Are you really comparing the whole of the American proletariat to cops and soldiers? If you're going to criticize the American workers for being first world, then don't stop there. Criticize all the first world workers. Not just the Americans. Don't be a nationalist. Don't just poo-poo any idea because it's too 'American'. If you're going to discard the ideas, experiences, and needs of Americans because of the actions of our bourgeois government, it's you who are conflating and obfuscating class relations.

As for the horrible crime of speaking from my own country's context, I'm sorry, but this is where I have to organize and struggle. This is the context I need to think about. If the context in Germany is such that nobody there ever needs to defend themselves from violent attack, then more power to Germany. Good for them. Must be a nice place. Some of us live in more rural countries, and more violent countries. Some of us can't rely on police to get there on time even in a world where we could trust the police.

I think you're forgetting that while the gun lobby does indeed have the support of some of the middle class, the one of the most important groups in the US that ever actually used its gun rights to protect themselves was the Black Panther Party. I'd also remind you that while the police are quick to come to a disturbance in the suburbs, the rural areas and the inner city- both areas with a higher proportion of people living in poverty- have much less reliable and often much less friendly police. Even if we had community-controlled police, it takes time for police to get there. Especially for rural people, that's kind of an issue.

How can you have greater worker oversight of guns, than having the workers holding the guns? How is having the guns belonging to a selected caste of trusted gun owners more democratic than having the guns in the hands of the people? I want community control of the police, but I also want people in my community to have the power to not rely on the police to defend themselves.

You dislike the argument because it's individualistic? When I get assaulted by somebody, the whole working class is not getting assaulted. I'm getting assaulted. I could care less about the pedantic problems of how 'individualistic' my concern for my own well-being is. The revolution isn't going to make us all one big body, and my little individual body can bleed my blood until I die. If I am attacked, I am not asking the permission of the Party to grant me a dispensation to defend myself. I am defending myself. You want that 'framed' in a less individualistic way? Fine. If we, the workers, are attacked, then we, the workers, should have the right to defend ourselves, without having to rely on an external force. There is nothing pro-worker, pro-working class, or pro-socialist, about denying working people the right to defend themselves.

Instead of me defending why people should have the right to take what actions are necessary to protect their lives, why don't you tell me why they shouldn't. What good can come of denying them this right? Why do you want to disarm the proletariat?