

From the Radio Free Michigan archives



ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot



If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to

bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu.

------------------------------------------------









GUN CONTROL AS CLASS WARFARE



by Rosemary Fury



  Opponents of gun control are in big trouble. They will lose the

battle against gun control unless they drastically change their

tactics. There are two fundamental reasons for this impending

defeat. First, the liberal/conservative split over gun control is

likely to give way to a \class\ consensus in favor of restrictions

on weapon ownership. Second, gun control opponents have failed to

enlist the support of those people most injured by such

legislation.

          For decades, the debate over gun control has been divided

along standard political lines of left vs. right. Advocates of gun

control have surprisingly gained the support of the liberal

political base with a conservative-sounding argument: i.e.,

restrictions on handguns will reduce violent crime, thus aiding

the cause of "law and order." Their opponents have appealed

largely to a conservative audience with God-and-Country rhetoric

about our "Constitutional Rights." The popular conception of the

issue is one of a political struggle. As we shall see, such a

conception is dangerously flawed.

          Gun control got its start in this country as a racist measure

to disarm Blacks after the Civil WarQto prevent them from taking

revenge on their former owners. Restrictions on weapon ownership

are still racist today. Blacks and minorities suffer at the hands

of both racist groups and redneck cops. The Black Panthers formed

in the 1960s specifically to counter police brutality in Oakland

County, California. Studies show that minorities are

disproportionately the victims of authority, whether it's Mexicans

drowned in Texas, Cubans and Haitians beaten up in Miami, Blacks

gunned down in Detroit, or Orientals abused in Seattle. When

courts turn a blind eye at brutal police departments, denying gun

ownership to minorities is tantamount to denying them self-

defense.

          It is also true that Blacks and other minorities constitute a

large percentage of America's poor, and it is the \poor\ who stand

to lose the most from gun control. Rich people can afford to live

outside dangerous urban areas and maintain well-armed, high-paid

suburban police departments to protect their lives and property.

But for the poor person without the means to flee the ghetto,

handguns are the cheapest, most effective form of self-defense

available. A couple hundred dollars (or less) is a small price to

pay for the security of one's family and possessions.

          Gun control advocates argue that handgun ownership damages

the ability of inner-city police forces to protect their

residents. But to the ghetto-dweller, as we have seen, the police

look more like enemies than defenders. Urban police departments

are not paid to protect poor people. They're paid to protect local

merchants and their property, and they're paid (unofficially) to

protect various organized crime operations. Understaffed and

unresponsive, the police can't possibly provide adequate service

to all their citizens. Under gun control, big-city residents would

not only be unable to defend themselves against organized

criminals, but would also be incapable of helping to defend their

friends and neighbors.

  Gun control advocates loudly call for disarming average

Americans, but do they want to disarm the police? Certainly not!

\Their law-and-order rhetoric is just thinly disguised support for

Big Brother\. In fact, they look forward to a society where the

government has total control over the population. Under such

conditions, no one could step outside official bounds without

special permission. Gun control would give the police a free hand

in abusing people, while the ruling class could compel the masses

to conform to their wishes.

          While gun control opponents are quick to proclaim the

importance of an armed populace to our national defense, they

overlook the importance of gun ownership as a deterrent to

oppression by \our own\ government. High taxes, restrictions on

travel, government surveillance, business regulations, etc., are

making domestic slaves of all of us. All that stands between our

present narrow freedoms and total bureaucratic control is the

determination of Americans to resist repression. Traditional ways

of controlling government (elections, political pressure, etc.)

have become increasingly ineffective. Gun ownership helps draw a

bottom line beyond which authorities tread at their own risk.

          Some people have a lower tolerance for repression than

others. Tax resistors, Black Panthers, environmental activists,

and others have already hit their bottom line, and have used the

force of arms to repel the invading state. While they have

suffered for their defiance, they still send an important warning

signal to the bureaucrats, thus making life a little safer for the

rest of us. Without gun ownership, there would be no \ultimate\

check on the tax collectors, conscriptors, and regulators that

populate our federal government.

          A common argument leveled by advocates of gun control is that

handguns are most often used in domestic disputes, where family

quarrels end with gunshots. There is no disputing the statistics.

However, the conclusions drawn from them are highly vulnerable.

Proponents of gun control assume the desirability of limiting gun

usage in domestic disputes. Do we really want to do that? "If it

saves lives, then it's worth it," the line goes. But are these

lives \worth\ saving?

          Women have been the victims of domestic abuse for centuries.

Because of our relatively weaker physical stature, we have been

virtually enslaved by men (women are still considered property in

many of the world's cultures). Handguns are the great equalizer.

More and more cases have come to the courts where women have

"murdered" their abusive husbands. Gun control advocates deplore

this, but why shouldn't we defend ourselves against such abuse?

Why should the lives of violent bullies be spared? So that they

can continue to destroy the lives of the defenseless? Gun control

would make it easier for wife-beating and child abuse to continue

unchecked. I would rather see such brutes dead than see women and

children with no alternative to submission.

          Gun ownership is vital right. Handguns are an essential form

of self-defense for the lower class of society that doesn't have

the personal armies and suburban fortresses of the upper class.

Private gun ownership serves as a powerful check on police and

other pigs who terrorize minorities, on the expansionist desires

of foreign governments as well as the encroachments of our own

state, and on the ability of men to systematically abuse and

exploit women and children. Gun ownership gives people the real

option of resisting an authority that becomes too oppressive to

bear. As such, it is a valuable tool for ensuring personal

freedom.

          In short, gun control is \class\ legislation. It is an

attempt by the elite rulers of society to disarm the weaker class

and make them submissive to their will. In the near future,

leading liberals \and\ conservatives will likely set aside their

minor political differences for the benefit of their combined

class interest, and enact legislation restricting the ownership of

weapons of self-defense. They will succeed in this, too, unless

opponents of gun control expand their base of support to include

the traditionally liberal constituency of the underclass: the

poor, minorities, and women. These groups have the most to lose

from gun control, and the most to gain from the right to

unrestricted gun ownership.



Published (prophetically) in 1983 by

Loompanics Unlimited

P. O. Box 1197

Port Townsend, WA 98368

(Latest catalogue $2.00)



Reprinted as a public service by

The Company of Freemen



\Rosemary Fury is an editor of \The Spark\ (P. O. Box 528, Port

Townsend, WA 98368), a newsletter of contemporary anarchist

thought. It's about time gun rights activists looked toward

anarchist and libertarian ideasQthey alone seem to have a complete

picture of what's going on with the conservative (Bush,

Dukemejian) and liberal (Metzenbaum, Kennedy) alliance to disarm

all non-statists\.



------------------------------------------------

(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the

Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer.




All files are ZIP archives for fast download.


 E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)





