Military Review

Korotkostvol and corruption

62
Lenin's name, regardless of how you feel about him, can not be ignored, remembering history Russia, especially in the twentieth century. From the whole gigantic set of information about this man, which is known today, my attention was drawn to the following facts.




In the memoirs of one of Lenin's fellow practitioners, there is also a story in the Simbirsk gymnasium that during the final examinations, the high school students decided to raise money for a bribe to a teacher of literature, so that he would mark higher for the final essay. When they turned to Ulyanov, a high school student (in the future, to Lenin), he flatly refused to give up his share, saying sharply, they say, he would write excellently without a bribe. What happened in the future!

Further. During the beginning of Lenin's NEP in Soviet Russia, at closed sessions of the Politburo, the leaders of the Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, discussed the possibility of legalizing and selling short-barreled weapons self-defense for citizens, since there was no means for a good law enforcement system in the country, and with the disarray of citizens, this system could become too expensive for the country. It pointed to the experience of Tsarist Russia, where a civilian short-cut was available, and purely criminal crime was one of the lowest in the world.

Lenin, in his writings of his time of emigration to Europe, pointed out then that in modern civilized society, street rudeness and, for example, harassment of women on the street are often stopped by a crowd of passers-by, even without police intervention. But after all, at that time almost every one of this crowd could easily have had a personal short-barrels with them. Therefore, the psychology was appropriate. But recently, one of the French newspapers conducted an experiment: during the day, in a crowd on the Champs Elysées in the center of Paris, by order of this newspaper, young artists imitated an attack and a collective beating of a person, repeating this performance several times at different times, because no one from the crowd even tried somehow intervene, everyone pretended that nothing was happening! Now in France, the carrying of personal weapons is strictly prohibited, you can only store at home.

Again, in the works of Lenin and in the memories of him, it is reflected that he always had the Browning with him, which he was confiscated only during the death-sickness — from the fear that he would shoot himself. From this information, I conclude that, from a purely human point of view, Lenin was a normal man, brought up in the traditions of genuine honor and dignity, even though he became the leader of the environment that vehemently rejected and broke these very traditions. And when the Bolshevik revolution occurred, then in the articles and instructions of Lenin immediately appeared disturbing statements that the main enemy and temptation for communists of all levels was not even counter-revolution, but bribe !! And bribery and domestic decay can destroy all the Bolshevik conquests, which, by the way, eventually happened at the end of the twentieth century.

N-yes ... The Bolsheviks went away, but the corruption remained, and even grew so much, that the Soviet government could just go backwards. And why? Because the concept of honor in too many people is either distorted or completely absent. Too many generations have grown in our country under the leadership of dishonest leaders. And in order not to even get rid of, and at least begin the process of eradicating the dirt that has accumulated in our society and the state, few purely punitive measures are vital conditions and laws that would put forward as concrete leaders or moral authority people who are not interested in corruption because, like Lenin, as a high-school student, they will achieve everything perfectly for themselves without bribes.

Many people strive for money at all costs, or rather, for wealth, seeing in it a universal tool that will give them a feeling of fullness of life and active participation in it. But there is another human multitude. An example for the economy: migrants with a different, often hostile culture, or even without any culture, have to be admitted. These migrants create their own enclaves, refusing to grow into local society and accept its customs, native Europeans are viewed as the subject of hunting and contempt. Migrant crime is growing, and the police, entangled in tolerant human rights laws, constantly demonstrates its impotence. And despite the fact that the situation is already becoming blatant, nothing changes, there is not even a hint that something can change once ... Most Europeans live for today, trying to get only momentary joys from life, they oppose everything that at least somehow prevents them from living a similar life, a sense of duty and work for a different, non-personal perspective are made more and more alien to them. This is what I consider manifestations of degenerative psychology that even biologically normal Europeans were able to settle in the minds of years and decades of open reeducational activities on the part of real degenerates allowed into the system of power and education with permission to spread and introduce their views on life.

