Charles, tell me if I have the order right... It's been a while since I've read that thing.

Marxists, at least self-proclaimed ones, have been extraordinarily violent in the last century. Forgive me if I'm not recalling the entire text of the manifesto, but violence is part of the various stages spelled out (at least predicted, if not an outright recommendation), and it's something that I don't think they can do without... In order to move from kapitalismo to the next stage, socialism, then communism, requires significant violence, at least that was the practice all those years ago when it was sweeping the world and inspiring a generation.

Myself? I guess I like capitalism the best, with some good social programs, but not too many, and not too few. I mean, who's going to buy my mac laptop I need if not for capitalism?

So it is a "hickish" value to protect your human rights, with force if necessary, from those who would wish to take them away?

Also, you should probably keep in mind that the text was from a time when a lot of people needed guns to protect themselves from hunger, political instability and the wilds. Guns were not considered "hickish" at that time or place. Your critique is anachronistic.

Also, if you are going to introduce a term, "hickish," please also let us know what exactly it means to you. It is much more fun that way.

There is a capability with computers for venture capitalism, such as Telekommunisten, which also features worker owned web hosting called Trick.

Where I live there is also the first worker owned collective restaurant called "Local Sprouts". It is run on collective principles. I seem to know of a lot of collectives just on my street, an artist collective gallery as well.

There are also the capabilities of Linux, which is collectively coded. I use Slackware on a 5 year old Gateway that was very cheap, and which I will merely add parts as they break.

I am opposed to gun ownership, mainly on the grounds that is retarded to believe for instance that a sawed off shotgun can defend you from an unmanned drone. You can see in the Ruby Ridge siege, that the government police will shoot in the back even a small boy who is running literally in the opposite direction in terror.

I must admit though, that I buy toothpaste at CVS, and though I can buy used clothing, it is needed to buy new shoes sometimes. All capitalism. That's why I vote for the Green Party instead.

I meant to say in the above first worker owned collective restaurant on the "east coast". I left that out.

Damn right. I'll match my 30-06 and two boxes of ammo against your TOW missile any day.

that is retarded to believe for instance that a sawed off shotgun can defend you from an unmanned drone.

Not really, how often in history has the inferior force won against the superior force? The Afghans fought off the Soviet Union, even though the Afghans were pitifully outmatched. The Vietnamese fought off both France and the U.S., again, even though they were outmatched.

A government waging war on its people isn't the same as two armies clashing on a battlefield. It is guerilla warfare, and it does end up being relatively evenly matched.

The military cannot win a war solely with air strikes, especially if it was a war against its own people, who are defending their own land... Eventually, the soldiers have to go in themselves, armed, yes, but not invincible. Shotguns and molotov cocktails aren't as impressive as assault rifles and grenades, but they'll still kill you.

Anyone watch the "Battle in Seattle" on Sunday?

Seems like the guys with the body armor won.

With the USA military force and it's ruthless disregard for human life, I think only some nation like China might have the firepower to stop a couple rednecks in the Midwest.

The USA's citizen militia is at most a romantic notion. Most of middle class America would never be behind it. It attracts mostly uneducated people who have low self esteem and desperately need some way of empowering themselves against not just the government but civilized and educated America, with it's influx of soon to be educated immigrants. These people are not "armed citizens" in the sense of the constitutional right, so much as a form of neo-nazis.

I have found a way to embrace immigrants by volunteering to help them. I have been teaching English for free to African immigrants in my community and have found it very enlightening. By working with immigrants, it's possibly to overcome the cultural barrier and see they can be interesting people. These gun nuts in the midwest or out in whatever rural settings dont have the life experience to even say they are qualified to defend the USA from enemies they fail to comprehend.

@9, 10,

Yes. Still, the U.S. waging war against its civilians would not be all unmanned drones and nuclear subs and M1 tanks vs. rednecks with shotguns.

They could not simply bomb and blow up every home in every small town and city. The individual soldiers have to go in themselves. And despite their training and superior weapons, they can still be killed by a guy with a .45 pistol.

