I'm glad you're weighing in on this, Joe. Gun politics are so hard, and socialists need to be more involved in the debate. I agree with your starting principles but I worry that a ban on handguns will only fuel a violent black market, just like Prohibition in the 1920s and the War on Drugs today, but only with guns. And while I like the spirit of armories for the oppressed, I can't see that as a realistic entrypoint into the debate today. I've written a number of articles on gun politics, most recently a piece last year in Truthout, where I try to lay out some proposals of my own. They're more tentative and vague than the ones you lay out here, which is both good and bad, I think. Check it out and let me know what you think! https://truthout.org/articles/socialists-need-an-independent-approach-to-gun-violence/
Thanks Danny! You raise some good points. I think the "black market" issue is a serious issue, especially in the short term following any handgun ban. The reason I don't see it escalating to the level of a prohibition-era bootlegging or a modern day cartel is that guns are very hard to make, as opposed to alcohol and drugs. The US supplies most of the worlds guns, so if it became illegal to make them, they would have to get them from Russia, Israel, or Austria (other top producers). I think that would be very difficult to do, in the long-run.
I'll check out your truthout piece. Thanks for sharing!
You make a good point about gun production but cocaine and heroin aren't so easy to make either. They involve international supply chains that involve farmers, factories, and global transportation networks. But they get here because there's a demand that makes is profitable. Guns, like it or not, have a very high demand in this country, both for reasons of personal safety and militaristic culture and a zillion things between. That's why I think there's no way around dealing with our culture of gun worship (which is just as much about the police and military as the NRA). But that's super vague and doesn't address the feeling that "something must be done" after every incident like Nashville, unfortunately :(
It's really sad. I actually heard the news about Nashville while I was writing this. I hesitate to comment on stuff before all the facts are known, but I think most Americans agree that something must change.
Joe, what about the non-oppressed? Do they get to have armories? Who controls them? Who determines which groups get to be armed? I fear your plan succeeds only in reallocating oppression, not reducing it.
Ideally, what I would like to see is a return to the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment - well regulated militias for states, cities, towns, etc. This was common practice up until the 1920s, when the state militias were incorporated into National Guards with oversight from the Federal Government, essentially making them just another federal army.
Like most things, its going to require some balance. Just as countries (including the US) deem groups legitimate political parties or terrorist orgs, we can do so domestically. For example, I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at groups like the KKK, with their history of terrorist violence, and decide they should not allowed to be armed. This is very similar to how we treat individuals, as even the most pro-gun Republicans don't think convicted violent felons should be able to get a gun.
But Joe, that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment makes it a nullity. The point of the 2nd, even if you don't believe it secures an individual right, is to ensure that the national government doesn't have a monopoly on arms.
As to the last paragraph in your response, groups like the KKK are not armed. Only people are armed. If the government can say that no members of the KKK can be armed, why not members of the DSA as well? Remember that during the post war era people's careers were ruined simply for being members of the Communist Party, even if they themselves were law abiding. I would be very hesitant to give any government the power to outlaw groups.
I should note the "armed group" policy is something we are very far away from. You are correct in that our current government, which is extremely right wing and Capitalist, would absolutely attempt to disarm DSA while allowing the KKK/Proud Boys to hold weapons. (Tucker Carlson had a speech about how trans activists should be disarmed the other night.)
What I'm presenting is really an ideal goal that we should strive for. That is to say, this system would work very well if the US government was entirely democratic and not controlled by Capitalist interests.
But as for the 2 rules, I think those should be the central pillars of any gun control policy.
Very true! Which is why we need complete and total democracy, in both the political and economic realms. Only this will ensure leaders don't become tyrants.
But to say we shouldn't give any government, even one that is controlled democratically, the ability to regulate and make decisions sounds like a slippery slope argument. I tend to find slippery slope arguments unpersuasive, as they don't acknowledge that people have judgement and are able to make rationale decisions.
This is an oversimplification, but people are able to look at two groups: One a Synagogue, and the other a Neo-Nazi org, and decide that it is okay for one of those groups to be armed while the other should not. Just my thought.
