My general impression is that guns are pretty hard to get, which makes it very safe, but also a disarmed populace can be bad. Is it hypocritical to oppose the disarmament of one population, but not another?
China has a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Red Army is the armed wing of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie is disarmed.
I think the USSR had local people’s militias, but that made a lot of sense given the context of the invasions they faced.
Individual gun ownership is not necessarily helpful for a revolution, and exists for the historical purpose of primitive accumulation and enclosure with guns being a means to protect property of individuals. The proletariat collectively owns so the defense of the people’s organized property should also be organized, in general. The disarmament as an exercise of force should be done by the terms of the proletariat.
Good response, thanks!
Well you already have a proletariat dictatorship, people having guns makes sense if ypu are under a bourgeoisie dictatorship, otherwise what is the purpose? The military is the one in charge of defending the populace. If you want a gun in those conditions is for sports and it should be morw harder to get because it is a big responsability.
