The former Soviet Union established gun control in 1929 and as a result, Stalin’s government killed 40 million Soviets. This is a clear example of how gun control can be used to oppress a population and take away their right to self-defense.
This is going over a lot better than when I said it, in progressivepolitics@lemmy.world no less. What a difference a month makes these days, I suppose.
There are 12 downvotes that I guess your instance/client doesn’t show, making it a 2:1 up/down ratio. Sure it’s not downvote oblivion, but much less favorable than here, as I said, in the “progressive” politics community, to boot. I also know at least a few people upped it when I posted the above comment.
I would fuck with that sub Lemmy. I got into an argument and they deleted every single comment I made in another separate post, even though it was at +14. Idk if they’re tankies or punks, but they both quacking to me.
Just because an idea is old doesn’t make it valid either.
See for example:
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.
I don’t think being anti-gun makes one not an actual leftist.
Sure, Marx wrote that stuff in Resplendent606’s comment, but:
I think it’s worth bearing in mind that when Marx wrote that, guns were still using powder and percussion caps.
Not everything Marx said was gospel.
Anyone not in favour of recreational nukes is in agreement that there should be a limit on the amount of lethal force a person should be allowed to own, and I think reasonable people can disagree on whether or not guns are within that limit.
I think it’s worth bearing in mind that when Marx wrote that, guns were still using powder and percussion caps.
The Gatling Gun predates came out a 5 years before Das Kapital. Sure arms hadn’t had the revolution they’d get during WW1 yet, but they were plenty capable.
EDIT: Not all points. The guy here making a good point about “defending” his immigrant wife isn’t covered by the comedian. It isn’t really defence, it is suicidal pre-emptive vengeance - still valid though.
How exactly should we enforce the rule of no recreational nukes? It typically comes down to shooting the guy trying to get a nuke - so by who, then? I don’t think it’s reasonable to conclude the existence of nukes dooms us to a state forever.
I think it’s worth bearing in mind that when Marx wrote that, guns were still using powder and percussion caps.
More importantly than that, there were no machine guns, no tanks, no airplanes, no helicopters, no guided missiles, no rockets, no cluster bombs, no satellites, no drones, etc.
The quote is from Marx’s address to the communist league in 1850, so approximately the time of the US civil war. This was a time where the most powerful weapon of war was the cannon. Most cannons at that time were smoothbore breech loaded weapons. They were slow to load and inaccurate. In WWII up to 75% of all casualties were the result of artillery, but in the civil war it was only 12% of all casualties.
Aside from cannons, everything else was weapons carried by individual soldiers. Grenades sort-of existed at the time, but were very unreliable, and very difficult to use. So, it all came down to individual soldiers and their muskets.
Also, consider that in the 1850s a professional standing army was rare. At the peak of the US civil war there were 700,000 soldiers on the Union side, but it started with only 18,000 soldiers. That means that in wars during Marx’s time, most soldiers were conscripts or newly recruited and barely trained.
All that to say that in Marx’s time, it might have been possible for civilians armed with personal weapons to take on a government and win an armed conflict. The “proletariat” army would more or less be on an even footing with the army of the state / bourgeoisie. They’d have more or less the same weapons and the same level of training. The only thing they wouldn’t have would be the slow, inaccurate and unreliable cannons that were more scary than effective. But, presumably they could more than make up for that in sheer manpower.
Finally, even though it probably didn’t matter to Marx, consider what having a gun at home would mean in the 1850s. If an intruder comes and breaks into your house, are you going to defend your property with your musket? Probably not. It takes minutes to load and once fired, minutes more to reload. Are you going to use your musket in a “road rage” incident while riding your cart to market? Probably not. Were there mass shootings by musket? Of course not. Were there homicides and suicides? I don’t know, but I assume it happened occasionally, but it was a very different weapon back then.
Marx was concerned with the great forces of history, so he probably wasn’t the type of person who was going to consider the negative consequences of firearms lying around the house. But, even if he had considered it, back in the 1850s having a musket at home probably wasn’t a major danger to the household or to society at large.
So, let’s say what Marx said was gospel. Even in that case, it was gospel for the 1850s. What would a modern-day Marx say about things today? Maybe a modern-day Marx would say that modern standing armies are so overwhelmingly powerful that it’s pointless to pretend that they can be beaten by civilians with small arms and no training. Maybe he’d take lessons from Gandhi and MLK and suggest non-violent resistance. Or, maybe he’d be a prepper and suggest that civilians stash grenades, machine guns, rocket launchers, etc. But, IMO, his advice probably wouldn’t be that civilians just have muskets (or their modern day equivalents) because he’d have to know that in the modern world a bunch of untrained dudes with AR-15s isn’t going to win against the US military.
Actual leftists have always been pro gun though…
Yes, Karl Marx wrote:
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”
“To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party [bourgeois], the workers must be armed and organized.”
Followed shortly after by:
https://www.dictatorbaron.com/did-joseph-stalin-ban-guns/
And then they call everyone else revisionist
You think Stalin wouldn’t have killed all these people if they had guns?
law enforcers tend to be cowards. an armed community is harder to oppress
What?
Like…
I legitimately don’t know what you’re trying to say or why it’s relevant.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
“…and as a result…”
Read your own pull quote.
