Should Authoritarian Socialists be Pro Gun

[Soviet Tankistan]

Only the government should have guns.

You would have to centralize a lot of things to monitor possession and use of guns. That would cause negative effects while not being useful as anything.

[Telconi]

Everyone should be, and authoritarian socialists are part of everyone.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Everyone should be, and authoritarian socialists are part of everyone.

Even the primitivists?

[Thermodolia]

Everyone should be, and authoritarian socialists are part of everyone.

Even the primitivists?

They wouldn’t be primitivists if they used a gun. Hell they don’t even follow their own ideology now

[Thermodolia]

Only the government should have guns.

Fuck that

[Kowani]

Nobody should have guns. Failing that, the ability of the populace to access guns should be limited, both through legislation and enforcement, including ending the black market.

[Thermodolia]

Nobody should have guns. Failing that, the ability of the populace to access guns should be limited, both through legislation and enforcement, including ending the black market.

Ya no. Arm the workers.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Nobody should have guns. Failing that, the ability of the populace to access guns should be limited, both through legislation and enforcement, including ending the black market.

This is preposterous and uninformed. One does not simply end the black market by using more police. Countries like America spend lots of money stopping illegal shipments into the states. They can’t do any better without starting serious economic problems that would result from the expense and time used. The main way they could limit the black market is focusing on the illegal and suspicious activities of legitimate corporations. Restricting guns can grow the black market, as the black market is not fit for an average consumer compared to the legal market. Giving people guns and making sure those guns are used correctly is the best way crime can be curbed.

[Kowani]

Nobody should have guns. Failing that, the ability of the populace to access guns should be limited, both through legislation and enforcement, including ending the black market.

Ya no. Arm the workers.

This is only desirable if your end goal is socialism, which mine is not.

Nobody should have guns. Failing that, the ability of the populace to access guns should be limited, both through legislation and enforcement, including ending the black market.

This is preposterous and uninformed. One does not simply end the black market by using more police. Countries like America spend lots of money stopping illegal shipments into the states. They can’t do any better without starting serious economic problems that would result from the expense and time used. The main way they could limit the black market is focusing on the illegal and suspicious activities of legitimate corporations. Restricting guns can grow the black market, as the black market is not fit for an average consumer compared to the legal market. Giving people guns and making sure those guns are used correctly is the best way crime can be curbed.

Good thing I didn’t advocate just using more police then, huh? The best way to stop gun crime-and crime in general, really, is to eliminate the circumstances that bring about crime in the first place.

[Telconi]

Nobody should have guns. Failing that, the ability of the populace to access guns should be limited, both through legislation and enforcement, including ending the black market.

Alternatively, everyone should have guns, because being an oppressive monster is bad.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Nobody should have guns. Failing that, the ability of the populace to access guns should be limited, both through legislation and enforcement, including ending the black market.

The state must have guns. So you can let the general population have guns or you can directly privilege the government over its people.

[Hladgos]

As a less authoritative pseudo-socialist, I don't even know what they should be but I'm pro gum, yup.

[Kowani]

Nobody should have guns. Failing that, the ability of the populace to access guns should be limited, both through legislation and enforcement, including ending the black market.

Alternatively, everyone should have guns, because being an oppressive monster is bad.

Nice value judgement. But no.

Nobody should have guns. Failing that, the ability of the populace to access guns should be limited, both through legislation and enforcement, including ending the black market.

The state must have guns. So you can let the general population have guns or you can directly privilege the government over its people.

Well I said should. I also advocate a singular world state, so not much need for a military. If the people are unarmed, there is no reason for the state to be armed.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Well I said should. I also advocate a singular world state, so not much need for a military. If the people are unarmed, there is no reason for the state to be armed.

But the people will never be unarmed, especially as technology keeps getting better.

Shit even with everything we have now I could pretty reliably have you pumping out homemade machine guns in a few weeks if you're already decent with machine tools.

[Wawakanatote]

Most people in the anglophone at least do have a problem with a large degree of authoritarianism

I take those concerns like I take NS stats - with a grain of salt.

