Saker rant: “Gun control” should only mean “hitting your target”

Sorry, Saker. (Some find it very hard indeed to escape the american psychosis, ever those who struggle hard.)

It has been useful here, and it is this time. In a very revealing way.

Thank you Saker.

I have no idea what the Russian or Cossack tradition is concerning the ownership of guns by the people, but as you state it is clearly a critical part of our Anglo-Saxon conception of personal liberty and self-governance. I would appreciate it if you would sometime discuss firearms ownership pre-1917 in Russia and also today, they would have seemed essential in Siberia and during the struggle against the Turks in the South. Obviously the situation was different under Communism.

I think a lot of people do not make the clear distinction between gun control and ban. And both sides of the “gun control” battle try to spin that notion in their favor.
What I think is needed is a clear, rational, and national, system of control (not ban) of gun ownership and use (kind of guns, number of guns, mental and physical ability, etc….).
Also, I think a mandatory registration and insurance policy for guns (like for cars) should be in place. Victims of gun violence should be paid by the insurance (and the insurance goes after the perpetrator, like for car insurance when they increase premium). And let the “market” determine the “cost” of owning a gun; that way, owning a gun will be a more responsible action not like owning a toy. Seems like the only way most Americans understand anything at all is when their wallet is involved.

Yes of gun control, No for gun ban!

In a perfect world no persons would need to defend themselves.

Here in America the police, and all other levels of government won’t and can’t protect the citizens from violence and often is itself the source of violence.

The police protect and serve the wealthy class by killing anyone who dares to question power with impunity. Many people have died from not instantly obeying authority ? An affront to our Israeli trained police will get you killed.

How many people of color must die ? Do they not have the right to protect themselves and their loved ones?

The first amendment speaks to our God given rights and the second amendment insures we as citizens can protect those rights. I don’t want to depend on the government for my protection. I might have to protect myself and family FROM the government.

Honorable Saker, I agree with you completely. You’re spot on. Thank you once again for expressing in words what I believe.

guns dont kill people… :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsN0FCXw914

ps its nice to finally have something to disagree with The Saker on. was becoming scarily guruish!

Add to that…

Media lie that crime is on increase to promote more police powers – Link to Offguardian

No, guns are not the fundamental problem.

The mass murdering, sociopathic American people and their “values” are the problem.

It’s only natural that mass shootings have become an enduring part of American culture.

This is an America that routinely inflicts much greater violence in the form of invasions, bombings, and wars of aggression against other nations.

This is not to mention the American regime’s police killing unarmed Black civilians like they are Iraqi “Untermenschen.”

America’s real values ain’t to be found in any toilet paper Bill of Lies or Con-stitution.

They are to be found in the slaughter in innocents from Fallujah to Charleston.

Saker great rant….yes I too saw those sad stories of more people gunned down and I thought immediately that it was probably false flags because the authorities want to get all our guns…so they can come without danger and ‘control’ us. I believe this is very important to them, since the Bundy Ranch episode last year.

This was a decent rant. Regarding the “macho” dog owners and their attack dogs, I’ve a simple cure. Chop the owners up and feed them to zoo carnivores (or better yet, just toss them into the animal’s cages alive), and put the dogs through retraining to remove the aggression. The later does work sometimes with aggressive trained dogs. The owners are incurable, though, and should be put down. Zoo food being a very useful and productive way of disposing of them. ;D

I am strongly against the right to bear firearms, for some simple reasons:
1. I can expect people to not carry firearms. So If there is a real dispute with a local, it is unlike he will aim a gun at me, rather hit me with a fist.
2. Policemen can expect that too. They don’t need to shoot. They are not frightened, so they don’t touch their guns.
3. You don’t defend civil rights by damaging others’ rights too quickly and too severe. The man who shot dead a young German exchange pupil in his garage took the pupils’ life to prevent theft or just a dare. The US man should have carried a big stick and talked to the pupil.
I have never seen a civil gun owner on pictures/tv, practicing shooting at legs or so.

