Should Authoritarian Socialists be Pro Gun

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Yeah but I like my odds better when I and my attacker are both armed vs when I’m disarmed and my attacker has a knife. I at least have a chance in the former but have no chance in the latter.

A level playing field is worse than one which benefits the criminal?

I believe he was saying the exact opposite of that if I understood him correctly.

[Telconi]

A level playing field is worse than one which benefits the criminal?

I believe he was saying the exact opposite of that if I understood him correctly.

That was intended to be a reply to the post Ors was replying to. The idea that a criminal with a gun is somehow more dangerous to a would-be victim with a gun than said criminal if both were unarmed is highly unlikely.

[Tobleste]

Fair enough but the attacker can use them to level the playing field as well.

Yeah but I like my odds better when I and my attacker are both armed vs when I’m disarmed and my attacker has a knife. I at least have a chance in the former but have no chance in the latter.

And if your attacker is armed and you're not or your attacker has drawn their gun and you haven't?

[Ors Might]

Yeah but I like my odds better when I and my attacker are both armed vs when I’m disarmed and my attacker has a knife. I at least have a chance in the former but have no chance in the latter.

And if your attacker is armed and you're not or your attacker has drawn their gun and you haven't?

And if my attacker has a knife and I have nothing? In all of these scenarios, I am best able to protect myself when I have a gun. Firearm ownership maximizes my defensive ability while not having a firearm reduces it significantly.

[Bear Stearns]

Highly likely a socialist revolution in America veers off course and becomes a racial war pretty quickly, with peace only brought through foreign invasion.

[Tobleste]

And if your attacker is armed and you're not or your attacker has drawn their gun and you haven't?

And if my attacker has a knife and I have nothing? In all of these scenarios, I am best able to protect myself when I have a gun. Firearm ownership maximizes my defensive ability while not having a firearm reduces it significantly.

And by the same token, your opponent having a gun maximises your chances of being killed and them not having one reduces it significantly.

For emotional and cultural reasons, you want guns. That's it. Every other country gets by fine without guns and they're no less democratic or crime ridden than America. Quite the opposite if anything. There's no logical reason for your attachment to guns. You just want them.

[Telconi]

All people should be pro-gun for a simple reason:

Revolution.

Socialism is Revolution.

Revolution is Liberty.

Liberty is Justice.

Guns ensure our Safety and Liberty, and help us with Socialist Revolution, or Revolution against Trump or Republican Dictators if need be.

That said I'm looking into Gun Control, trying to find a solution that has gun control but makes it so we can still have guns when the time to overthrow Tyrants or a System arises. Thus my position may change, but this is my current view.

Gun control is the total antithesis of of the expressed idea.

[Communal concils]

I think being pro-gun is essential. There is no reason for socialist like myself to reject this. We are pro-gun, as long as the people with the guns support us.

[Nova Cyberia]

And if my attacker has a knife and I have nothing? In all of these scenarios, I am best able to protect myself when I have a gun. Firearm ownership maximizes my defensive ability while not having a firearm reduces it significantly.

And by the same token, your opponent having a gun maximises your chances of being killed and them not having one reduces it significantly.

For emotional and cultural reasons, you want guns. That's it. Every other country gets by fine without guns and they're no less democratic or crime ridden than America. Quite the opposite if anything. There's no logical reason for your attachment to guns. You just want them.

Ah, yes, now continue to slowly lick the boot.

[Blueflarst]

''To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.''

[Side 3]

Of course authoritarian socialists, and authoritarians in general, should have guns! It would make shooting them much easier, because then you don't have to feel bad about them being unarmed!

[Ors Might]

And if my attacker has a knife and I have nothing? In all of these scenarios, I am best able to protect myself when I have a gun. Firearm ownership maximizes my defensive ability while not having a firearm reduces it significantly.

And by the same token, your opponent having a gun maximises your chances of being killed and them not having one reduces it significantly.

For emotional and cultural reasons, you want guns. That's it. Every other country gets by fine without guns and they're no less democratic or crime ridden than America. Quite the opposite if anything. There's no logical reason for your attachment to guns. You just want them.

..yes and me having a gun maximizes my ability to defend myself, regardless of what my opponent has. If my opponent is physically superior to me, then us both being disarmed does me no favors in regards to the end result. That’s what you seem incapable of understanding.

