Gun Control

Dr. Matt?

Russia
Opinion » Columnists

Americans never give up your guns
28.12.2012

By Stanislav Mishin
Americans never give up your guns. 48982.jpeg

These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington’s clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lieing guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere…but criminals are still armed and still murdering and to often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.

Stanislav Mishin

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The reason I wrote what I did above was T-bolt’s negative comments about this drawing.

He thought it was terrible that someone would depict an ATF agent intimidating Lady Liberty.

I’d suggest Elian Gonzalez was just as innocent as the Lady.[/quote]

Push I usually agree with you for the majority of posts that I read of yours. However I’m not sure you’re remembering the Elian situation correctly.

The reason why the police had to go into the house was because Elian’s family and some other people(the guy holding Elian isn’t even a family member, If I remember correctly he’s like the shipmate who found him or something along those lines.) wouldn’t release Elian back to his family in Cuba. Elian and his mother left Cuba and Elian’s father to come to America illegaly (or I guess legally…something about if you can get here you can stay here…) During the voyage his mother died, and becaue Elian was a minor he did not have the same rights as adults that flee cuba and come to America.

Elians family that was in America was from his mothers side however when his father learned of Elian surviving he requested that he be brought back to Cuba. Obviously that American family didn’t agree with this, but as Im sure you will agree they had no fucking say about it. It was up to Elian’s father what happened to him. If the family released Elian like they should have, those police officers you see in the picture never would have had to enter the house.[/quote]

I recall it basically as you did. There was a bit more to it but the bottom line is the photo is accurate; it speaks for itself. Jack-booted thugs under the Jack-booted Thug in Chief, – Janet Reno – the murderess of innocents at Waco, used unnecessary force to reinforce the idea that the United States federal government plays second fiddle to no one, not even God himself. It now thinks itself the Czar of North America.

It was unnecessary. I remember it well.[/quote]

m

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The reason I wrote what I did above was T-bolt’s negative comments about this drawing.

He thought it was terrible that someone would depict an ATF agent intimidating Lady Liberty.

I’d suggest Elian Gonzalez was just as innocent as the Lady.[/quote]

Push I usually agree with you for the majority of posts that I read of yours. However I’m not sure you’re remembering the Elian situation correctly.

The reason why the police had to go into the house was because Elian’s family and some other people(the guy holding Elian isn’t even a family member, If I remember correctly he’s like the shipmate who found him or something along those lines.) wouldn’t release Elian back to his family in Cuba. Elian and his mother left Cuba and Elian’s father to come to America illegaly (or I guess legally…something about if you can get here you can stay here…) During the voyage his mother died, and becaue Elian was a minor he did not have the same rights as adults that flee cuba and come to America.

Elians family that was in America was from his mothers side however when his father learned of Elian surviving he requested that he be brought back to Cuba. Obviously that American family didn’t agree with this, but as Im sure you will agree they had no fucking say about it. It was up to Elian’s father what happened to him. If the family released Elian like they should have, those police officers you see in the picture never would have had to enter the house.[/quote]

I recall it basically as you did. There was a bit more to it but the bottom line is the photo is accurate; it speaks for itself. Jack-booted thugs under the Jack-booted Thug in Chief, – Janet Reno – the murderess of innocents at Waco, used unnecessary force to reinforce the idea that the United States federal government plays second fiddle to no one, not even God himself. It now thinks itself the Czar of North America.

It was unnecessary. I remember it well.[/quote]

I remember that that there was a bit more to it as well, I kept it short to prevent boredom while reading.

Anyways, I disagree with you. Remember a father wanted his son back, that was the true story. That family and their friends (we’ll call them friends but they were more like vulchers sucking up their 15 minutes of fame) had no right to keep his son from him. Even under the guise of â??it was what his mother wantedâ?? the mother was dead, and originally took the son from the father and made an attempt to bring him to the states without the fatherâ??s knowledge. Therefore the father was the only rightful guardian of Elian.
If the gov’t had not acted the way it did than it would have shown a negative light on the situation and our system. And if I remember correctly the Govâ??t gave the family plenty of chances to hand over Elian to the point where they even gave the family a deadlineâ?¦Which the family chose to ignore.

I just think that if you were the father in that situation you would have wanted the same thing to happen if that was the only way you could get your son back.
[/quote]

Very interesting:

Whether or not there is validity to the published psychiatric theory that modern liberalism is a mental disorder, cases like this suggest that liberalism can be fertile soil indeed for development of mental disease.