Unfortunately, similar perspectives and manifestations are also more and more noticeable in Russia. No, we, thank God, have not yet perceived LGBT people as an option for the norm (it’s strange, why hasn’t anyone tried to declare hunchbackedness as a beauty option ?!), but there are already such inclinations. And most importantly, too many people in our ruling elite believe that only a thorough imitation of modern Europe will lead Russia to similar material well-being. I don’t know how anyone, but I personally wouldn’t like, even having a refrigerator full of delicacies, suits from “couturias” and a garage with a “bentliy piston”, to know that my children or grandchildren in kindergarten and school are brought up by open gays and lesbians with transsexuals, suggesting to them that, in a criminal attack on them or on people nearby, they should try to run away, and if they don’t run away, then try to engage in dialogue with the bastards, if they don’t succeed either, then fulfill all their demands unquestioningly in order to survive at any cost. And in Russia it can happen very quickly, I mean the penetration of LGBT people into the system. Clear pattern!

For me personally, there is nothing unexpected in this pattern. Honesty is a derivative of honor; personal honor lies in the foundation of honor. Every normal person is born with him, feels him first instinctively, and then consciously, cherishes them, tries to save and secure. If you can not save, then the person and the life of a person or break, or a person becomes a scoundrel.

In the 19 century, Napoleon was the first in the world to ban corporal punishment for soldiers in the army, stating that flogging deprives a soldier of honor and he has nothing to fight for and die in the field of honor, the poetically called the battlefield then. As a result, Napoleon’s army was able to crush all of Europe with its prowess. And where honor is not in honor, where opportunities for saving personal dignity are constantly diminishing, one should not expect honesty either among the people or at the top of society and the state.

I want to dwell on one argument, which increasingly flashes in Internet disputes by hoplofobs. Still could not get a high-quality and detailed response from our side. Hoplofobs constantly ask us: they say, why are we so paranoidly afraid, demanding personal weapons for ourselves, that we are constantly being robbed, beaten, raped, killed? Well, the first answer that personally comes to my mind is a humorous trick in the form of a counter question ... And if that were the case, would you immediately allow your personal short circuit and self-defense with it? I hope to read and listen to how our opponents will respond to it ... And if you take it seriously, then this question of them in the most exhaustive way, almost fundamentally shows the whole intransigence of our worldviews with them. Yes, criminals do not attack every day and hour, but every day and hour there is such a danger, which is magnified many times by the unarmed of citizens, attracting and arousing the impudence of the villains with their helplessness. For a normal healthy person, this situation is intolerable and humiliating. And for hoplofobov only a reason for appeals to rely on the police, to demand its strengthening and improving its work. We, unlike them, understand and see that you will not attach a police officer to everyone and everywhere, although there are such attempts, for example, Belarus ranks first in the percentage of police per capita, Russia is also ahead of many countries in this indicator. As a result, we firmly hold “leading” positions in the world in terms of homicide and crime, huge funds are diverted to the police from the budget and mass of young healthy people from the economy, but it’s impossible to ensure a decent existence, therefore the police easily corrupt themselves and increase crime rates. thus the defenselessness of the citizens. In addition, when quantity is required, it is impossible to ensure quality, and in fact anyone is taken to the police. In addition, the police have preferential conditions for retirement ...

To be continued ...
Author:
Photos used:
Depositphotos.com
62 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. BecmepH
    BecmepH 18 September 2018 05: 47
    +2
    We must pay tribute to the author, again came up with new characters for the promotion of short-barrels. But! Again he mixed blood, go, but sugar ... (Lenin, LGBT, Napoleon). Yes, and do not want to continue. And so everything is clear.
    Minus article
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 18 September 2018 06: 01
      0
      Quote: BecmepH
      We must pay tribute to the author
      Yes, we must give it back, once again. "who is about what, and crummy about the bath", especially since "to be continued" ... Mikhail was not too lazy to add the term "hoplofob" (a person suffering from a pathological fear of weapons), and this is transferred to everyone who has a different opinion on the legalization of short-barrels, including, as it turns out, those who are associated with weapons, went through armed conflicts, served in the army. Here it is time for the author himself to remind what paranoia is - "Paranoia is a kind of violation of thinking, accompanied by the formation of overvalued and delusional ideas, while maintaining the ability for normal logical thinking in areas that are not related to the subject of delusion or overvalued ideas." How simple it is with Goldreher, give the people a gun, and we will be happy! He started with the Bolsheviks and Lenin, led him to unlimited corruption, sang about honor and dignity ... Talking about corruption and sprinkling ordered articles from lobbyists is worth a lot.
      1. Captain45
        Captain45 18 September 2018 11: 29
        -3
        Quote: Per se.
        Here it is time for the author himself to remind what paranoia is - "Paranoia is a kind of violation of thinking, accompanied by the formation of overvalued and delusional ideas, while maintaining the ability for normal logical thinking in areas that are not related to the subject of delusion or overvalued ideas."