Countries that want to dominate their people start by disarming them. Why? Because armed citizens can resist much more than unarmed citizens can. Is it a losing battle for the mildly armed citizen? Maybe. Probably. But not absolutely.

Don't get me wrong here, I agree that the concept of a "well armed militia" defending itself effectively against the U.S. military is absurd. However, it still would not be a cake walk for the military, especially if the militia really is shooting back.

It's the logical conclusion to Anarchy. With no government, John Galt is in charge.

I think of a "Hickism" as something Bill Hicks would say.

Everyone ought to own a rifle. One essential component of a functional democracy is a functional common militia. This goes back to the dawn of democracy. You people seem not to understand that Athens was a martial state, with very many able-bodied males owning, at the very least a pelte and a clutch of javelins, if not the fully panoply for heavy infantry combat. Their politics very frequently descended into violence. However, this never broke up the state, never lead to a place of complete and perpetual anarchy.

So 13 and 15, you're fucking idiots; where did you learn to breathe?

If politicians are not in perpetual fear for their lives, from the response from the citizenry, you get oligarchy and corruption. More limp-wristed liberal bullshit.

The abandonment by the best of the most ancient means of self-preservation and self-determination, combat, has had the most dire consequences for the worst. The best ought to champion the ideals of society, providing inspiration for the worst. You'll notice on the front of the Great Seal of the United States an eagle, historically associated with fate in warfare, an omen sent by the gods to be interpreted by augury, holding in his two talons two different symbols, an olive branch and arrows. The accepted symbolism is the olive branch, the offering of peace, and in the other arrows--war--if peace is violated. Additionally a banner held from its beak reading "E PLURIBUS UNUM,"--from many, one. Perhaps this divisive politics is obscene. Politicians are not the essential ingredient of government, but rather the common citizenry. Better citizen involvement in government at all levels makes for better, more honest government? What do you expect when your essential attitude is merely to focus on the election of officials and then to have absolutely no involvement or interest in politics thereafter? With all that breathing room, politicians descend easily and happily into corruption.

Perhaps American values are not so all far removed from the Classical. And perhaps it's time for the best to champion them.

Do people not actually pay attention to what goes in the world? Or read a history book?

You realize that unemployed Arab, Vietnamese, and Pashtun teenage hicks with cheap Kalashnikovs and old artillery rounds have fought the mighty, mighty, US war machine to a stand still decades at a time, right? Turn on the fucking news every once in a while.

The mighty mighty war machine is great against other mighty war machines. But Asymmetrical war, not so much.

Yes. Hick insurgencies with small arms are not going to stage D-Day invasions to liberate the oppressed. But they keep an overwhelming force from winning decisive victories. It's not pretty. Sure it can destroy what remains of a civil society.

But if your goal as a guerilla insurgency is to prevent an oppressive regime from enjoying the fruits of it's oppression and bring them to the bargaining table, or last long enough to attract nation states as strategic allies (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) that CAN get you modern arms and training, it works. It's works very well.

I think 21st Century U.S. civil war would turn into a litany of paramilitary committed war crimes. The military lives here, and those people serving...well, they'd be in the same boat too (especially if they know they're getting out - barring some unforeseen circumstances where they're like...enlisted or commissioned for 20 years minimum or something) and that could cause operational problems.

#16 - I'd be perfectly fine with every American owning a pelte and a clutch of javelins.

That's been a fallacy since the Whiskey Rebellion was put down.

A government with tanks, drones and bombs. That's what government.

Afghanistan keeps being brought up. I think you realize the terrain there is very difficult for the military. Also these guys in Afghanistan are poor and used to decades of war already. For them it is their life.

In the USA you are dealing with romantics, sometimes lower middle class, who believe complete bullshit, and like the Weavers on Ruby Ridge, have been brainwashed by some strange subcultural videos about some strange "ZOG" government. They were easily dealt with.

Just 50 rounds, pfff.

I keep about 600 loaded in PMAGS.

You guys are way off base about gun owners being idiot hicks from the mid west. The people I know that own AR15s include dentist, doctors, entrepreneurs, a whole bunch of software engineers and various other college educated professionals. The AR is becoming a another trinket that symbolizes middle class affluence.

