Yet all liberal gun-control schemes remain blithely indifferent to, when not aggressively dismissive of, these concerns.
The right to vote is as dangerous a power as any. I think there should be fewer guns. That the state — the American capitalist state we live in — should have a monopoly of armed force; that this state is a benign, neutral arbiter which will use its armed force in support of and not against its citizens, to mediate conflicts fairly and promote just outcomes in ways that the citizens themselves cannot be trusted to do.
Well, the first counter-revolutionary act of every government is to collect the guns, and a necessary element of pre-emptive counter-revolution in the American polity is the disarming of the people. A federal report blamed the unrest at least partly on the easy availability of guns.
Does saying that mean we are impelled to ban guns, and to effectively eliminate a fundamental political right, criminalizing fifty million people who have done nothing wrong? Because those are the same questions, with the same central focus, that we should be asking now.
The question of gun rights is a political question, in the broad sense that it touches on the distribution of power in a polity.
Far less injustice than this has spurred serious unrest in other societies. Gun Rights and The Prohibition Impulse It often seems to me that guns are to liberals what drugs are to conservatives. There is no question that a lot of people with ridiculous right-wing political and economic ideas are among the loudest defenders and proudest exercisers of the right to bear arms.
It never did and it never will," Frederick Douglass said, and true that.
As Adam Winkler points out: In the revolutionary situation, which predominates in relatively brief and compressed periods of upheaval, the point is to completely replace one paradigm with another. The logic escapes me here. History is not over. As Higgins implies, cops and soldiers will not be the only ones left holding guns.
If the latter is your position, say it.
The notion that disarming the people in a capitalist state — and one in severe socio-economic crisis, at that — would be some kind of victory for progressive, democratic forces, something that might help move us toward an emancipatory transformation of society, derives from no position on the political left.
As one commentator puts it: As I suggested above, I do think that the ubiquitous cultural representation of armed violence as a quick, effective, and attractive solution for all kinds of personal and social problems is pernicious.
The real mystery from all of this is that it has not led to greater social unrest. Or at least the document of a pacifist. Yet today is not forever, and while there is no power more crucial for radical change than a unified mass movement that represents the majority of people, it is also true that there are powers, privileges, prerogatives, supremacies, and wealth that will not be conceded by the group or class that holds them to any movement of any size or moral quality, except under threat of deadly force.
The text, the law, that the framers wrote now stands apart from and beyond their personal intentions.The question of gun rights is a political question, in the broad sense that it touches on the distribution of power in a polity.
Thus, although it incorporates all these perfectly legitimate “sub-political” activities, it is not fundamentally about hunting, or collecting, or target practice; it is about empowering the citizen relative to the state.Download