Two things need to be brought to this discussion that are usually left out:

1-There are way too many people in the US on strange pharmaceuticals that have side effects of making one hallucinate, become violent, or other ridiculous things. In addition, the food and drink additives are almost criminal.

2-A lot of the “big” events are false flags, hoaxes, or some mix of the two. If you think 9/11 had a number of strange questions, then just spend some time looking into various events, such as the Boston Bombing. People need to get out of their trances on a lot of things, not just the phoney anti-Russian narrative. They are lying to us everywhere; it is part of their mindset or, if you prefer, spiritual world view. They believe that those who are hoodwinked are unfit to be considered to be human. Mere goyim, so to speak.

“Actually the entire Bill of Rights is, I believe, a remarkable document”.

I heartily agree, and it would make the USA a good country if anyone paid much attention to it.

At the same time that the USA is militarizing its police force, the gummint is using a wave of false shootings (hoaxes) and manufactured violence through its mass media outlets as the means to introduce gun control.

The motive is to weaken any resistence in the case that the people decide to turn against their government. A government that has increasingly reduced peoples freedoms since it signed in the Patriot Act.

If you still can’t see the forest from the trees, there is a class war taking place across the globe. Western societies are being weakened due to deindustrialization, diminishing the middle class in size. The only resistance to the New World Order are the Russians, Chinese and the armed American citizen. War is being waged against all three states and has been ever since Rockefeller revealed to the world the elite’s plans…

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” David Rockefeller [June, 1991]

Want further proof? How about this spech by George Bush Snr… On September 11, 1990 at 9:09 PM, President George Herbert Walker Bush spoke before a joint session of Congress, regarding the Persian Gulf War. Among other topics, he stated that the war presented an opportunity for a “New World Order” to emerge. Eleven years later — to the day — the twin towers of the World Trade Center would fall, creating yet another “opportunity” to move… http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/bushsr.htm#.VYf2k8uljUI

It’s a fairly obvious case of Warburg (sp.?) effect, otherwise known as “crazy people do what the TV tells them to”. Gun control won’t anything to fix it because even if all guns were magically taken away, TV will just start telling crazies to poison girl scout cookies or drive semi trucks through street festivals.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/the-media-needs-to-stop-inspiring-copycat-murders-heres-how/266439/

As an European I don’t buy your arguments. And I’m in fact planning buying a gun (after passing exams and getting a license).
But I won’t argue and ask you something: Did you notice that every time a gun control law is mentioned the arm sales in US go through the roof? And there is very little Obama can do in this regard. Arms dealers must love those massacres.

I’m with the people who are disappointed with this “analyses”. Of course Saker calls it a rant and thats just what it is, not really an analysis. So one has to cut him some slack. Now I’m not arguing that guns should be banned. Thats not the argument in America. As Obama said even additional gun control measures are politically impossible in the USA. Let alone banning guns.

Anyway a few points:
At one point Saker claims that politicians want to ban guns so they can have power over people and at another point he says that the NRA’s argument that people need guns to fight a tyrannical government (i.e politicians) is just silly propaganda. Which is it? Given the first claim by Saker then the NRA is not being silly.

A minor point about the cars, dogs and guns. Dog owners are not necessarily criminally liable for what their dogs do, because dogs, unlike guns and cars, are living creatures which can act of their own volition. Also cars and dogs are far less dangerous than guns. Cars kill many people but we use cars much more than we use guns. Also cars are far more useful than guns. SO society has every right to make an exception for one and not the other.

Which bring me to the argument that guns should be allowed because its the people not the guns that do the harm applies to all weapons from a thermonuclear bomb to a pen knife. One should therefore, in principle, acknowledge the right of individuals to keep and bear thermonuclear devices. If one denies this in principle then one cannot claim that there is any right to keep guns.