I'm glad you're weighing in on this, Joe. Gun politics are so hard, and socialists need to be more involved in the debate. I agree with your starting principles but I worry that a ban on handguns will only fuel a violent black market, just like Prohibition in the 1920s and the War on Drugs today, but only with guns. And while I like the spirit of armories for the oppressed, I can't see that as a realistic entrypoint into the debate today. I've written a number of articles on gun politics, most recently a piece last year in Truthout, where I try to lay out some proposals of my own. They're more tentative and vague than the ones you lay out here, which is both good and bad, I think. Check it out and let me know what you think! https://truthout.org/articles/socialists-need-an-independent-approach-to-gun-violence/
Thanks Danny! You raise some good points. I think the "black market" issue is a serious issue, especially in the short term following any handgun ban. The reason I don't see it escalating to the level of a prohibition-era bootlegging or a modern day cartel is that guns are very hard to make, as opposed to alcohol and drugs. The US supplies most of the worlds guns, so if it became illegal to make them, they would have to get them from Russia, Israel, or Austria (other top producers). I think that would be very difficult to do, in the long-run.
I'll check out your truthout piece. Thanks for sharing!
You make a good point about gun production but cocaine and heroin aren't so easy to make either. They involve international supply chains that involve farmers, factories, and global transportation networks. But they get here because there's a demand that makes is profitable. Guns, like it or not, have a very high demand in this country, both for reasons of personal safety and militaristic culture and a zillion things between. That's why I think there's no way around dealing with our culture of gun worship (which is just as much about the police and military as the NRA). But that's super vague and doesn't address the feeling that "something must be done" after every incident like Nashville, unfortunately :(
It's really sad. I actually heard the news about Nashville while I was writing this. I hesitate to comment on stuff before all the facts are known, but I think most Americans agree that something must change.
Joe, what about the non-oppressed? Do they get to have armories? Who controls them? Who determines which groups get to be armed? I fear your plan succeeds only in reallocating oppression, not reducing it.
Ideally, what I would like to see is a return to the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment - well regulated militias for states, cities, towns, etc. This was common practice up until the 1920s, when the state militias were incorporated into National Guards with oversight from the Federal Government, essentially making them just another federal army.
Like most things, its going to require some balance. Just as countries (including the US) deem groups legitimate political parties or terrorist orgs, we can do so domestically. For example, I think it's perfectly reasonable to look at groups like the KKK, with their history of terrorist violence, and decide they should not allowed to be armed. This is very similar to how we treat individuals, as even the most pro-gun Republicans don't think convicted violent felons should be able to get a gun.
But Joe, that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment makes it a nullity. The point of the 2nd, even if you don't believe it secures an individual right, is to ensure that the national government doesn't have a monopoly on arms.
As to the last paragraph in your response, groups like the KKK are not armed. Only people are armed. If the government can say that no members of the KKK can be armed, why not members of the DSA as well? Remember that during the post war era people's careers were ruined simply for being members of the Communist Party, even if they themselves were law abiding. I would be very hesitant to give any government the power to outlaw groups.
I should note the "armed group" policy is something we are very far away from. You are correct in that our current government, which is extremely right wing and Capitalist, would absolutely attempt to disarm DSA while allowing the KKK/Proud Boys to hold weapons. (Tucker Carlson had a speech about how trans activists should be disarmed the other night.)
What I'm presenting is really an ideal goal that we should strive for. That is to say, this system would work very well if the US government was entirely democratic and not controlled by Capitalist interests.
But as for the 2 rules, I think those should be the central pillars of any gun control policy.
Joe, I wasn't speaking of the current government, but of any government. Power tends to corrupt....
Very true! Which is why we need complete and total democracy, in both the political and economic realms. Only this will ensure leaders don't become tyrants.
But to say we shouldn't give any government, even one that is controlled democratically, the ability to regulate and make decisions sounds like a slippery slope argument. I tend to find slippery slope arguments unpersuasive, as they don't acknowledge that people have judgement and are able to make rationale decisions.
This is an oversimplification, but people are able to look at two groups: One a Synagogue, and the other a Neo-Nazi org, and decide that it is okay for one of those groups to be armed while the other should not. Just my thought.