much like the libs with the yankee 2nd amendment, some communists (mostly yanks) take "under no pretext" to mean "we should all individually own guns", when the point of both is to have an organized fighting force
to be effective, weapons purchases need to be coordinated within a community, for purposes of being able to share ammunition, spare parts, expertise, marksmanship training etc.

it's no use if you have a civilianized kalashnikov chambered in 5.45×39mm for the aesthetic, your buddy has an ar-15 in .308 winchester because that's what they had at the gun store, and your other comrade has a sig sauer cross in .277 fury

Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.

The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.

A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right Introduction (Karl Marx)

Guns are a means of exerting political will, where willing negotiation fails. As communists are generally operating under very hostile political circumstances, pacifistic talking it out isn't going to liberate the masses.

This is in no way unique to communists though. The exploiting classes shamelessly use guns and other weapons to ensure a formation of society that allows them to exploit others. And any group in history that doesn't employ force in one form or another is not going to last through invasion or internal splits. Force itself is not shameful or wicked, but the use of it very much can be.

That said, if a self-described communist were to come to a meeting of communists and be like, "Hello, my fellow commies, how many guns have you bought at the local gun store today?" They would probably be suspected of being a fed. So principle is one thing, practice is another. Take into account the conditions you're working within and what that means for strategy.

Move like confrontation is going to have to happen eventually, but don't martyr yourself / escalate needlessly cause you want to be a hero. Resources are finite and people are precious. Don't get tripped up by the imperial view of people being expendable, or the liberal view of ideological fervency being stronger than the sword.

Did you actually read the books, dawg!?

speaking from and about the usa:

Iogistics wins wars, and that's true for revolutions too. Small arms ownership is not going to be an operative variable for revolution in the west. It's likely wise on an individual level to have access to some sort of force equalizer for personal and community defence, though

that's talking tactics, though, and your question is about embracing the idea. There are two potential benefits to doing so as far as messaging: (1) differentiate ourselves from dems/libs, (2) dispell the perception of marginalized groups as soft targets.

regarding (1), I'm not sure it's a winning strategy at this point. the libertarian ideology of the '10s that it was well-suited for radicalizing leftward has largely been subsumed and digested into various strains of fascism. maybe there's an argument that there should be leftist presence in pro-gun discourse so it isn't wholly ceded to the right. but I don't think it's a key issue worth focusing on nor is pro-gun as a category/demographic worth trying to specifically radicalize.

Politically, those who are feeling disenchanted with the republican party are being targeted by the rightward-bound dems, who have a million times our resources and media influence. We'll have much more success catering our messaging towards disenchanted dems and disenfranchized liberals.

similarly, economically, the hypermarginalized (immigrant and prison labor, wage workers, unemployed, unhoused; especially as these intersect with racial and gsm demos) have the most need for revolution and have immediate and material issues to organize around, rather than an abstract notion of some right to own guns.

(2), sometimes (not always!) a show of force works as deterrence. Fascists tend to be cowards. It can also have an unintended consequence of drawing the attention of the state and legitimizing suppression. A tactic to use carefully.

yes. there’s a shit situation right now in the US because the populations open to left wing ideas live in liberal states where u just cant get a gun that easily. meanwhile the reactionary population lives in the states where you can get a gun very easily and because they are politically incapable theyre just using them to shoot little kids and black people.

Since when did we stop?

As a communist, you are obligated to arm yourself and your

Wife

Husband

Polycule

Dog

Cat

Other pets

Children

Aunts and uncles

Neighbors

Neighbors's neighbors

Swimming pool teacher

Physical therapist

Actual therapist

Tl;dr

You get a gun

And you get a gun

Everyone gets a gun!!

In the end, that's what communism is all about. ☺️

enver hoxha in 1944:

Why should they not? Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.

With an entire machinery of death after us, why make it easier?

Kinda need guns for a revolution these days. Drones, too.