A better solution to society’s problems then is to treat liberalism.

http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735
Interesting article comparing American gun policy to that of other nations. I’m a strong proponent of the 2nd amendment btw.

Offered without comment. Just to stir the pot:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Offered without comment. Just to stir the pot:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/01/kurt-eichenwald-lets-repeal-second-amendment[/quote]

Oi. You would. No way is my answer to that author. Hell no, as a matter of fact. As I said earlier, the essential aspect of freedom is NOT balance sheet efficiency, or economic sheet efficiency, or any other measure of “best practices”. The essential aspect of freedom is self-determination, which is often illogical, emotional, and otherwise entirely inefficient. Freedom is guaranteed by the Second amendment ability to fight for it if necessary, and as such in no way should it be repealed. Ever.

[quote]Legionary wrote:
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735
Interesting article comparing American gun policy to that of other nations. I’m a strong proponent of the 2nd amendment btw.[/quote]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Here is an article on the Swiss and gun control.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html[/quote]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Offered without comment. Just to stir the pot:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/01/kurt-eichenwald-lets-repeal-second-amendment[/quote]

Should clarify the second amendment. I’m sure the founding fathers were just making sure their fellow citizens would never be stripped of the right to hang up a bears arms over the fireplace.

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735
Interesting article comparing American gun policy to that of other nations. I’m a strong proponent of the 2nd amendment btw.[/quote]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Here is an article on the Swiss and gun control.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html[/quote]
[/quote]

Didn’t see that. Thanks for the read. I miss Switzerland.

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735
Interesting article comparing American gun policy to that of other nations. I’m a strong proponent of the 2nd amendment btw.[/quote]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Here is an article on the Swiss and gun control.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html[/quote]
[/quote]

Didn’t see that. Thanks for the read. I miss Switzerland. [/quote]

You are welcome.

It does seem like a healthier attitude and a more mature approach that is more inclusive and respectful of the cultural foundation of the country.

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735
Interesting article comparing American gun policy to that of other nations. I’m a strong proponent of the 2nd amendment btw.[/quote]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Here is an article on the Swiss and gun control.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html[/quote]
[/quote]

Didn’t see that. Thanks for the read. I miss Switzerland. [/quote]

You are welcome.

It does seem like a healthier attitude and a more mature approach that is more inclusive and respectful of the cultural foundation of the country.

[/quote]

Exactly. In your opinion, why is it that the Swiss can maintain such a large arsenal of firearms without experiencing the level of violence found in the United States? Is it socio-economic factors? Cultural celebration of violence?

[quote]Legionary wrote:

Exactly. In your opinion, why is it that the Swiss can maintain such a large arsenal of firearms without experiencing the level of violence found in the United States? Is it socio-economic factors? Cultural celebration of violence?[/quote]

Association and…

Cultural celebration of competence: Taking pride in being strong, capable men and women.

Association with:

Being capable to handle something lethal responsibly.

The exercise of self control in handling fire power.

The maturity to allow personal responsibility to develop.

Nurturing strength rather than protecting weakness.

All the above associations lead to inner security and maturity and means less dependence on government:
Independent individuals enjoy true freedom.

The gun in Switzerland could be a SYMBOL of freedom - a proclamation of independence - through personal power that comes with responsible choices.

In Switzerland may be a way to bond with one’s children.
In America the parental focus may be working harder to buy your offspring a wii, playstation, xbox, bigger house, bigger toys, ipad, etc…this breeds statism: one is buying one’s status in society from external values.

On the bonding with one’s children: Their gun culture seems to be a tradition to be passed on to other generations, preserved. Freedom is sacred, seems to be the message passed on to the next generation.
Here in the USA, freedom is a means to end of other people’s freedom.
Or a commodity to be sold to the next generation.

In Switzerland, it is also a way to socialize: they have a drinking festival.
In the USA, my understanding is, and correct me if I am wrong, the gun show is more of a commercial nature.

I have to suggest also, an overwhelming reliance on the military: because America has the greatest military in the world.
I have been told, in fact, Switzerland would be Germany now if it weren’t for the USA army.

So that has to be given great consideration; when a nation invests so heavily in its army ( tax payer money ) what effect does it have in the individual members of such society and their sense of security and instinct of self-reliance and self-preservation?

Lastly, freedom need not mean more crime if we educate our children that with free will comes personal accountability.

What is your opinion on it?