        Of course, I am far from psychiatry, but based on the schizophrenia that is known here, it’s rather a split personality and stay in a made-up world. By the way, schizophrenics are very cunning people.
      2. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 18 September 2018 11: 54
        +14
        People who often fought against civilian weapons. For the simple reason that they are being shot in the back from the ranks of the "peace man". Very understandable fears, and a completely understandable reaction of a military man. Understandable, but ...
        You see, comrade officers, when the war is already and you have to fight in it, that is, directly respond to the shooting of the enemy, this is another question that does not have a direct relationship to the one under consideration. What you fear is still happening. You will still be shot in the back, organizing this for your enemies is not difficult, especially in the modern world.
        And the question of civilian weapons is a question of people's worldview. Who are we? People owning their lives, or submissive slaves owned by the armed? At the same time, fellow officers consider themselves in vain to be free armed people. This (paradox) is not at all true. Your weapon is not yours. Think about it and you will understand it.
        Look here. Mr. Zolotov jumped onto the podium and challenged Navalny to a duel. What was it? Alas, in the first place, this was not at all a manifestation of honor and dignity. The question of duels ... maybe duels would save the USSR. And what was in that situation? And everything was simple.
        Zolotov actually said the following - you, a miserable slave, do not have the right to blame and criticize me for anything. I am the master, and if I want, I will kill you in any way I need. But if you dare to answer me, then the state-legal system will crush you! The general himself does not care about this system. It is not built for him. But she will destroy any miserable one right away, if only he thinks of self-defense in such a situation!