Most of them benefit off of heavily authoritarian actions of their countries in the third world with a large portion of them either not caring or actively praising their governments for what they do. They are mostly just a group of hypocritical liberal fetishizers.

Of course not all of them are like this, but that hardly matters too much when the same type of people keep representing them year in and year out.

[Kowani]

Well I said should. I also advocate a singular world state, so not much need for a military. If the people are unarmed, there is no reason for the state to be armed.

But the people will never be unarmed, especially as technology keeps getting better.

Shit even with everything we have now I could pretty reliably have you pumping out homemade machine guns in a few weeks if you're already decent with machine tools.

What need will people have if a weapon if the world is safe?

[Washington Resistance Army]

But the people will never be unarmed, especially as technology keeps getting better.

Shit even with everything we have now I could pretty reliably have you pumping out homemade machine guns in a few weeks if you're already decent with machine tools.

What need will people have if a weapon if the world is safe?

It's farcical, and tbh exceedingly dangerous, to assume the world will ever be safe. As long as two different people exist there's a chance one will try to harm the other for whatever reason.

[Lanorth]

Probably. Big emphasis on the word.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Alternatively, everyone should have guns, because being an oppressive monster is bad.

Nice value judgement. But no.

The state must have guns. So you can let the general population have guns or you can directly privilege the government over its people.

Well I said should. I also advocate a singular world state, so not much need for a military. If the people are unarmed, there is no reason for the state to be armed.

what you are suggesting appears to be that if everyone was completely unarmed, there would be no need for arms. Firstly, I doubt that's possible unless you can effectively delete all weaponry from existence. Secondly, firearms are the only method of self-defense that physically weak people have against physically strong aggressors. Firearms are an equalizer in that regard.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Most people in the anglophone at least do have a problem with a large degree of authoritarianism

I take those concerns like I take NS stats - with a grain of salt.

Most of them benefit off of heavily authoritarian actions of their countries in the third world with a large portion of them either not caring or actively praising their governments for what they do. They are mostly just a group of hypocritical liberal fetishizers.

Of course not all of them are like this, but that hardly matters too much when the same type of people keep representing them year in and year out.

Most people either don't know about those actions or disapprove of them.

[Kowani]

What need will people have if a weapon if the world is safe?

It's farcical, and tbh exceedingly dangerous, to assume the world will ever be safe. As long as two different people exist there's a chance one will try to harm the other for whatever reason.

And if they both have guns, then the chance of serious harm goes up.

Nice value judgement. But no.


Well I said should. I also advocate a singular world state, so not much need for a military. If the people are unarmed, there is no reason for the state to be armed.

what you are suggesting appears to be that if everyone was completely unarmed, there would be no need for arms. Firstly, I doubt that's possible unless you can effectively delete all weaponry from existence. Secondly, firearms are the only method of self-defense that physically weak people have against physically strong aggressors. Firearms are an equalizer in that regard.

Not my position, but I can see how it would be read that way. Rather, the eradication of the needs for those arms leads to people laying them down.
Tell me again how well that worked out for Chicago.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Not my position, but I can see how it would be read that way. Rather, the eradication of the needs for those arms leads to people laying them down.

I highly doubt we will ever fully eradicate the need for arms, as we will always have a need for self-defense as long as crime remains.

Tell me again how well that worked out for Chicago.

Probably better than it would have if there were no guns.

[Kowani]

Not my position, but I can see how it would be read that way. Rather, the eradication of the needs for those arms leads to people laying them down.

I highly doubt we will ever fully eradicate the need for arms, as we will always have a need for self-defense as long as crime remains.

Eradicate the need for crime.

Tell me again how well that worked out for Chicago.

Probably better than it would have if there were no guns.

No. For one thing, no gang wars.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Eradicate the need for crime.

Completely impossible. Twisted people will always exist.

No. For one thing, no gang wars.

There would still be gang wars. They just wouldn't use guns.

[Kowani]

Eradicate the need for crime.

Completely impossible. Twisted people will always exist.

But the number of overall crimes and the damage done will drop radically.

No. For one thing, no gang wars.

There would still be gang wars. They just wouldn't use guns.

And this they would be far less devastating.