As to the claim that people who are for gun control just don’t understand guns, I suppose thats just emotion speaking. I’m surprised Saker has never met a gun control advocate who understands guns. Anyway there are plenty of them and many even own guns. There are many levels of gun control short of banning.

It maybe true that banning guns means that only the bad guys will have them. But so what? the bad guys already have guns. So now I’m in danger everyday from both the illegal gun owners and the legal gun owners. Every gun is legal at some point and legally owned guns are used in the commission of plenty of crimes. Just as in South Carolina. If guns were banned at least they would become the badge of the bad guy. You have a gun you are a bad guy. Clear cut. Again just to make a point not to argue for banning guns.

I have no idea where Saker gets his stats on how just “showing a gun” prevents a crime, but I’m sure there are many ways to be safe from crime without having to carry a gun with you around all the time or even most of the time. In other words a gun may be sufficient to stop a crime but it is not necessary. There may be other tools that society and individuals can employ to stop crimes that are equally successful.

Which brings me to the question of the “right of the people to bear arms” i.e the 2nd amendment to the US constitution. This constitutional right to bear is a particularly bogus argument within the context of the present day gun control debate. The US constitution provides a right to bear arms for the purpose of ensuring the security of the STATE not of the INDIVIDUAL. And certainly not for recreation, hunting or crime prevention. Besides that right to bear arms is given for the express purpose of maintaining a “well regulated” militia. Here is the wording of the 2nd amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Besides the framers of the constitution did not specify which arms the people could keep. Nor could they possibly have foreseen the range, power and destructiveness of today,s “arms”. Perhaps the solution is to let people keep and bear 18th century arms (or modern arms with 18th century design and performance capabilities). Keep in mind that in the framer’s day there was not even a standing army, would they have been so accepting of today’s weaponry in the hands of the people?

As for my own position, I would be happy to have guns completely banned (disclaimer: I maybe one of those people who don’t understand guns. Though I did have and shoot an air rifle, a BB gun, when growing up.) In the alternate, gun ownership should be severely restricted in terms of the types of guns, where they are sold and who can sell, buy or own them. I believe a person should have to show a need before they can own a gun. They should be required to undergo gun education and pass a test and this should be renewable every year. Gun owners should also have to purchase per gun liability insurance specifically for harm caused by their gun.

Saker,

This is the single best article you have ever written!! This is one of the very best essays in defense of the 2nd Amendment I have ever read. Maybe the best! You are a true American, citizenship or no citizenship. I am so proud to have you as a fellow American. Do not ever back down on your natural right to self defense. Where would Russian Ukrainians in Donbass be today without their caches of Soviet weapons with which to defend themselves from ukronazi thugs?

BOT TAK you have got to see this….cat on wing of airplane…video https://youtu.be/J_8mdH20qTQ

Verão não Hemisfério Norte.
Guerras começam com Noites sem lua.
:-)

(From the Portuguese, via intrnet machine translation: Summer not the Northern Hemisphere.
Wars begin with moonless nights.)

“The problem is not guns, dogs or cars. The problem is human nature and stupidity. Some humans are violent by nature, others have an addictive personality. Unless you live on a desert island, you have to accept that.”

Agreed, yes you do. One part of accepting that is not giving those people assault rifles. And unfortunately, it’s pretty much impossible to separate those people out from the rest of the population in advance. Yes, it’s unfortunate if that means they get to spoil the party for the rest of us, but it’s awfully selfish to say some creep’s ability to put the “mass” in mass murder is worth it if you get to indulge your fondness for concealed carry.

Incidentally, the US constitution was an amazing document a couple hundred years ago, but it’s gotten a tad bit long in the tooth. It remains an important historical document, but not so great as an actual working constitution. Nowadays, many other constitutions are better. Most other constitutions, for instance, have some reasonably serious stuff in them about equality; the US doesn’t even have equal rights for women, let alone blacks. The Canadian constitution is probably better than the American one today, although still certainly imperfect. And the Venezuelan constitution is way, way better.

