Ruining a Hercules

I am in the middle of Alec Nove's An Economic History of the USSR (Pelican Books, 1975) and have found some interesting parallels with the - not economic, but anti-economic - policies of communist Russia and the anti-economic policies of the Obama regime. So far the most disturbing similarity I discovered is between pre-communist, czarist Russia and America on its current fast-track to some form of neo-communism. The big-picture views of both their situations are identical in essentials - and profoundly scary.

Consider what is happening around us. The government's policies are stifling America's private sector and keeping her natural resources in their useless natural state. There is the communist-directed OWS movement which has the potential to become violent. There is a TEA Party movement trying to bring constitutionalism to an incompetent government engaged in continuous power grabs and spending wildly to the point of bankruptcy.

All that has happened before - a century ago, on the other side of the world.

From Nove:

The following is an extract from a book by an Austrian observer, Hugo Ganz, published in 1904 and entitled The Downfall of Russia. It is said to be a conversation between Ganz himself and a senior official who asked to remain anonymous:

   "What will be the end, then?"

   "The end will be that the terror from above will awaken the terror from below, that peasant revolts will break out and that assassination will increase."

   "And is there no possibility of organizing the revolution so that it shall not rage senselessly?"

   "Impossible..."

   "There is no one with whom I have spoken who would fail to paint the future of this country in the darkest colours. Can there be no change of the fatal policy which is ruining the country?" 

   "Not before a great general catastrophe. When we shall be compelled for the first time partly to repudiate our debts - and that may happen sooner than we now believe - on that day, being no longer able to pay our old debts with new ones - for we shall no longer be able to conceal our internal bankruptcy from foreign countries and from the Emperor - steps will be taken, perhaps..." 

   "Is there no mistake possible here in what you are saying?" 

   "Whoever, like myself, has known the state kitchen for the last twenty-five years has no longer any doubts. The autocracy is not equal to the problems of a modern great power, and it would be against all historical precedent to assume that it would voluntarily yield without external pressure to a constitutional form of government." 

   "We must wish then, for Russia's sake, that the catastrophe comes as quickly as possible."

   "I repeat to you that it is perhaps nearer than we all think or are willing to admit. That is the hope; that is our secret consolation...We are near to collapse, like an athlete with great muscles and perhaps incurable heart weakness. We still maintain ourselves upright with stimulants, by loans, which like all stimulants only help to ruin the system more quickly. With that we are a rich country with all conceivable natural resources, simply ill-governed and prevented from unlocking our resources. But is this the first time that quacks have ruined a Hercules that has fallen into their hands?" (p. 27)

Need America continue this repeating of Russia's history?

America's crisis has been a long-time in the making and is arriving at its climax, but it is not too late for us to get to work at stopping the quacks in Washington from ruining this Hercules.

Anti-Gunners to Blame for Tuscon Shooting

The anti-gun pundits, politicians, and lobbyists have been calling for more gun control, primarily of extended-capacity magazines, since the recent mass shooting at a Safeway in Tuscon, Arizona by a deranged loser who killed six people and wounded thirteen others. The deranged loser used a 9mm Glock 19 with a 33-cartridge magazine which was made for the model 18 9mm machine pistol some 25 years ago. (Remember how back then they hysterically screamed that the then-new Glock was a "plastic pistol that could get through airport metal detectors"?)

The anti-gun voices have been mostly calling for a law limiting magazine capacity to 10 cartridges; any more than that and such magazines are described as "devices made for killing a lot of people, fast" that lack "legitimate sporting use." In these people's minds the pistol and the extended-capacity magazine have been just as villainous as the murdering, deranged loser. Some columnists have referred to semiautomatic pistols as "personal weapons of mass destruction" and even claimed they are "unsuitable for self-defense." (No, I do not care to cite or link to these firearm illiterates and shysters.)

They portray themselves as the rational, virtuous, responsible ones struggling to save society from the dangers of the dogmatic, irresponsible, paranoid gun nuts and gun lobby.

Really?

Assuming for argument's sake that the anti-gunners' claims about the weapon used in the Tuscon shooting are correct only goes to show that they are to blame for the massacre.

Apparently anti-gunners like Chuck Schumer, Josh Sugarman, and Paul Helmke never heard of a Glock 33-round magazine until this shooting. Now they crusade against it! I thought they are the ones who are so concerned about "assault weapons" and "personal weapons of mass destruction" being "too accessible" and "on the streets" endangering us all, yet they had 25 years to ban this magazine and thereby prevent the Tuscon massacre - and did not. Why did they wait 25 years for blood to flow through the streets to finally bring this destructive implement to the public's attention and take appropriate legislative action? (No, magazines over 10-shots were not prohibited under the now-expired Clinton gun law.) This failing demonstrates that they are as irresponsible, immoral, and dangerous to society as those gun nuts and their lobby! The spilled blood in Tuscon is on the hands of the anti-gun lobby and politicians! Not only that, but we can expect more mass shootings because the calls for banning this magazine has led to a surge in demand for it!

It is of course absurd to actually argue the above, but what does it say about the anti-gunners' argument when it can be so effectively turned around against them? It exposes them for the fear-mongering shysters they have always been. It also challenges the credibility of their claim that this magazine and others like it are improper for civilian use and only made for killing a lot of people, fast. Then why were there not more uses of this magazine in previous mass shootings going back 25 years? (What about all the equally inevitable hijackings with Glocks that never happened?)

There is a similar problem for the anti-gunners as well regarding self-defense. If handguns like the Glock are "unsuitable for self-defense" as one anti-gun lobbyist has lately asserted - ridiculousness of this assertion aside - then what handgun is? They are, as usual, claiming that guns made for killing people should be banned, yet also claim to support self-defense ...but with what kind of gun? One not made for killing people?

Massad Ayoob, a cop, expert witness, gun writer, and firearms trainer said it best on his blog: "The sort of people who fear “high capacity magazines” are the ones who have no plan but to lie down and play dead – or die – if they’re ever in the presence of someone like mass-murderer Jared Loughner in Tucson earlier this month." I would add that they have no right to decide for me or anyone else that we also have to play dead or die!