        And with shooting in the back, everything is much easier, Russian people have long known the secret. Lead a JUST war, and be a man in it. And then your back will be covered. Often from that same civilian weapon. Even so. And at least they will not shoot in the back. Fight the war with a man of honor. Only our army was capable of such ...
        1. Bull Terrier
          Bull Terrier 18 September 2018 14: 59
          0
          Why did you get all this? People who have gone through conflicts and wars are often against weapons for other reasons. And the most important of them is that when a person gets arms, he changes. Dying young boys very often thought that these were all games. Weapons cannot and should not be in everyone who wants it. The love of weapons is a pathology in itself. He can be interested, he can be studied. But to love ... Personally, such people annoy me. And fairy tales about self-defense are generally for children. Those who promote weapons simply want it. Possess it, use it. Groom him, feel his strength. Professional deformation is one thing for those for whom weapons are a tool of their work. It’s completely different when someone wants to orgasm with his help.
          1. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 18 September 2018 18: 22
            +8
            The love of arms is pathology in itself
            "Say NO to drugs! ... Good talking to drugs!" Love can be for a woman. I understand you didn't know. To be more precise, you used a favorite Hoplophobic trick. They put stupidity in my mouth and refuted it. Of course, I didn't say anything about "love", I'm mentally normal.
            Yes, people are changing, picking up weapons. How do I know that? You see, the last forty thousand years, at least, my ancestors did not let go of their arms. Like yours. In general, it’s much, much longer. And what? What was the result of the actions of the ARMED people, our ancestors? And you look at the map. How is it? Now look at what the complete disarmament has led to. What happened there in the nineties? How does it look on the same map? That's it ...
            An armed man is the master of his destiny. Unarmed always, under all conditions and circumstances, someone's slave. He has an armed master. Sometimes the owners do not pay attention to their people. But when they convert ...
            That's exactly how a person changes, picking up a weapon. He gains real freedom, the only freedom in the world, that is, takes full responsibility for all his actions. The weapon is dangerous. Freedom is dangerous. Responsibility is heavy. But our country was built free. But the slaves have already begun to lose it, and this process cannot be stopped by professionals. They are only a small, absolutely insufficient part of those who are needed to defend the Homeland. And if people again do not take up their destiny, then everything OURS is doomed.
            1. Vladimir 5
              Vladimir 5 20 September 2018 21: 26
              -2
              Well, yes, to a drunk or under drugs the freedom of action with a short-barreled in public places, or to a quiet schizophrenic to set up a slaughterhouse .. A short-barrel does not save, because attackers with a threat to life usually unexpectedly do not have time to use the available weapons, and murders due to the spread of short-barrels will increase significantly (even injuries with a point-blank shot to the head are lethal, which has happened more than once). The author of the article is probably from Israel, there’s a completely different situation and Israel is in a constant war with the Palestinians on the streets of Israeli cities, but for what purpose and for what reasons does the short-range gun promote in the Russian Federation? ... With domestic hooliganism and theft, short-barreled weapons are not necessary (smooth-bore for protection of home and family), because the murder of a bully not threatening fatal consequences at the court will be perceived as murder without justifiable circumstances ... Each application of the short-barrels ends with a police call and an explanation of the reasons for the use, especially with consequences, then courts, litigation, lawyers and the opportunity to lose the court, that lovers of the short-barrels do not take into account ... And on the trail, the US police (and they are professionals in the sea of ​​short-barrels) recommends not to twitch and not to take the short-barrels during a robbery or other threat with weapons, but to give everything available and lead quietly - life is more expensive, the attacker always has an advantage (even stabbing with a knife and enough) But at home you can use it, but even shoot at the back of a runaway criminal is forbidden ... etc. In the Russian Federation there is an opportunity to have a smoothbore at home, and that’s enough ...
              1. Mikhail3
                Mikhail3 21 September 2018 12: 42
                +3
                You really do not want to think so, that is, in general? I wonder if you have any hope? Well, let's try. Drunk and drugged? And try to rise above yourself, and really imagine this situation. Only using not your uncontrolled, paralyzing, meaningless fear, but your mind.
                Here the drug addict grabbed the trunk. Look - he’s not the only one to get a weapon! You see, a free man is not one that is just with a barrel. This is a person who has accepted the RESPONSIBILITY of the armed. Including forced to train in the use of weapons and recognition of threats.
                Then we look - will the drug have time to open fire? Not a fact, you know. Because armed men in good shape move faster than him. Well, okay, maybe one shot, at the expense of "fuel". Compare this to a situation where everyone is unarmed and the addict pulled out a kitchen knife. Or is he now less "free" in this?
                As for the murder, they will "grow" - tired of refuting. Long ago disproved. Will be reduced significantly. Etc. What did the poet say about your way of thinking?
                "A coward's life?
                Is this life? "
              2. Heretik
                Heretik 23 September 2018 10: 42
                +1
                Quote: Vladimir 5
                (even injuries with a point-blank shot to the head are lethal, which has happened more than once)

                Only in traumatism is there a small minus - it does not shoot back and its bulletproof magazine is not kept, because it cannot be tracked. In most cases, the injury does not have a sufficient stopping effect, and if it is used illegally, it cannot be tracked (if everything is done more or less competently), which causes impunity.
                Personally, I am in favor of banning weapons of limited destruction regardless of the permission or non-permission of the short barrels (although it is more honest and transparent).
                But first of all, it is necessary to change the law on self-defense, the rest is all secondary.
    2. Titsen
      Titsen 18 September 2018 07: 03
      +7
      Mixing the above game players on the face.

      But, rather, the article is an order of the opponents of the short-barrel.

      The supporter did not begin to mix everything in a heap!

      But the fact that the legislation needs to be changed to please the people and their "servants" is understandable even without the above-published article.

      The fear of one’s people is not only the weakness of power, it’s its despair of powerlessness that can be changed to positive!
    3. Captain45
      Captain45 18 September 2018 11: 26
      -5
      Quote: BecmepH
      But! Again he mixed blood, go, but sugar ... (Lenin, LGBT, Napoleon)

      My first thought: "horses, people are mixed in a heap ...", but you, colleague, have grasped the meaning of the article much more accurately good
      Quote: BecmepH
      Yes, and do not want to continue. And so everything is clear.
      Minus article

      Likewise, you "+" for "minus". Here is the indefatigable author ... Apparently, from the hunger strike, a hand went to ..., no, not to a pen, but to a pistol. Just don't shoot ...
      1. sib.ataman
        sib.ataman 18 September 2018 11: 37
        +2
        Judging by the reaction, you are far from the army, weapons, military affairs and generally military spirit! And what are you doing on Military Review! Came feces to scatter? Troll? Work out lentil stew?
        1. Captain45
          Captain45 18 September 2018 11: 46
          -9
          Quote: sib.ataman
          And what are you doing on Military Review!

