[WS:] I find this answer rather puzzling. From a purely materialistic point of view, the chances of an armed rebellion in the US are close to nil, but if for some odd chance one broke out, the "armed agents of the US state" would not have any difficulty suppressing it. There is ample evidence of this from the beginning of the republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion to the Civil War, to coal wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_Coal_Wars and to dealing with insurgencies around the world in modern times. Far better armed and equipped fighting forces in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. have little chance against the US, armed forces that are getting better and better at fighting insurgencies around the world, so a belief that a bunch of white guys armed with their hunting rifles would do any better than brown skinned people in Iraq or Afghanistan strikes me as rather odd, if not closet racist.
There is no material grounds in a belief that gun possession, or for that matter restrictions on such possession, would make much difference in real outcomes, be it a war against "armed agents of the US state" or a "war on crime." The fact that despite its fallacy the issue of gun possession never fails to provoke controversy testifies to its symbolic rather than material significance. It is like a display of religious symbols in public places. Placing two crossed beams with an effigy of a man nailed to them
in a public place has zero material consequences to anyone, and those who think that it does believe in fairy tales or are otherwise delusional.
However, it has a huge symbolic significance for people concerned over protecting their ideological hegemony. For those guys it makes all the difference in the world whether the object placed in that space is two crossed beams with an effigy of a man nailed to them, two crossed triangles forming a six pointed star, the image of a crescent on a green background, or for that matter a statue of a famous person or the work of art.
Allowing one and banning other is an expression of ideological hegemony of the group that owns the particular symbolic object over groups that own other symbolic objects.
It is in this symbolic context in which the controversy over gun ownership in the US makes any sense. Gun, like the cross with an effigy of a man nailed to it, or the six pointed star, is a symbol owned by some groups although the meaning of that symbol may vary slightly from one group to another. For some, it could be a symbol of the male wet dream known as the "castle doctrine" (i.e. the alpha male exercising control over his home and his chattel), for others it is a symbol of standing up to other, more powerful males (which another male wet dream), a symbol of man's domination over animals and nature, or even a fetish providing a sense of security. For these groups, asserting the right to own guns is like placing a cross in the public place - it is an expression of their ideological hegemony and affirmation of their belief and values symbolized by this ownership. For other groups, this ideological hegemony is unacceptable and they would naturally fight the right to own guns. This opposition again is a symbolic expression expression of their own beliefs in which restriction of male power plays a central role, albeit it may mean different things to different groups - from the curbing of male violence against women, to reducing crime, and to the curbing of the "dangerous classes" against the established order.
Again this is pure kulturkampf - the war over symbols rather than the war over material outcomes, which as I said earlier are mostly negligible.
Banning or allowing gun ownership has little effect on exercising or curbing male control over women, negligible effect on crime, and zero effect on protecting citizenry against the "tyranny of armed agents of the state." Just like erecting a cross with the effigy of a man nailed to it has zero effect on bringing the rain or protecting people from infectious diseases, and burning the US flag or toppling a monument to an autocratic leader has little effect on establishing national independence or a democracy.
With that in mind, I wholeheartedly second Andy's view that gun possession is an important symbol for the US right, and therefore worth fighting against, just as it is worth to fight placing crosses with the effigies of a man nailed to them in public places. It does not matter that restrictions on this possession would have negligible if any effect on crime or violence more generally. What matters is that such restriction would undercut the ideological hegemony of the right in this country. I understand that pushing for such restrictions would also produce the collateral damage of undermining symbols dear to some males on the left who - judging from this thread - are quite eager to protect their symbolic turf. I am sensitive to such concerns, but I also believe that fighting the right is a much bigger fish to fry than tip-toeing around the sensibilities of these left wing males. So in the name of minimizing this collateral damage - can we agree to disagree on this issue and respect each other's opinions on this issue? I think this is the most sensible "left's position" on the topic of this thread.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."