textfiles/politics/GUNS/furygun.txt

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 War<61>to 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 ideas<61>they 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\.



X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X
 Another file downloaded from:                     The NIRVANAnet(tm) Seven

 & the Temple of the Screaming Electron   Taipan Enigma        510/935-5845
 Burn This Flag                           Zardoz               408/363-9766
 realitycheck                             Poindexter Fortran   510/527-1662
 Lies Unlimited                           Mick Freen           801/278-2699
 The New Dork Sublime                     Biffnix              415/864-DORK
 The Shrine                               Rif Raf              206/794-6674
 Planet Mirth                             Simon Jester         510/786-6560

                          "Raw Data for Raw Nerves"
X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X