You seem to be familiar with Swiss culture, have you lived there?

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

Exactly. In your opinion, why is it that the Swiss can maintain such a large arsenal of firearms without experiencing the level of violence found in the United States? Is it socio-economic factors? Cultural celebration of violence?[/quote]

Association and…

Cultural celebration of competence: Taking pride in being strong, capable men and women.

Association with:

Being capable to handle something lethal responsibly.

The exercise of self control in handling fire power.

The maturity to allow personal responsibility to develop.

Nurturing strength rather than protecting weakness.

All the above associations lead to inner security and maturity and means less dependence on government:
Independent individuals enjoy true freedom.

The gun in Switzerland could be a SYMBOL of freedom - a proclamation of independence - through personal power that comes with responsible choices.

In Switzerland may be a way to bond with one’s children.
In America the parental focus may be working harder to buy your offspring a wii, playstation, xbox, bigger house, bigger toys, ipad, etc…this breeds statism: one is buying one’s status in society from external values.

On the bonding with one’s children: Their gun culture seems to be a tradition to be passed on to other generations, preserved. Freedom is sacred, seems to be the message passed on to the next generation.
Here in the USA, freedom is a means to end of other people’s freedom.
Or a commodity to be sold to the next generation.

In Switzerland, it is also a way to socialize: they have a drinking festival.
In the USA, my understanding is, and correct me if I am wrong, the gun show is more of a commercial nature.

I have to suggest also, an overwhelming reliance on the military: because America has the greatest military in the world.
I have been told, in fact, Switzerland would be Germany now if it weren’t for the USA army.

So that has to be given great consideration; when a nation invests so heavily in its army ( tax payer money ) what effect does it have in the individual members of such society and their sense of security and instinct of self-reliance and self-preservation?

Lastly, freedom need not mean more crime if we educate our children that with free will comes personal accountability.

What is your opinion on it?

You seem to be familiar with Swiss culture, have you lived there?

[/quote]

I agree with your sentiments. I may be biased, but the United States status as the world’s lone superpower necessitates maintaining an overwhelming military edge over potential rivals. This isn’t a bad thing, as all liberal democracies who align themselves with the U.S. benefit from it. I would read Robert Kagan’s “The World America Made” if you are interested in the school of thought that holds that the world is would be better off with the current status quo of American hegemony vs. the U.S. choosing to become less involved in the International System. I have not lived in Switzerland for an extended amount of time, but studied abroad there for a few weeks, along with Austria and Germany. I have a great respect for their cultures and feel that we could learn much from following their example in some regards. With the Swiss’ gun culture, this is especially true.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Offered without comment. Just to stir the pot:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/01/kurt-eichenwald-lets-repeal-second-amendment[/quote]

There is much to disagree with here, but the author makes a very good point - the Second Amendment has never been seen as an absolute right and the evidence is the application of the right to the mentally ill. What other constitutional right do the mentally ill leave at the door by virtue of their condition? Like the author notes, a crazy person still has rights against unreasonable search and seizure. But the mentally ill do not enjoy the unfettered right to gun ownership, and never have.

The same example can be used for gun restrictions for felons. Felons have done their time, paid their debt to society. What other constitutional rights do they forfeit as a result of their status? They are now free citizens, after all. After they get out of jail, they have the right to free speech, the right against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to worship as they please. But we have typically recognized gun restrictions for felons as a matter of public safety.

Point being - the history of the states’ traditional police powers complicates any reading of the Second Amendment. Exceptions have historically been made for this right in the name of public safety. What are these limits of these exceptions in light of the constitutional right? Unclear. But they cannot be ignored.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

There is much to disagree with here, but the author makes a very good point - the Second Amendment has never been seen as an absolute right and the evidence is the application of the right to the mentally ill. What other constitutional right do the mentally ill leave at the door by virtue of their condition? Like the author notes, a crazy person still has rights against unreasonable search and seizure. But the mentally ill do not enjoy the unfettered right to gun ownership, and never have.
[/quote]

This has nothing to do with natural right to self-defense.
The example of the mentally ill persons falls under the principles of competence.

Mentally ill persons at the time the Second Amendment was written were institutionalized for the sake of public safety:
Had Adam Lanza been cared for in an institution he would have not mass murdered.
When government violates the principle of competence by passing laws based in “equality and fairness” when common sense dictates mentally ill persons are clearly not equally stable as able bodied citizens, we all suffer the consequences of breaking the principles of the law.