Those people that’ve defended themselves from unarmed attackers with guns would disagree. But who gives a fuck about their lives, right?

[Tobleste]

And by the same token, your opponent having a gun maximises your chances of being killed and them not having one reduces it significantly.

For emotional and cultural reasons, you want guns. That's it. Every other country gets by fine without guns and they're no less democratic or crime ridden than America. Quite the opposite if anything. There's no logical reason for your attachment to guns. You just want them.

..yes and me having a gun maximizes my ability to defend myself, regardless of what my opponent has. If my opponent is physically superior to me, then us both being disarmed does me no favors in regards to the end result. That’s what you seem incapable of understanding.

Those people that’ve defended themselves from unarmed attackers with guns would disagree. But who gives a fuck about their lives, right?

I'm not incapable of understanding it. I'm just incapable of seeing how it's important. If your opponent has a gun, you having an APC maximises your ability to defend yourself. If your opponent has one, you having a tank maximises your ability to defend yourself. If your opponent has a rock, you having a cruise missile maximises your ability to defend yourself. Following your logic, every person is entitled to what best allows them to defend yourself which would be the most powerful weapon available. If guns are common, you can best defend yourself with something more dangerous. It's just constant escalation which constantly increases the risk of an accident that kills someone or of a weapon falling into the wrong hands. Your logic makes sense if your right to have the ability to kill someone comes before the good of the community as a whole which is the logic that prevails among American gun advocates. All because you're afraid of a big man beating you up, you want a country where everyone participates in a Mexican stand off and anyone that doesn't is endangering themselves.

Those unarmed people that die from guns easily acquired by those unfit to carry them would disagree with you but who gives a fuck about their lives right?

[Maydona]

I'm what you'd consider an "authoritarian socialist" (whatever that means) and yes I'm pro gun, Marx himself even said "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated by force if necessary."

Of course authoritarian socialists, and authoritarians in general, should have guns! It would make shooting them much easier, because then you don't have to feel bad about them being unarmed!

Who needs guns when you can drop a space colony on Earth!

[Ors Might]

..yes and me having a gun maximizes my ability to defend myself, regardless of what my opponent has. If my opponent is physically superior to me, then us both being disarmed does me no favors in regards to the end result. That’s what you seem incapable of understanding.

Those people that’ve defended themselves from unarmed attackers with guns would disagree. But who gives a fuck about their lives, right?

I'm not incapable of understanding it. I'm just incapable of seeing how it's important. If your opponent has a gun, you having an APC maximises your ability to defend yourself. If your opponent has one, you having a tank maximises your ability to defend yourself. If your opponent has a rock, you having a cruise missile maximises your ability to defend yourself. Following your logic, every person is entitled to what best allows them to defend yourself which would be the most powerful weapon available. If guns are common, you can best defend yourself with something more dangerous. It's just constant escalation which constantly increases the risk of an accident that kills someone or of a weapon falling into the wrong hands. Your logic makes sense if your right to have the ability to kill someone comes before the good of the community as a whole which is the logic that prevails among American gun advocates. All because you're afraid of a big man beating you up, you want a country where everyone participates in a Mexican stand off and anyone that doesn't is endangering themselves.

Those unarmed people that die from guns easily acquired by those unfit to carry them would disagree with you but who gives a fuck about their lives right?

The most powerful weapon available is not the best weapon for self protection. Nuclear warheads and explosives are shit for self defense. Guns are relatively useful for self defense. I also like how you dismiss my fears of being attacked and killed, given the very real possibikity of sexual minorities being targeted in my state.

Certainly not you, considering how fucking silent you are when the victim was killed with a knife.

[Big Jim P]

I think being pro-gun is essential. There is no reason for socialist like myself to reject this. We are pro-gun, as long as the people with the guns support us.

You just don't want those who would use gun to defend themselves against you to have them. We know this already.

[Leninist Haven]

I'm what you'd consider an "authoritarian socialist" (whatever that means) and yes I'm pro gun, Marx himself even said "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated by force if necessary."