          Are you talking to me? Judging by your reaction, it's you
          Quote: sib.ataman
          Came feces to scatter? Troll? Work out lentil stew?
          . Only without question marks, but in the statement. Although I, in fact, am absolutely indifferent to your reaction. Therefore, do not bother to answer this comment. hi
          1. sib.ataman
            sib.ataman 18 September 2018 11: 53
            +3
            Well, judging by the reaction, it is no longer indifferent, but even somehow painfully not indifferent! And the content of the answer only confirmed my assumptions!
    4. akunin
      akunin 18 September 2018 16: 08
      0
      It was necessary not to mix: Lenin and LGBT, Napoleon and LGBT or Lenin and Napoleon (separately better laughing I am for a short barrel, but I didn’t have to write an article at all.
      Quote: BecmepH
      And so everything is clear.
      will not give.
  2. tasha
    tasha 18 September 2018 05: 52
    +5
    harassment of women on the street is often stopped by a crowd of passers-by, even without police intervention. But in those days, almost every one of this crowd could have had a personal short-barrel with them. Therefore, psychology was appropriate. But recently ... none of the crowd even tried to somehow intervene, everyone pretended that nothing was happening!

    The author draws the wrong conclusions .. Psychology was appropriate not because of the presence / absence of weapons ...
    1. Conductor
      Conductor 18 September 2018 06: 19
      +10
      If you know that you’ll get a bullet in your head or a knife in the liver., Your legal awareness will be very well developed.
      1. alstr
        alstr 18 September 2018 11: 04
        +5
        We had enough examples (the USSR and the Russian Federation, and also abroad) when unarmed people resisted hooligans and even armed criminals (even recall the attack on the Israeli delegation at the Olympics, where unarmed people resisted in order to save the lives of other people). And at the cost of his life.
        This is a matter of education and the judiciary.

        If it depends on the first whether or not a person will "attack" at all - this is the emotional part, then the rational part depends on the second.
        With the current system, when decisions are made not in favor of the defender (including those defending others), very many who can intercede on emotions will not do this, because nobody needs a problem.
        And whether there is a COP or not, without changing judicial practice, the situation cannot be reversed.

        However, we also have problems with education, tk. everywhere the cult "my hut is on the edge" is spreading. Just remember what we read in elementary school in Soviet times: Malchish - Kibalchish, About Timurovites, Vasek-Trubachev. Where is all this?
        1. Mikhail3
          Mikhail3 18 September 2018 12: 47
          +5
          And at the cost of his life.
          Is that a positive example? The state has taken away freedom from people, so for the life of a bastard who still might not be able to take, you have to give yours? Do you think this is true? The unarmed have few chances. We bring him up like meat! Ugh ...
          1. alstr
            alstr 18 September 2018 16: 42
            +2
            Yes. Why not? Why, when someone rushes and saves another - is this not a good example?
            And it makes no difference a man rushed to save another, for example, from the water or trying to protect another from a bully. Both there and there is a high probability of death or injury. It’s just parenting.
            But there are such people and I would like to have more.
            1. Mikhail3
              Mikhail3 18 September 2018 18: 30
              +2
              Why, when someone rushes and saves another - is this not a good example?
              As for water - do you have any conscience? Well, at least a little?
              On the topic - what does it mean rushed to save? How can anyone be saved unarmed? This poor fellow rushed to become cannon fodder, grease for the bayonet, a dead body. Because he was first deprived of the right to self-defense and protection of what should be protected. And then he found himself in a situation where it is NECESSARY to protect. And he has nothing. He is connected. And he dies bound, powerless, loyal people who told him ...
              "The horse freely lived in the steppe. And she had no enemy except the Wolf. She suffered from the Wolf, constantly forced to fight back. But then a Man came and told her - let me on his back! Together we will catch up with the wolf and kill him! The horse agreed! The man brought a saddle and a bridle, because without them he could not stay on the horse's back. And they caught up with the Wolf, and the Man beat him to death with a whip. And then the Horse got the rump. The horse said - Wolf is killed! Get down! And the man replied - What are you laughing at, disobedient ?! And pulled on the bridle, and began to whip the horse. And then he went where he wanted ... "
              1. alstr
                alstr 18 September 2018 21: 13
                -1
                It is possible for an unarmed person to intercede when someone offends a girl, for example.

