Pravda Supports Freedom

There is something seriously askew with the world when Pravda, formerly the official newspaper of the Soviet Communist Party runs an editorial urging Americans not to give up our freedoms, especially the right to bear arms.

These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear 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.

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.

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.

Meanwhile, one of the most prominent newspapers in the United States has run an editorial calling for tyranny.

AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

Although, to be fair, the New York Times has been on the side of tyranny for a long time.

And, while I am looking at links at The Drudge Report, Governor Andrew Cuomo knows how many bullets every one needs.

“I say to you forget the extremists. It’s simple — no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer and too many people have died already,” Cuomo said.

I wouldn’t know how many bullets it takes to kill deer, nor do I care. The second amendment isn’t to protect the rights of deer hunters but to protect all of us against tyrants. It often takes a lot more than ten bullets to kill a tyrant.


4 thoughts on “Pravda Supports Freedom”

  1. Why is it supporting tyranny to suggest that America (much like every country with a written constitution) has to amend it regularly?

    Systems get outdated and ineffective as technology and attitudes move on. there are no whips in American politics, which may be a good or a bad thing, but it means a system by which decisions under time limit cannot go to the wire anymore.

    You know the ‘right to bear arms’ was originally based on an English law, the Bill of Rights of 1689. At the time it was relevant- the limitation of the power of the crown to disarm Protestants or Catholics was actually important in a time before police. Because there’s a ‘fluid’ constitution, gun laws in the UK have been allowed to move on at the same pace as society. Now there are comprehensive and effective gun laws.

    Refusing to change a constitution does not mean anyone who wants reform supports tyranny.


    1. There is a system to amend the constitution in the constitution. Anyone who wants to update the constitution can do so by following that system. The person who wrote that editorial apparently wants to do away with the constitution altogether in order to remove the obstacles that allow the government to perform in a manner in which he might consider more efficiently and responsively. A government with no effective limits on its power is tyranny.
      The right to bear arms is indeed based on English common law. The idea is that free men have the right to bear arms to protect themselves. It has been the pattern of tyrants throughout history to disarm their subjects so that they are helpless. Historically, the behavior of governments towards disarmed and helpless subjects has not been very encouraging.
      I am not sure what you mean by saying that gun laws in the UK are effective. The crime rate there is the highest in the EU. Effective for the criminals who need not fear their victims perhaps?


      1. tyrants do not disarm the people. tyrants arm the people with weapons and with ideals. thats specifically what North Korea aim to do, and what most other tyrannical regimes have actually done.

        no one if free if everyone has guns- the whole world would revolve around game theory that falls apart in the evaluation and it leads to a mess.

        the crime rate is not the highest in the EU. We have the highest prison population by raw numbers because of how our justice system works.

        at crimes where guns are relevant, for example murders, England and Wales (because the figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are separate) have 1/3 the murders per 1000 people of the USA. That’s what the laws actually aim for.


  2. Before Stalin liquidated the kulaks, he made sure they were disarmed and could not fight back. Before Hitler exterminated the Jews he made sure they were disarmed and could not fight back. One of the first things Castro did when he seized power in Cuba was to disarm the Cuban people to keep himself from being overthrown, and on and on.
    When various states in the US started issuing more concealed carry permits to basically anyone without a criminal record who asked for one, gun control advocates predicted that the streets of the US would be awash in blood. It didn’t happen. The crime rate has been declining in the US for several reasons but John Lott has argued in his book, More Guns, Less Crime, that the presence of more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens has served to deter criminals.
    The UK is indeed the most violent country in Europe and Britain’s overall crime rate even surpasses the US and South Africa.


Questions, comments, praise

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.