to shrug off their "armed" image during their massive growth in Chicago.

Why do liberals think the police are going to protect them?
Armed community defense >> police, especially for marginalized people because they are just as likely to get shot by cops as their assailants.
Chicago is gae.

A revolution is not a dinner party.
-also Mao

I honestly think gun control as an issue is directly related to how close you are to a major metropolitan center. There's a real psychological impact on a community that large, the vast majority of people you pass on the street you will never utter another word to in your life or even ever lay eyes on again, there's a fundamental lack of trust there and most people would probably just rather everyone be under the boot than worry about everyone they pass on the street.

Except you can literally already do that

You can still get a gun under gun control dweeb. When has crime ever gone down, or police brutality for that matter, ever gone down because the black community had more guns? It's a fetishization of the firearm that has zero gumption in the strategic reality that not all force has to be applied by guns, and very frequently, premature armed violence and fetishization has spelt the death of several U.S. left-wing movements.

atleast it makes you look cool, shutup user.

hi fbi

I mean, it has objectively reduced the rate of certain crimes and there is no proof it raises the total actual homicide rate higher than it already was, and in some studies it has in fact reduces it. Also, the police brutality argument it retarded. What, do you think the police will suddenly STOP being brutal if we have less firearms? Fuck off with that shit.

more lefties with guns, less righties with guns.

as long as the opposition promises not to skin prisoners alive i will fight in the revolution i swear no jokey dokey

You left out suicide which I think is the largest cause of gun death after gang members killing each other.

link a single source for this. almost all communist regimes had strict gun laws. albania is an exception.

The communists in Canada are against further gun control, with the caveat being that authority figures in all branches of government (police, military enforcement, teachers, etc.) should be less armed.
The ICFI is against gun control and have been highly critical of the Democrats attempt to implement it
The League for the Fourth International is against gun control and wrote an article criticizing those who call themselves socialist and stand for it
On that topic the, the CPUSA (which is largely agknowledged as a CIA run honeypot) stated they're in support for gun control a while back which caused them to receive flak from nearly every communist group of every tendency in the US. So you try to sort that one out.
The PSL, despite being garbage most of the time, are against gun control because they see I told as targeting minority groups mostly and not addressing the core issues behind gun violence. The rest of their reasoning is what you'd expect of the PSL, but they do go as far as being against background check, which is more then you can say for most conservative groups.
To say that that the PFLP or the RPCP in Palestine are for gun control is laughable. TBH, to say any armed middle eastern communist group is for gun control is laughable, but someone who knows more about the entire region may know of a few.
We've already been over the communist groups in the Czech Republic.

And on the topic of "all regimes", there is no actual proof Mao banned or resticted public gun ownership during his term at all and no such laws resticting them exist. Guns were only confiscated from the public under Deng.

If you're an american it really doesn't matter either way. The two sides of the debate are white vigilantes itching to kill communists or letting fascist police and military have a monopoly on violence. We'll always be outgunned until like, america is occupied by a foreign power or something.

Holy fuck, gun nuts really need to stop trying to pretend their psycopathy is serious politics.
Seriously, why the fuck do you care? It's just using guns for an actual purpose. Next you're gonna cry that not being able to own a train because they're used for collectivist judeo-bolshevik public transportation is totalitarian.

Attached: workers take rifle.jpg (660x880, 105.32K)

and what about when technology makes firearms obsolete? way more destruction can be achieved with directed energy weapons.. arms are not the problem

I see no reason to keep legal guns around. I'll never have to worry about someone busting into my house, since I'm not a fucking schizo.
The guns we need are best managed in the hands of surreptitious militia.

just do what albania did and give everyone a gun and tell them that if they commit a mass shooting their bodies will be buried along their victims, no blood feuds will ever happen

this is just stupid.