                But it was not by chance that I gave an example of the capture of the Israeli delegation, when terrorists captured the sleeping people (that is, even if the weapon were there, it would be useless).
                Nevertheless, three of the hostages resisted armed terrorists, which allowed two other people to flee.

                Or a more recent example, Zhenya Tabakov in 2008 for SEVEN years at the cost of his life saved his sister (12 years).
                Children should also have weapons - should they also protect themselves?
        2. Rustic i ......
          Rustic i ...... 20 September 2018 23: 30
          +2
          "Malchish - Kibalchish, About Timurovites, Vasek-Trubachev. Where is all this?"
          - It may be where the party leaders were given pistols (short barrels) to protect against excessive love of the population. Oh yes, there were only enemies all around.
          "However, we also have problems with upbringing, because everywhere the cult" my hut is on the edge "is spreading -
          and this provided that you have a machine gun installed in the attic and the shooting sector is not blocked by buildings adjacent to the landscape.
          I am actually 72 years old and I won't hit a squirrel, but I can hit an elephant from 3 - 4 meters, if I don't accidentally shoot myself in the leg when making a weapon. In my youth, I was very good at handling the AK-47 (AKM), in any case I hit the RGD-33, RG-42 grenades with one shot, putting them out of action, even without an explosion. He just knocked out the detonator with a bullet, and he clapped somewhere to the side. How much vodka I won in this way from the "botanists". In our terrible time, only the very lazy does not have a weapon. There is such a bike among the people: A man was detained with a grenade launcher (found on the territory of a kindergarten), he was going to hand him over to the police, there was even a statement in his pocket, a responsible representative of the authorities was passing by, the man took out a grenade launcher to hand it over, and then they tied him. Then they let him go for lack of evidence, and shook hands.
          Oh yeah, on the topic: I think it is necessary to allow the elected representatives Mausers for open wear, and the rest of the black people bulldogs 9 -12 mm caliber no more, for hidden wear. To meet the responsible guests and other delegations, use 12-gauge sawn-off shotguns with bread and coarse salt.
          Well, you have to tie it with beer ... Doctors warned you. If you demolish my performance, I won’t be offended. This is what the majority of the population thinks ...... after drinking beer.
    2. sib.ataman
      sib.ataman 18 September 2018 11: 40
      +4
      But can you tell me what generally prompted society to carry weapons on a daily and ubiquitous basis? A desire to stand out from the crowd, or what?
      1. Bull Terrier
        Bull Terrier 18 September 2018 15: 07
        +1
        The desire to get high from its availability. In my whole life I have met hundreds of people who went into the army only because they give weapons. They got high on it. When they were holding AK or APS they took it in their hands. Already drooling started. I often try to understand my friends who always carry hunting rifles in the car. Always on vacation in nature they get it, collect it. Praised by all its presence. They didn’t go hunting in life. Do you want to sell them short-barrel?
      2. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2018 15: 16
        -1
        Yes. Just the desire to stand out from the crowd. Until the mid-19th century, only nobles walked with a sword, commoners carried knives with them. Then, with the invention of revolvers, the nobles switched to them. Nobles are a caste of professional warriors and assassins, so leaving home without weapons was unthinkable for them, the same as leaving without a hat.
        1. Oleko
          Oleko 18 September 2018 17: 29
          +1
          [quote] [Yes. Just the desire to stand out from the crowd. Until the mid-19th century, only nobles walked with a sword, commoners carried knives with them. Then, with the invention of revolvers, the nobles switched to them. The nobles are a caste of professional warriors and killers, so leaving home without weapons was unthinkable for them, the same as leaving without a hat. / Quote]
          Not entirely true. From childhood, noblemen were taught to use a pistol. To dueling. To refuse a duel is to cover yourself with shame. The training practice is superbly described in the book by A. Potapov "Pistol Shooting Techniques. SMERSH Practice"
          1. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 18 September 2018 18: 32
            0
            What did the nobles go with? And the "commoners" .... You should at least get to know some sources, emana ...
          2. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2018 23: 15
            -1
            Quote: Oleko
            Not quite right. Since childhood, nobles have been accustomed to the gun. To the duel