It is not a cheap endeavor, a good rifle runs around $1000 optics another few hundred dollars, and ammunition is around $300 for a case of 1000, plus the cost of accessories, as well as paying for range time and training. All in all it is a pretty big investment.

@16 Holy shit, Athens was as much a symbol of democracy as Southern States before the Emancipation. A mob of pedophile slavers, a libertarian paradise.

@24 but do they know how to shoot the guns and are ready to kill people? People with money like to buy novelty items that they dont know what to do with. A good pawn shop sells replicas of swords, but the people who buy them do not sword fight. It's just about owning a phallic symbol of power, a fantasy.

The USA military found out in many wars, that even with guns, many of the soldiers were not killers. They had to be trained to see murder as an order coming from higher up that they weren't libel for. How then can a dentist kill someone, even with the best rifle?

@26/27

That is very true, like any sporting good, people with money will go out and get the best product thinking that it will make up for their lack of ability. for example My old boss bought a $10,000 Lance Armstrong bike but his average speed on the trail was slower than my average riding a fixie in traffic up capitol hill. Nothing makes up for skill and training. A big part of modern rifle shooting is fantasy, but I don't want to go up against these guys in a gunfight. Also killing becomes a lot easier when your ass is on the line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye30b3TL5…

Everyone here is operating under a grave misapprehension. What Hicks actually said -- repeating Ripley's line verbatim, if I'm remembering correctly -- is, "I say we dust off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." And I must say that I when I think of how thoroughly the plutocracy has captured American media and government, the idea does hold some appeal.

Same with art supplies. I can paint very good with cheap paint and cheap canvas, but some people can't paint even with 30 dollar tubes of paint. I think this is a good argument AGAINST the right to bear arms. Since citizens can't often shoot, guns should only be for whatever people demand hunting rights, which would be hard to deny in forested America.

I think of the song by Men at Work: 'It's a Mistake'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH7jm1Wwa…

FYI the Second Amendment is not about hunting, also in WA you must pass a shooting test to get a hunting license. Self defense is a human right, hunting is not.

I would say that owning a rifle for punching paper but not being capable of killing with it, (killing is far more about psychology rather than skill) means that said gun owner is mostly harmless. Target shooting is a game of skill much like darts, archery or bowling, the equipment for each sport can be quite dangerous or deadly in the wrong hands.

As for.being against the private ownership of arms, there are well over 200,000,000 guns in private hands. Come and take them.

Actually, the people who own guns but are afraid to kill, often unintentionally hit people by accident. You always hear about how someone who was afraid to shoot "the bad guy" chokes and accidentally kills a small child. As you can see in many school shootings and racist homicides in developed areas, guns do little good.

I dont suppose you know the Johnny Cash song eh? Don't take your guns to town. This would be the theme song for the remove guns from developed areas of the USA. Take them out to the forest if you want to live the frontier life:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlBzre4-K…

@32

You got a source on that, oh wait you don't because you are just talking out your ass.

150,000,000 legal gun owners and very few accidents. Also most guns involved in accidents and many crimes were not legally owned. Also if you check FBI crime stats most homicides were committed by blacks. I know I will get called racist, but that is what happens when you confront liberals with facts.

I am not a "liberal". I resent the liberal label. Blacks are often extremely poor and in an outside sector of society. Many still reside in the American South in very backward areas and suffer serious confusion in poor public education system, facing nevertheless modern racism. The guns are made available everywhere. I am mad as a hatter, but I have no criminal record and Ive never been institutionalized. Consequently, I live across the street from a pawn shop that would sell me a gun no problem. I could walk out of there with a rifle tomorrow, and you would have an armed lunatic free as a bird. I am merely saying that in areas of a certain population, it would be really cool if they banned guns completely, no pawn shops carrying them, etc... Seems quite intelligent to me.

I apologize for calling you liberal, I'm moderate myself.

Except restricting guns dose not stop crime, in fact crime increases when guns are banned from an area. Washington DC had a gun ban for years and the highest murder rate, likewise Chicago has a gun ban along with more people getting shot than Baghdad in a typical weekend. Gun control laws do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, criminals by nature do not follow the law.

