My Photo

Last Tracks Listened To:

« Refuse To Fall for Republican Tricks | Main | What is an anarchist? »

November 08, 2004



the zapatistas stopped using real bullets about five years ago. or so i've read.

sounds like you want to join a militia but all the good ones are taken by right-wing freaks.



Oh look, an ad hominem attack! Is there a reason that this post made you so upset you decided to go out of your way to insult me?


i've been thinking about this recently... no conclusion just yet. i do think the left needs to stop with the knee jerk pacifism and gun control.


Guns, guns. Wonderful guns.

Pay no attention to the millis of
the planet.


Millis of the planet? I'm not following you.....

Rad Geek

"It's not just for the possibility of revolt against a corrupt government, although that's important. It's also not just so the nation can defend itself without a standing army, something that sadly has gone straight out the window."

Indeed. Also, just as importantly, an armed community can defend itself without an extensive professional paramilitary police force. (Not that the line between cops and soldiers is a very distinct one, at this point.) There's a direct point of contact with history here: specifically, with the Black Panther Party. They armed themselves because they had a right to self-defense, and because if they could defend themselves there would be no excuse for the pigs (to use that term in its proper historical context for once!) to keep up their protection racket. Also because the cops were not only not protecting the Black community; they were often directly attacking it.

I think there's a simple answer to why liberals and "progressives" are so keen on gun control. It's because they're comfortable with obvious coded racism. It's unfortunate that that's the only plausible explanation on offer, but I think that it is. Gun control laws have always been a tool of white supremacy, and when liberals start wringing their hands about how gangstas will be mowing their children down with Uzis and "assault rifles," it's pretty clear who it is that they have in mind, and who it is that they are scared of.

This isn't to say that U.S. gun culture isn't creepy and scary, or that it isn't quite worthy of serious critique for its own racism and sexism. It sure is. But the answer is hardly disarmament.


sorry for the ad hominem attack.

"It is, as its commanders say, an army which aspires not to be an army any more (it’s something of an open secret that, for the last five years at least, they have not even been carrying real guns)." - david graeber

My point is that using zapatistas as a reason to defend arms is unwise being that zapatismo is for the most part an non-violent movement. more later. gotta run.


"We accept the challenge of defending freedom and spreading the word of truth to all of the American public." --

--As lovers of freedom, we should support the rights of people the world over to own guns and to be a threat. (defending and loving freedom is a common argument among the Right)

--Any society that doesn't trust it's citizens with guns, isn't free. (Classic argument of right wing militias)

--The UN has recently taken to pushing firearms control [in a dictatorial manner]. Sounds like Pat Robertson and his "NewWorldOrder".

-The real problem is not guns, it's poverty. (militia-men would say it's race or something)

All these sound rather similar to right-winger talk. So suggesting that your argument was similar to militia rhetoric is valid engagement with your argument, not ad hominem. Sorry if you felt attacked. I should have explained more.

I think if there is some hesitance on the left to approach an more hospitable view of gun ownership and "being a threat," it comes out of a realization that many hostile fascist states were conceived by people originally on the left (Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin). The tendency toward pacifism is simply trying to keep closet fascist-authoritarians at bay.

Not that I have any idea that you might be one of those, but its just to illustrate where that sentiment might come from.

"The Zapatistas managed to stare down the Mexican government through the judicious use of armed resistance, combined with a willingness to sit down and discuss the situation. They weren't mindless terrorists. That is the face of resistance."

This is a good point. However, they did have 10 years of strong, effective community organizing before they asked consensus from the all communities to use armed resistance. It's not as if one day they bought some guns and made a revolution.

My point is that guns might (and not necessarily) be the endpoint of a long series of consequences that do not begin with a discussion about guns. It begins with trying to meet the needs of ordinary, poor people.

Instead of asking "how can we defend our rights to guns?" you should be asking "how can we create a situation whereby people might feel the need to defend themselves, even with guns if need be?" I think everyone would agree (left-center and extreme), the time is not ripe, and guns and discussions about rights to guns will not change that.
Only organizing will.


I'm sorry, but attacking my language and using it to equate me with right wing militias IS an ad hominem attack. You've done it again by taking phrases and saying that they're similar to what a right wing militia loonie would say. Particularly nasty is this one: "-The real problem is not guns, it's poverty. (militia-men would say it's race or something)".

I didn't say it was race. I specifically said it was poverty. It's easy to dismiss my arguments as a variation, but you haven't addressed the central thesis, which is that free and equal people aren't afraid of their neighbours being armed, they're comforted by it.

If we're afraid of our neighbours, we're afraid of them whether they're armed or not.

Rad Geek got it right with his comments, and hit one point that I failed to, when he pointed out that an community that can defend itself doesn't need a paramilitary police force.

As far as the Zapatista thing goes, yes, the EZLN put aside their guns when their objection was acheived, but I don't remember them turning their guns in...

"When the whole world was saying no to armed struggle, we thought the people here were going to say no to the Change, much less the armed struggle. This was logical - the ideological bombardment was strong. But in the communities, the reverse happened. This was the time when more came over to incorporate themselves in the militias of the Zapatista Army. Things had gotten so bad that the towns declared they were left with no other road to take. When, on the international level, everyone was saying no to armed struggle, the indigenous farmers of Chiapas were saying oh yes, oh yes, oh yes..."


okay. your central thesis is solid.



I add this only for the purpose of correctness.
"An Ad Hominem is a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

I'm not attacking your person when I point out that your rhetoric has certain characteristics.



I may be a bit sensitive to accusations of being a militia member... something to do with my name.... (look at the banner at the top)


From wikipedia
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something objectionable about A,
3. therefore claim B is false.

in this case;
1. m0nkyman defends the right to bear arms.
2. milli states "sounds like you want to join a militia but all the good ones are taken by right-wing freaks."
3. ...what do you think?

The comments to this entry are closed.