This is going over a lot better than when I said it, in progressivepolitics@lemmy.world no less. What a difference a month makes these days, I suppose.
https://sh.itjust.works/comment/19935457
You have 16 upvotes there though.
There are 12 downvotes that I guess your instance/client doesn’t show, making it a 2:1 up/down ratio. Sure it’s not downvote oblivion, but much less favorable than here, as I said, in the “progressive” politics community, to boot. I also know at least a few people upped it when I posted the above comment.
I would fuck with that sub Lemmy. I got into an argument and they deleted every single comment I made in another separate post, even though it was at +14. Idk if they’re tankies or punks, but they both quacking to me.
Sage advice… for the 1850s.
deleted by creator
Just because an idea is old doesn’t make it valid either.
See for example:
deleted by creator
No, I said: “Sage advice… for the 1850s.”
Whether it’s currently sage advice is debatable.
Like, I’m all for gun laws. But unfortunately a lot of crazy shit is legal, and a lot of people are crazy.
Prepare for the world you live in, not what you think it should be like.
That is an amazing way of wording a sentiment I’ve had for a long time
I don’t think being anti-gun makes one not an actual leftist.
Sure, Marx wrote that stuff in Resplendent606’s comment, but:
Anyone not in favour of recreational nukes is in agreement that there should be a limit on the amount of lethal force a person should be allowed to own, and I think reasonable people can disagree on whether or not guns are within that limit.
The Gatling Gun predates came out a 5 years before Das Kapital. Sure arms hadn’t had the revolution they’d get during WW1 yet, but they were plenty capable.
The quotes from Marx about guns were from 1850, before even the widespread adoption of the metallic cartridge.
Aussie Comedian Jim Jefferies in Boston dissing US gun obsession. He covers all the points in our thread.
Part 1
Part 2
EDIT: Not all points. The guy here making a good point about “defending” his immigrant wife isn’t covered by the comedian. It isn’t really defence, it is suicidal pre-emptive vengeance - still valid though.
The ICE raids were unimaginable at the time.
How exactly should we enforce the rule of no recreational nukes? It typically comes down to shooting the guy trying to get a nuke - so by who, then? I don’t think it’s reasonable to conclude the existence of nukes dooms us to a state forever.
I personally don’t believe a non-anprim stateless society is feasible so I wouldn’t know.
More importantly than that, there were no machine guns, no tanks, no airplanes, no helicopters, no guided missiles, no rockets, no cluster bombs, no satellites, no drones, etc.
The quote is from Marx’s address to the communist league in 1850, so approximately the time of the US civil war. This was a time where the most powerful weapon of war was the cannon. Most cannons at that time were smoothbore breech loaded weapons. They were slow to load and inaccurate. In WWII up to 75% of all casualties were the result of artillery, but in the civil war it was only 12% of all casualties.
Aside from cannons, everything else was weapons carried by individual soldiers. Grenades sort-of existed at the time, but were very unreliable, and very difficult to use. So, it all came down to individual soldiers and their muskets.
Also, consider that in the 1850s a professional standing army was rare. At the peak of the US civil war there were 700,000 soldiers on the Union side, but it started with only 18,000 soldiers. That means that in wars during Marx’s time, most soldiers were conscripts or newly recruited and barely trained.
All that to say that in Marx’s time, it might have been possible for civilians armed with personal weapons to take on a government and win an armed conflict. The “proletariat” army would more or less be on an even footing with the army of the state / bourgeoisie. They’d have more or less the same weapons and the same level of training. The only thing they wouldn’t have would be the slow, inaccurate and unreliable cannons that were more scary than effective. But, presumably they could more than make up for that in sheer manpower.
Finally, even though it probably didn’t matter to Marx, consider what having a gun at home would mean in the 1850s. If an intruder comes and breaks into your house, are you going to defend your property with your musket? Probably not. It takes minutes to load and once fired, minutes more to reload. Are you going to use your musket in a “road rage” incident while riding your cart to market? Probably not. Were there mass shootings by musket? Of course not. Were there homicides and suicides? I don’t know, but I assume it happened occasionally, but it was a very different weapon back then.
Marx was concerned with the great forces of history, so he probably wasn’t the type of person who was going to consider the negative consequences of firearms lying around the house. But, even if he had considered it, back in the 1850s having a musket at home probably wasn’t a major danger to the household or to society at large.
So, let’s say what Marx said was gospel. Even in that case, it was gospel for the 1850s. What would a modern-day Marx say about things today? Maybe a modern-day Marx would say that modern standing armies are so overwhelmingly powerful that it’s pointless to pretend that they can be beaten by civilians with small arms and no training. Maybe he’d take lessons from Gandhi and MLK and suggest non-violent resistance. Or, maybe he’d be a prepper and suggest that civilians stash grenades, machine guns, rocket launchers, etc. But, IMO, his advice probably wouldn’t be that civilians just have muskets (or their modern day equivalents) because he’d have to know that in the modern world a bunch of untrained dudes with AR-15s isn’t going to win against the US military.
deleted by creator
No, I’m saying that what was possible for a bunch of civilians in the 1850s may not be possible today.
Which one of those is a war where a force of civilians defeated a well trained and equipped modern military?