I respect your decision to not own a gun, gun ownership is a right, and like all freedoms, it comes with serious responsibility. The ability to send a piece of metal flying at 3000 feet per second should not be taken lightly.

People in Massachusetts complain about my state Maine, that we have lax gun laws, and criminals from Mass come up to Maine to buy guns. So in Washington DC, it's an issue of them getting guns maybe from other states, so what is needed is a national law and stricter issuing.

I dont like liberals, because I lived in Germany and became disgusted with the German Liberal, who kowtows to the American Democrats and thinks Bill Clinton is cool. I myself figure upon being extremely left without any compromise. I wont vote Democrat just to keep out Republicans, and I voted Socialist as an Insult to Obama.

@35, I'm quite content with sending a 120-grain piece of lead flying at "only" 1700 fps, thanks. ;-)

Well, I'm off to the big prayer breakfast with all the NRA muckity-mucks. Home later today. Have fun kids, and don't shoot yourselves.

The gun schtick in the USA is evidence of excessive overpreparedness and cowardice. Since we have not been invaded since the British, and military itself is sufficient, gun-ownership is merely an eccentric novelty, for people who can't face the 'enemy within'.

As you can see in numerous lands, demonstrators with only signs in their hands are just as effective, and if it comes down to it, nothing frightens any government like arson. The 9/11 highjackers used only boxcutters to take down two of our most important buildings. Guns are for the unimaginative and cowardly.

I lived in Germany too, in Berlin squats. I remember people gathering up rocks and molotovs to protect their buildings because Nazi's were going to march through the neighborhood. How I longed for just a simple shotgun.

Perhaps we haven't been invaded because invading a country of armed citizens is suicidal, Switzerland is armed just as well if not better than the US, they were spared invasion during 2 world wars.

For every revolution won by signs there has been 100 others that were squelched with machine-gun fire. I don't think the 9-11 hijackers would have gotten very far had the pilots been armed. You should consider your self lucky for having a life where you never needed to use deadly force in your own defense.

Socialism is tyranny, firearms are liberty's teeth. An armed populace prevents the government, or anyone else, from having a monopoly on force and is necessary for democracy to exist.

@37,
I generally am content with sending 180gn at 1050fps, but wish I had bought a 9mm. Enjoy your breakfast.

Ha! I lived in a squat in Berlin for a year too! 183 Brunnenstrasse. Interesting times. I never thought of guns during that time. In fact, I was preoccupied with raising rats in my room. I bought two rats and they mated and had 19 baby rats. It never occurred to me to have a gun at any time! I have only thought of buying a gun to kill my own self! ;)

You know, if we would leave these people alone and stop digging and drilling up their land, there is a good chance we wouldnt need any guns at all! Most people dont naturally hate Americans. We have extreme cultural influence. But when we go in there with guns and geologists looking for loot, and manipulating politics, installing a dictator here and there, they want to kill us.

Everywhere I have traveled, be it Cornwall or Berlin, always everyone I talked to seem to make fun of Americans for being gun nuts. I am actually in the green party. That is the party volunteer for and will work for. I don't vote socialist anymore.

I really only voted socialist, because I voted for John Kerry against Bush, then he lost. When he lost, a student in florida questioned him, then was tazed, and I could hear Kerry cracking jokes while the student screamed. After that, a German told me I had to vote for Obama, and I saw Obama speaking in Germany, and I remembered Kerry speaking while the student was tazed, and got angry and voted for the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

It seems obvious that to prevent hicks from buying guns, we simply have to make them wear uniforms in school, ride public transit, and forbid them from reading Charles' columns til they turn 18.
Voila! Problem Solved.
A fair amount of assigned reading in Marxism cant hurt, either.

It's merely Northern Ireland's lasting influence on American reality. "Guns are liberty's teeth", it's propaganda. Probably he was force-fed it himself.

It seems obvious to me that the corrupt government wants us to have guns to keep us on edge. If we said "no more guns, there is no real enemy outside the USA that we need them for", the government would find it scandalous.