A mentally ill person today may enjoy many rights but they have no right in demanding equal pay from an employer at par with a competent citizen because they are simply not “equal” in competence. No mentally ill person would be legitimate in sueing if they were turned down from applying for a job as a firefighter.

Mentally ill persons are unstable, and therefore are bound by the principles of competence.

For one, they forfeit the right to vote.

Further, a pedophile comes out of prison.
Does he have a right to work? Yes.
Do you give him a job as a kindergarten teacher?

When we use our freedom and our power to violate others we have caused loss and we should not be protected from experiencing that their loss is our loss.
Abusing our natural rights have consequences that need to be experienced in its full impact so as to act as a powerful deterrent.

Self-regulation needs to be encouraged, not substituted by a nanny state.

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

This has nothing to do with natural right to self-defense.
The example of the mentally ill persons falls under the principles of competence.[/quote]

You’re right, we aren’t talking about the natural right to self-defense (and we will set aside the law’s requirement to “retreat” in many instances and jurisdictions, so this natural right is not as absolute under law as you’d think).

The issue is whether someting often described as an absolute right can be proscribed or curtailed in the name of public safety - and you have made the point for me: because we deem someone “incompetent” to handle a gun, for public safety reasons, we proscribe an otherwise free citizen’s right to a gun.

The mere fact that we can determine that someone is “incompetent” is proof of the existence of a police power to infringe on what some have called an absolute right.

Correct, meaning from an originalist point of view, the Second Amendment is qualified by such actions re: pubcli safety and welfare.

[quote]Had Adam Lanza been cared for in an institution he would have not mass murdered.
When government violates the principle of competence by passing laws based in “equality and fairness” when common sense dictates mentally ill persons are clearly not equally stable as able bodied citizens, we all suffer the consequences of breaking the principles of the law.[/quote]

A non-dequitur from your previous point - but this does demontstrate an important point: the state has a prerogative to consider someone’s competence in the name of public safety and to proscribe their use of the an gun.

They don’t have a constitutional right to a job as a firefighter.

Yes, and that doesn’t help the argument that the right to bear arms is an absolute one.

[quote]Further, a pedophile comes out of prison.
Does he have a right to work? Yes.
Do you give him a job as a kindergarten teacher?[/quote]

He doesn’t have a constitutional right to a job as a kindergarten teacher.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

This has nothing to do with natural right to self-defense.
The example of the mentally ill persons falls under the principles of competence.[/quote]

You’re right, we aren’t talking about the natural right to self-defense (and we will set aside the law’s requirement to “retreat” in many instances and jurisdictions, so this natural right is not as absolute under law as you’d think).

The issue is whether someting often described as an absolute right can be proscribed or curtailed in the name of public safety - and you have made the point for me: because we deem someone “incompetent” to handle a gun, for public safety reasons, we proscribe an otherwise free citizen’s right to a gun. [/quote]

The issue is whether someone often described as having an absolute right can be curtailed in the name of public safety - and I have made my point:

because we know there are 1 million people who have proved to be competent, law abiding citizens, we don’t abolish their right when we can otherwise curtail the rights of the 1 incompetent and or delinquent that is not able to exercise self restraint.

That is only mere proof of failure in self restraint. “We” are not responsible for the failures of others.

The existence of a police force is only proof that most members of society have so far chosen to elect an external source of self restraint to regulate the failures of the free citizens that abuse their natural rights and infringe on the freedom of others.

The issue here is more one of self restraint: Failure to regulate one’s self and electing external forces to impose a restraint on those who are incompetent at doing so.

Correct, meaning from an originalist point of view, the Second Amendment is qualified by such actions re: pubilc safety and welfare.

[quote]Had Adam Lanza been cared for in an institution he would have not mass murdered.
When government violates the principle of competence by passing laws based in “equality and fairness” when common sense dictates mentally ill persons are clearly not equally stable as able bodied citizens, we all suffer the consequences of breaking the principles of the law.[/quote]

A non-dequitur from your previous point - but this does demontstrate an important point: the state has a prerogative to consider someone’s competence in the name of public safety and to proscribe their use of the an gun.
[/quote]

It follows quite naturally from my previous points.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed when the principles of competence naturally apply a curtailing of those who fail to exercise their free will aright in our society.

Just popping my head in with a few bits of good news and encouragement.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/8806/county-sheriffs-can-block-federal-gun-control/

http://www.gazette.com/opinion/state-94668-gun-ban.html