The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights

[derby378]

Let’s start with this: The citizen’s right to possess firearms is a fundamental political right. The political principle at stake is quite simple: to deny the state the monopoly of armed force. This should perhaps be stated in the obverse: to empower the citizenry, to distribute the power of armed force among the citizenry as a whole. The history of arguments and struggles over this principle, throughout the world, is long and clear. Instituted in the context of a revolutionary struggle based on the most democratic concepts of its day, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is perhaps the clearest legal/constitutional expression of this principle, and as such, I think, is one of the most radical statutes in the world.

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. Denying the importance of, or even refusing to understand, this fundamental point of the Second Amendment right, and sneering at people who do, symptomizes a politics of paternalist statism – not (actually the opposite of) a politics of revolutionary liberation.

I’ll pause right here. For me, and for most supporters of gun rights, however inartfully they may put it, this is the core issue. To have an honest discussion of what’s at stake when we talk about “gun rights,” “gun control,” etc., everyone has to know, and acknowledge, his/her position on this fundamental political principle. Do you hold that the right to possess firearms is a fundamental political right?

More here:

http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html

[The Magistrate]

1. I Am Familiar With Mr. Orwell's Essay, Sir

It is a good read, but unfortunately a period piece, obsolescent at best even as went into print.

By definition, a state claims a monopoly on legitimate use of violence within certain geographical boundaries. Even in instances of self-defense, it is the state which decides if the claim is legitimate. No state ever has, or ever will, consent to revolution aimed at its overthrow.

[Niceguy1]

3. And yet

The second admin does just that. Had the framers wanted the state to have all of the power the people would have been disarmed. The RKBA is here to stay and isn't going anywhere. As the prohibition showed outlawing an every day item , in this case one that is guaranteed in the bill of rights according to the Supreme Court, doesn't work out and causes all kinds of mayhem. I for one don't wish that on the US.

[The Magistrate]

4. Not Actually, Sir

Remember, after all, that Congress has authority to call out the militia to suppress insurrection, not just invasion. The actual point of the clause at the time was to preserve sovereignty of states within the Federal compact: the words 'security of a free state' ought to be read quite literally. But at the time the basic unit of government was considered to be the individual state, with the Federal association merely the authorized creature of the several states, with no powers these had not lent it voluntarily. Thus, to preserve some ability for a state government to, with its own armed forces, set at naught some intrusion or usurpation by the Federal government, was not to violate the basic concept of the state's monopoly on legitimate use of violence within certain geographic bounds, but merely to re-assert just where those bound were. Risings by armed citizens against state governments in the period were duly put down by state militias; so was the rising against Federal taxation in the frontier districts.

[Recursion]

6. The essay is questioning that definition

By definition, a state claims a monopoly on legitimate use of violence within certain geographical boundaries.

Well, maybe. That's the question he's raising. Jay, at least, seemed to suggest otherwise in the Federalist.

[The Magistrate]

9. It Is Axiomatic, Sir: It is A Characteristic Of Every State

Where it does not obtain, you have nothing you can call a state. You can question the definition, but cannot do so successfully.

[Recursion]

12. So Jay didn't actually want a state?

The author himself distinguished between monopoly and supremacy; suggesting we will always have the latter but need not have the former.

Jay (or maybe it was Madison? I'm pretty sure that one was Jay) explicitly said an armed populace was a check (but not a full deterrent) to the government.

It's axiomatic that a given government claims monopoly of force, I suppose; it's not axiomatic that the form of government grants that claim legitimacy.

[The Magistrate]

13. A Man Can Be Incorrect, Sir, Even Confused About Basic Definitions

And the only thing that confers legitimacy on a state's monopoly on legitimate use of force within its borders is its capability to enforce it. The form of the government is immaterial: it can be the most responsive democracy or the most tyrannical of autocracies --- it just has to be able to secure acquiesence to its claimed monopoly for it to be legitimate.

[derby378]

21. Which brings us to the concept of a monopoly on force

The Swiss militia are allowed to keep automatic rifles at home with their families, but such rifles can never be fired in full-auto mode - and indeed, the government-issued box of ammo each soldier is issued cannot be opened - without a direct order from the commanding officer. Civilian access to full-auto in Switzerland is also tightly regulated and also subject to the same prohibition on full-auto fire, even if a permit for ownership is obtained.

This is how the Swiss government monopolizes its force, and its neutrality helps ensure that it has few real enemies. And this is a good thing. But if the chain of command were ever to break down because of internal or external pressure - a coup d'etat, an invasion, a coordinated terror campaign - this would mean that the CO has been taken out of the picture, and all it takes is for militia members to break the seal on their ammo boxes and load the rifles without waiting for orders that will never come. Think of it as something akin to a self-healing polymer. It may be the only chance by which Switzerland can neutralize the threat to its sovereignity and rebuilt itself as a distinct nation.

I would venture that the same principle applies here in America, except that our approach is more asymmetrical.

[The Magistrate]

22. But They Do So As Agents Of the State, Sir

Their possession of force is directed by the state, and they may use it, at least lawfully, only as directed by state, or in defense of the state ( for your suggestion of their taking up arms in case of a coup d'etat is defense of the state against which this was carried out ), so the principle that the state maintains a monopoly on legitimate use of force remains intact. The Swiss government certainly does not authorize the possession of arms by its militia in order that people may with violence oppose actions of the Swiss government with which they might disagree. This is what many 'Team NRA' types affect to believe was the intention of the men who founded our nation and its government, that citizens should have arms in order to resist, as citizens, acts of their government with which they disagreed, and that belief is nonesense: no state ever has, and no state ever will, grant that individual citizens of a state can legitimately use violence against the state. Possession, and enforcement, of a monopoly on legitimate use of violence within certain geographic bounds is a defining characteristic of a state.

