Please help to understand the topic of weapons. The topic was from Russia

[spravos]

Dear forum members.

I am writing from Moscow region, Russia. In our country, there is a debate that would allow the sale of short-barreled rifles. To be precise, pistols.

Now we are allowed to have shotguns for home defense. You can have a gun at home hunters. Allowed to wear street traumatic guns that shoot rubber bullets.

Supporters permit sales and carrying rifled guns link to the U.S. experience. Please tell us, does the right of people to own a gun for safety.

P.S. Sorry to have to use the service of automatic translation. He gives the text is not quite correct. But I think it will not prevent dialogue. -))

[jwramp]

It sounds like you're saying new laws are being proposed that draw from experience with the way things are in the USA.

Each of our 50 states has their own laws for what kind of guns common citizens can own, and also how they can carry them in public. Some states allow handguns (short barrels, no shoulder stock) to be carried "open," or visible to those around you, commonly on the hip. Some allow carrying "concealed," or hidden to others, commonly under clothing or inside a bag.

Most any firearms (other than automatics and shoulder-fired guns with short barrels) can be stored for defense inside the home, but when they are taken outside into public, laws regulate who/how can carry them.

You'll find mentions of our "second amendment" to our Constitution as a justification for the freeing of our rights to keep and carry any firearm. It was a part of the founding document of our country that was written to guarantee this "right".

[BestDefense=StrongOffense]

In the US, our constitution gives us the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. In this state, Pennsylvania, our state constitution says that the right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.

[spravos]

In the US, our constitution gives us the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. In this state, Pennsylvania, our state constitution says that the right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.

How do you think, does the right to bear arms for the security of citizens?
There are different opinions on this issue. Some believe that the crime rate is independent of the citizens to bear arms. That crime rates are determined by many factors.
Some advocates of gun rights argue that carrying weapons reduces crime.

In your opinion, who is right?

[knight0334]

In the US, our constitution gives us the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. In this state, Pennsylvania, our state constitution says that the right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.

Almost.

Our constitution protects an existing right. It doesn't give us anything because all rights and powers originate in the People.

[TheWolff]

How do you think, does the right to bear arms for the security of citizens?
There are different opinions on this issue. Some believe that the crime rate is independent of the citizens to bear arms. That crime rates are determined by many factors.
Some advocates of gun rights argue that carrying weapons reduces crime.

In your opinion, who is right?

In my opinion, criminals carry guns no matter what the law says. I don't see how giving people the ability to defend themselves could be a bad thing. If criminals think people have guns, I think they are less likely to use force against them.

[spravos]

In my opinion, criminals carry guns no matter what the law says. I don't see how giving people the ability to defend themselves could be a bad thing. If criminals think people have guns, I think they are less likely to use force against them.

OK. Please tell us how many of your friends, relatives carry guns every day?
Collected in the morning, take the car keys, phone, gun ...
Or a weapon is usually at home?

[zeroflat24]

OK. Please tell us how many of your friends, relatives carry guns every day?
Collected in the morning, take the car keys, phone, gun ...
Or a weapon is usually at home?

i have a large group of friends and family i would say at least 10-15 carry everyday, everywhere (where its legal) all the time. One of my best buddies moved to California and cant carry anymore his rights to carry are basically non-exsisting.

[spravos]

i have a large group of friends and family i would say at least 10-15 carry everyday, everywhere (where its legal) all the time. One of my best buddies moved to California and cant carry anymore his rights to carry are basically non-exsisting.

Thank you. I watched the stats U.S. citizens self-defense against criminals. Data differ. Many people in Pennsylvania to prevent crimes by citizens with guns?

[WhiteFeather]

Welcome to the forums

Got the same trouble using auto translators to read Russian text.


Been reading the debate within Russian to upgrade its people from subjects and begin to trust its citizens to own personal firearms for some months now.

Guns are nothing but inanimate objects, tools if you will, that can be used for hunting for recreation or put food on the table, for target practice, other sporting uses, for home or self defense to protect people from criminals. Or fgun control for its true purpose, as its about control over you.

Here is the two operative clauses that our right to own firearms is based on from over 200 year plus time period ago. It the concept that the individual is the master and the government is the servant of the free people that have the tools to fight for their freedoms IF its required again.

Constitution of the United States of America Amendment II
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.

CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Article 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Right to Bear Arms Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

note - The federal version is based on PA orginal version

Study the American Revolution and the minute man concept and the spark that let the shot heard around the world was over gun ownership, when everyone own guns and was armed.

more modern examples of civilian disarmament is a large masses of genocide all by governments murdering its subjects in the 20th century , far more harm than criminals can ever do with misuse of firearms ever present to any populations.


WW2 Admiral Yamamoto is credited with this quote

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Another communist had this saying, hated his politics but it still fact is here was used to rule over billion of disarmed subjects, that couldn’t fight back with guns.

Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
"Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224.

If people had private firearms and the willingness to use them in Russia do you think this would have happened.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Governments can not just send out the military or the police to push around an armed populations of free thinking Citizens that has the tools, knowledge and the determination to keep their freedom without paying the cost.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force;
like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."
- George Washington

A tyrannical government can’t easily tell people what to do, round up dissents and throw them into camps, to make example of them that understand , those that have the willingness to fight to the bitter end, it’s the ultimate check mate to controller of all powerful governments or king, queens will.

Any country or government that can not trust its citizens to own private firearms, is a government that the people should be VERY afraid of as well, as any such government that does not have the best interest of its Citizens to have to disarm them for the safety of the government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Declaration of independence.

Gun ownership has a lot more reasons than just this reason listed, just wanted to you a historical reason to explain why America is much different than most countries, as we got our freedoms the expensive way, by throwing off the yoke of tyranny with the willingness to fight to the death again overwhelming odds regardless win, lose or draw. As long as you never surrender the only thing they can do to stop you is to kill you, trouble for the elite want to be rulers of the New World Order is this concepts works both ways…. trouble for them They are just not willing to die for their beliefs or principals, not that they have a problem sending others to due their dirty work for them instead.

That is how you beat them, that is there weakness and why they don’t want the average person to own firearms as they have to rule over armed Citizens with their consent.


My personal philosophy about private firearm ownership, its about power and control.


When people own private firearms, they can say NO and mean NO to the government, whether that future generation has the political willingness and stone to take up arm to use them to fight back to regain their freedom is up to generation to decide, on my watch its our responsibility to make sure they have the hardware option available to say NO same as it was given to US.

Trouble for US is most people have not learned the lessons of history Of armed resistance to tyranny, is the best way to secure peace, so we are doomed to repeat the lesson in the future

find someone that can read english, we will give the information and history to make some really good position paper for allowing this in your country