I'm an authoritarian socialist, and I'm incredibly pro-take them all away 100%. I find the logic of them being useful in revolution as being too idealistic. The weapons available to the military of a nation will stop any MODERN revolution in its tracks (at least concerning the first and second world nations... I can't comment on third world). A revolution starting in modern day Petrograd, if it got wayyyyy out of hand, would just be nuked. It seems crazy, but a dictator is willing to do anything in my opinion to not get thrown to the revolution (death). Even if a modern revolution did succeed, it'd just result in the mass destruction of the nation and allow easy foreign invasion. Plus, I can't see it garnering enough support in the modern day to do anything but wipe our numbers.

Then again, my take is extremely cynical.

[The New California Republic]

I'm an authoritarian socialist, and I'm incredibly pro-take them all away 100%.

100% removal of all guns from a socialist society is an incredibly stupid idea, as there would be nothing to defend the revolution with...

I find the logic of them being useful in revolution as being too idealistic.

How is it idealistic? Force of arms is an incredibly powerful tool.

The weapons available to the military of a nation will stop any MODERN revolution in its tracks.

Nonsense. There have been plenty of revolutions in the modern era.

A revolution starting in modern day Petrograd, if it got wayyyyy out of hand, would just be nuked.

There is absolutely no evidence that would be the case.

Then again, my take is extremely cynical.

And also wrong.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I think being pro-gun is essential. There is no reason for socialist like myself to reject this. We are pro-gun, as long as the people with the guns support us.

You just don't want those who would use gun to defend themselves against you to have them. We know this already.

Time to establish some anti-communist underground militias.

[The New California Republic]

I think being pro-gun is essential. There is no reason for socialist like myself to reject this. We are pro-gun, as long as the people with the guns support us.

You just don't want those who would use gun to defend themselves against you to have them. We know this already.

Like people who don't want sex banned, for example...

[Icelandic Military Junta]

You just don't want those who would use gun to defend themselves against you to have them. We know this already.

Like people who don't want sex banned, for example...

It is common sense that you don't want people who want you dead armed.

But you know what selective armament is called? Yeah, that's just discrimination for the sake of political power and could be considered hypocritical. What with "You can defend Socialism but not yourself you Revisionist Reactionary". And that's just pretty damn wrong for a supposedly egalitarian ideology.

[The New California Republic]

Like people who don't want sex banned, for example...

It is common sense that you don't want people who want you dead armed.

It's not that they want anyone dead, they just don't want to be forced into a state of celibacy...

[Leninist Haven]

I'm an authoritarian socialist, and I'm incredibly pro-take them all away 100%.

100% removal of all guns from a socialist society is an incredibly stupid idea, as there would be nothing to defend the revolution with...

Since this is just my point to begin with, I don't think I need to write anything here? I hope my remarks further explain my overall argument (this) in a more clear manner.

I find the logic of them being useful in revolution as being too idealistic.

How is it idealistic? Force of arms is an incredibly powerful tool.

I also defend this point later, which you address instantly thereafter.

The weapons available to the military of a nation will stop any MODERN revolution in its tracks.

Nonsense. There have been plenty of revolutions in the modern era.

Such as...? To my knowledge, there haven't been revolutions in the USA, The Russian Federation, the PRC, France, Britain, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Poland... Where have they been, exactly, in the first or second world?

A revolution starting in modern day Petrograd, if it got wayyyyy out of hand, would just be nuked.

There is absolutely no evidence that would be the case.

I stated this based on my view of "I'd rather do anything it takes to survive than risk my death at the hands of the revolution," which shouldn't require evidence? It is a hypothetical as it is... It is merely extrapolation from personal bias... Hence "cynical" approach.

Then again, my take is extremely cynical.

And also wrong.

I struggle to make counter-arguments to your counter-arguments, mostly because I truthfully don't see any (minus the "there are modern revolutions point," to which I'd honestly ask that you enlighten me).

[Risastorstein]

I don't understand why you need to be pro-gun if you are a revolutionary socialist. Gun ownership being legal or not won't change the fact that your revolution will be illegal.

[The New California Republic]

100% removal of all guns from a socialist society is an incredibly stupid idea, as there would be nothing to defend the revolution with...

Since this is just my point to begin with, I don't think I need to write anything here?

So you don't want anything to defend the revolution with...? So you want the revolution to fail...?

Nonsense. There have been plenty of revolutions in the modern era.

Such as...?

Romania in 89 for one.