[derby378]

23. Understood - key phrase here being "the state"

Your point on the coup d'etat is well noted - the Swiss militia would be defending what they consider to be the state, not some upstart two-bit thug.

I am also aware of one inherent danger in this arrangement, as encapsuled in a phrase by Helena Modjeska: "It is never right to be more Catholic than the Pope." We do have a lot of militia types in America who envision themselves as "superpatriots," just itching for a fight in case the cigarette tax goes up by another 15% or something equally as trivial.

[X_Digger]

2. Interesting excerpt..

I heard someone ridiculing a gun-rights supporter on TV the other day, along these lines: Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you talk about tyranny or resistance to tyranny, in the United States? Really? Let’s roll the videotape back a few years, and try that out again: Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you talk about American presidents, Republican and Democrat, torturing, kidnapping for torture, nullifying habeas corpus, spying without warrants on everybody, setting up a separate justice system for Muslims, rewarding billions in bonuses to bankers who crashed the economy, offering Social Security and Medicare as sacrifices to those bankers, aggressively prosecuting whistleblowers and journalists while granting complete immunity and government favor to torturers and banksters, personally overseeing the assassination of anyone they want anywhere in the world, including American citizens, starting seven or eight secret wars? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you talk about the great European social-democratic states, Socialist governments included, overseeing forced austerity on behalf of banksters, selling off the land and assets of their countries, reneging on the pensions of their citizens, ushering in 25-30% unemployment, facing riots and pitched battles with police in the streets?

He makes a good point.

[Recursion]

8. I'm skeptical of any law that increases Blackwater's power relative to me

I think he draws that idea out very well.

[X_Digger]

10. No doubt. I found that passage particularly interesting in light of the recent 'drone' issue. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Nothing like romantic revolutionary left wing idiocy to remind me of how

foolish the tail end of the new left was in the late 60s, early 70s, myself included.

The militias which the 2a postulates were to be armed by the people, were the alternative to a standing army, and were not the counter force to defend the people against the state, but to defend the nation against its enemies.

Your fucking half assed assault style weapon is not a threat to a modern military force. Good luck with your violent revolution, the last few turned out swell.

[Recursion]

7. Were they not?

and were not the counter force to defend the people against the state

Well, there was explicit talk of that in the Federalist Papers; it was a check against the government using the army against the citizens. Were they wrong? Were they lying? (That's a fine answer; those were propaganda pieces.)

[dizbukhapeter]

11. Our modern military force is doing a bang up job in Afghanistan

[apocalypsehow]

14. +1,000. n/t.

[Lizzie Poppet]

15. Which is why we rolled right over the Viet Cong...

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Ok, this is the second time this idiotic counter argument has been offered up.

First, in both Afghanistan and Vietnam, a foreign occupying army is or was attempting to suppress the local population, and that makes a huge difference. The occupying force has to basically be willing to stay forever and to slaughter with abandon. We were fine with the second part, not the first.

Second, in both countries, yes our military forces rolled over every insurgent force they encountered, due to the fact that we met those forces with overwhelmingly superior firepower. We inflicted over one million military casualties on the Vietnamese forces.

Good luck with your stupid revolution. Everyone in your dumb ass rightwing racist militia will be dead within one week of the onset of hostilities.

[SQUEE]

17. And what is one.. ONE motivated and not that well trained individual doing to the LA area as we type

I think you might want to bone up on your information about COIN...
And this fox has no hope of sympathy from the hounds, not the case in the military, I have seen a lot of Gadsden flag moral patches....

And I repeat, not at all well trained, he may be smart, and have access to basic planning, but so does anyone with an internet connection. People are taking notes on this.
Mumbai? again a small cadre,

[Fumesucker]

18. But it won't be the Democrats who do the final crackdown

So all those Gadsden patch wearers will be fine with any amount of repression against the civilian population as long as it's the good God fearing Republicans who are instigating the repression.

I've watched these fuckers turn on a dime morally and give nine cents change so many times now I don't believe for one moment they'll be consistent in the application of their so called beliefs.

[SQUEE]

19. I completely agree, and that is why I do what I do

Every act of repression and violence against OWS protests was met with "Good Beatdown" and calls for "moar hickory shampoo".
I have a familial interest in not being in a camp for being the wrong ideology, and I do not suppose I could win, but hope that the knowledge of what one man x 1000, or more is enough to keep an oppressive state at bay.
Si vis pacem, para bellum, deterrence and posture have often served to avoid battle.

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. And not the first time this inane response has been offered in return.

The (staggeringly obvious) point is that despite the superior firepower of the US forces, the insurgents in Vietnam held out end eventually won. The insurgents in Afghanistan will very likely do something similar by fighting on until we tire of the game.

Yes, a civil war is different...but those differences bolster rather than refute the argument for an armed populace. Look at the current example of Syria: military forces have ended up on both sides of that conflict. Many of the more complex and sophisticated weapons systems like, say, ground attack aircraft have begun to fall offline as logistics issues (and probably sabotage) take their toll. Effective civilian arms (rifles, basically) become increasingly relevant under such conditions, particularly when found in great numbers. The advantages of a modern military lie in force multipliers like air and artillery support, communications systems, and so forth, not in their basic arms. Compromise those force multipliers, and everything changes.

Oh, and it ain't my revolution, chum. But if you think the current rather markedly right-leaning US military would unanimously (or even largely) obey orders to fire on a widespread insurgency of Americans who were characterized as "right wing," then you're either fooling yourself or you know fuck-all about today's military. That "slaughter with abandon" part you mention isn't going to be there. They might fire on a leftist insurgency (which is why the Occupy movement has never really had the option of turning to violence). Might...