Kids with guns - locked and loaded

Back to gun control... dont blame a lack of gun control for kids 7 to 12 having guns. Its their ways of living, the people, the societies values, and the constant struggle for survival that puts guns in those kids hands. Its a shame to see them killing other young kids. But its an equal shame seeing the oceans being polluted, people starving to death etc. etc. too.

And, i take it, if anarchy does rule the land, there are going to be many different tribes of peoples, not just one big one. I'd go and live in the one that would allow me to own a gun. I just think that if there was a tribe that banned guns, it would be taken out by a violent group of repressors, because they will exist after a revolution.

 

Sadly, we will inherit the illnesses of the abolished capitalist system, even if the necessary majority agrees with the Anarchist principles and supports the general change, some people might still believe in religious superstition, racism, fascism, sexism - everything we oppose today - tolerating their possible activity against the majority is disturbing the natural order we/the majority want to restore or achive.
I think their "correction" is necessary, first to prevent them harming people, second to prevent unnecessary trouble slowing down the progress of development of our free abilities
It will be our duty to deal with them in the most humane way possible, but I think we can't afford to risk a relapse in pre-revolutionary dark ages, we will have to be very careful with their integration
I believe that with the passing time these illnesses - deprived of their causes - will vanish completely and so the temporary need for social regulation will vanish too.
Rome wasn't destoyed on just one day - and we will have to build a whole new world... \m/

"choices based on others before themselves"
If we assume that you're an individual part of the Anarchist society, you will have realized the importance of the collective (= all the other individuals organized) that is protecting and supporting your individuality - 'cause you know that you can't exist just on your own, and I hope you will respect the collective and it's importance to you by regarding the interests of the community as more important than your personal interest.

Question from me: What do you think about solidarity?

 

Actually I don't blame the obvious lack of gun control, but I do blame the system of industry lobbyists undermining the people's right to live just for profits. The u.s. government is only pretending gun control 'cause of the influence of the nra/the industry
and their criminal propaganda on the upright citizens - but the autohorities are ineffective - so where is real interest in gun control? At least Britney Spear supports the persecution of the illegal trade, oh and Sean Connery too...
I think it's to easy to justify/to relativise the daily massacre as an aspect of the struggle for survival - we don't live in the wilderness or jungle no more where the survival of the fittest rules - again: Who pretends to be responsible for "us"?

Besides, we talk about Anarchy as the coming order, not about some weird mad max chaos roadshow where on tribe exterminates the next weaker one - you're right, there will me a multitude of communities after the revolution, but I don't think they will be defenceless just because they won't agree that everyone has his own private arsenal in the basement.
Gun control agreed by the people doesn't mean the general abolisment of weapons or the forgoing of selfdefence - it means tools in the hands of responsible people organizing themselves to defend their communities if necessary.
What's the use of personal gun posession if crime and group aggression are gone 'cause their cause was abolished?
Mad Max is just a movie, isn't it? But I like it too...

 

i agree i do that with my parents kids have curiosity so there is no way you can really hide anything somebody will eventully find a way to see it

 

Smart kid that you are - what will you do if you find your dad's gun?

 

I think I am finally starting to understand the problem with Stirner and individualist anarchism. More importantly gun control.
The individual cannot survive on his own, they need the collective and community.
My question is though, in a collective society in which armed syndicates are formed for the protection of the collective, what is to say that these syndicates will not try to take power for themselves?
Not in the sense of a ruling class, but saying something to the extent that "we know whats best, you should follow us or else."
That or else could mean the lack of protection over the certain community, or it could mean that they will try to pull them under control.
I agree with the proposition of no privately owned guns, but who is protecting these guns that are held under lock and key, and moreover, are these men protecting the guns armed?
If they were armed isn't that a good opportunity for one group rising up and taking power over the community?
Secondly, in the anarcho-communist perspective, how do syndicates operate effectively?
Is it just individuals in and among the community acting together in a syndicate or is it a separate almost militant community that exists secondary to the collective?

 

from my point of view the armed forces of a post-revolutionary society would be a very different organisation compared with todays police forces or armies.
I think members of the militia should be volunteers from the ranks of the collectives' members, so we can assume a high degree of consciousness for the importance of responsibility for the community, anti-authoritarianism and equality.
today's soldiers and cops are professionals, more interested in their individual career and acting "above" the community they "serve" while being payed like mercenaries and obliged more to the interest of their client. to keep them effective a strict hierarchy of ranks with the consequence of "order and obedience" is necessary.

most anarchist militias in history lacked the standard military hierarchy, so the problem of order and obedience, i.e. the risk of abuse of power against the common principles of the people is no problem at all. members of the milicia are basically equal in rank, they are/feel responsible for their community and - its a post revolutionary society - the majority of/or all members are anti-authorian.

instead of long- or life-term duty like in todays armed forces a rotating system could be useful to prevent the members of the milita becoming "professionals". the milicia men/women would serve a certain time until they are replaced with new members and return to their civil occupation and work again in the community.

I think you agree with the proposition of no personal owned guns - thats what the topic is about - so only the actual serving milicia members would have access to arms/guns. please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "private" guns would be guns owned by professional security service providers or privat detectives used to do their jobs, and I doubt the necessity of their trade in a "free" society.
the protection of the arsenals of the community should be the task of the actual serving militia and I think they should be armed to prevent criminal access at all cost.

I am not sure about the necessity of armed "order" forces, I'm a bit reluctant to call them "police", in the civil aspect of keeping order in the unarmed free society.
dealing with criminals or unpredictable lunatics may be a risky buisness, so there might be a need of guns for selfdefence for the actual serving militia men/women, personally I would prefer an unarmed force with a high degree of training in non-lethal tactics and means of breaking resistance.