It’s worth being aware that the US gun lobby, like most other US lobbies, is largely commercially funded. Hand weapon sales are very big business in the United States, and the businesses involved fund such groups as the NRA very handsomely. Those groups in turn invent the talking points you just listed off. You are, in short, being played. The current mania for gun ownership constitutes to a fair degree an invented mythology, like clan tartans and some other Scottish paraphernalia, but invented more for commercial purposes than for nation-building.

Incidentally, why does the right to bear arms always seem to happen in a white context? I mean, if a cop catches a black bearing arms, they don’t get any stinkin’ rights. Nobody ever says “Well, it was OK for that black male to have a gun because he owned it legally”. They just get shot. Come to think of it, even white lefty protesters don’t seem to have any right to bear arms. The results are less extreme if they have any, but they’ll still get the crap beaten out of them and used as an excuse to beat up and arrest the entire protest. The only people who can get away with weapons at a protest are nutbar Tea Partiers, which is to say the very people most likely to be dangerous with a weapon.

All that said, I’m not sure you realize that your proposal actually represents “gun control” by current American standards. That is, you appear to be calling for significantly more limits on who can own a gun than currently exist in most states, and for significant rules on safe gun storage so the kids don’t get whacked, which do not exist in many states.

Saker’s point about a true phobia of guns motivating much of the emotion behind gun control activism is absolutely correct. Ultimately, it is a sign of the tremendous lack of virility in modern Western society.

A person who cannot defend himself cannot be free. Since humans do not have sharp teeth or claws, they generally need tools to defend themselves and current technology is such that guns are usually the optimal tools. The Second Amendment did not “make up” anything, it just wrote down what was already in the English common law and, before that, in the Germanic tribal freedoms. It only favored the slave-owner versus the runaway slave because the slaver-owner was better organized as the ruling element of any society always is (that is why they are ruling…). I think that is also the thrust behind Saker’s assertion that 30 well-trained soldiers can overcome 1000 armed civilians. It is correct if we are talking about a coherent platoon with a single commander and decent morale versus 1000 atomized individuals who happen to have guns. In that case, the platoon would just kill the most vocal of those 1000 and the rest would be cowed.

Some of the commentators have pointed out that the great masses of armed Americans seem unable to use their weapons to stem the erosion of their traditional liberties and insinuate that people only be wish to be armed to shoot private individuals for ill-founded reasons. The reality is that consumerism and egoism are such in the modern Western culture (which percolates into most other cultures, though not to the same degree) that the American oligarchy is relatively secure despite all the gun-owners it rules over. If most people cannot identify the causes of their political problems, then their arms will be of no of use in stemming those problems. In essence, Americans, like most people, have a “software” problem and one does not fix that software problem by taking away the requisite “hardware” as well even if that might make some delicate types feel better about themselves (since the contemporary culture is all about subjectively feeling good about yourself…).

Even if guns in the hands of most people are not useful for limiting oligarchic abuses, they are still useful for personal defense against petty criminal elements. The person who cannot wrap his mind around major historical trends about how his society has changed can usually still figure out that the police increasingly cannot be counted on to protect him. Violent crime will return as the easy credit and consumer fanatasies that pacified people in the 1980s and 1990s fail to stem the country’s economic decline and social fragmentation and the psychopathic tendencies promoted by that same consumerism cause many people to become violent to get what they want right away.

Thus the Purple library guy is certainly free to insist that all visitors to his home be unarmed. However, he will only be able to impose this rule on relatively civilized and well-meaning armed visitors who will temporarily give up their weapons for the sake of his friendship and hospitality. The first criminal element that shows up at his door will, as he remarks, just shoot his way in and will probably be able to shoot all of his recently disarmed visitors as well.

35 killed, 12 wounded, martin bryant was a patsy. easily proven