            Because after Catherine's abolition of compulsory military service, the Russian nobles began to serve in the army only at will, and many of the nobles stopped learning fencing techniques, so they switched to pistols, which required much less effort and time than the ability to fight with a sword. The same Pushkin, for example, although he was a nobleman, but I don’t think that he knew how to wield a sword even for three.
    3. ver_
      ver_ 18 September 2018 17: 00
      0
      ... and who needs trouble? .. The former cop said * if you want to have trouble - testify .. * .. Who needs to look for adventure on your ass * ..
  3. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 18 September 2018 06: 18
    +2
    The article is chaotic. Lenin, who banned the short-barrel, and Napoleon, who actually did not "crush the whole of Europe", and not even half of them (Britain, Sweden, Russia, Austria, Portugal and Turkey were not conquered by Napoleon, and Spain had its own Patriotic War against the French occupiers and usurpers), and LGBT, which has nothing to do with "fulfill all the requirements of the criminal) does not apply.
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 18 September 2018 06: 57
    +1
    Old songs about the main thing, part III .... Our "pestnya" is good start from the beginning, etc.
    1. ver_
      ver_ 18 September 2018 11: 31
      +6
      ... you might think that something will change - even at home you will defend yourself - there will be an excess of self-defense - if you are using a kitchen knife, or with an iron * you will * sow * the aggressor to death, but he can do everything - torture, rape, beat and rob .. . - there is only one defense - the front door .. that you are obliged to open to the law to the authorities ...
  5. Etienne
    Etienne 18 September 2018 07: 52
    +15
    Before Khrushchev, all officers had personal weapons. Not official, mind you, but personal and it was kept at home. On the operational channel I heard the message: the Gopniks took away 6 trillion rubles from the Sberbank. Of course, it was not without a massacre. In Stalin's time, the gopota bypassed the officers, sensing how such a meeting could end for them. And then there was no question of the limits of necessary defense. Needlessly, the barrel did not "shine", but when attacked, they took all measures, acting according to the situation. And no one dragged the Gopniks to the courts - that was the time then.
    1. Captain45
      Captain45 18 September 2018 11: 35
      +7
      Quote: Etienne
      Prior to Khrushchev, all officers had personal weapons. Not a time sheet, mind you, but personal and it was stored at home.

      They, that for their money they bought weapons at their discretion, or did they get it in part? If a bought it yourselfthen the weapon personal and if in the part they got fixed, then the weapon still time sheet. I remember I had a note in the certificate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs: storage and carrying allowed time sheet firearms . So let's not confuse the soft with the warm, because such a misunderstanding of the topic casts doubt on your entire statement hi
      1. Horse, people and soul
        Horse, people and soul 20 September 2018 17: 49
        +1
        After the war, officers could have award and trophy weapons. The first is legal. The second is not.
    2. sib.ataman
      sib.ataman 18 September 2018 11: 45
      +8
      Well, at least one sane heard! And then I thought that some pacifists and some transgenders dug in on VO!
    3. neri73-r
      neri73-r 18 September 2018 12: 17
      +1
      Quote: Etienne
      Before Khrushchev, all officers had personal weapons. Not official, mind you, but personal and it was kept at home. On the operational channel I heard the message: the Gopniks took away 6 trillion rubles from the Sberbank. Of course, it was not without a massacre. In Stalin's time, the gopota bypassed the officers, sensing how such a meeting could end for them. And then there was no question of the limits of necessary defense. Needlessly, the barrel did not "shine", but when attacked, they took all measures, acting according to the situation. And no one dragged the Gopniks to the courts - that was the time then.

      Everything is correct - another judicial practice and the presence of a short barrel have nothing to do with it!
  6. Digital error
    Digital error 18 September 2018 09: 00
    +4
    Before allowing citizens a short barrel, it is necessary to reconsider the approaches to a preliminary psychiatric examination. As long as federal TV chews Petrosyan and Dzhigarkhanyan again and again, the psyche of citizens will not improve and they will be a threat to each other.
  7. Begemot
    Begemot 18 September 2018 10: 01
    -8
    It is scary to live in a world of aggressive jerboas, especially if they are given a short-trunk. Who knows what they might be afraid of and who they will start shooting at. But seriously, the article is another attack of the arms lobby, the author does not even understand that his short-barreled "paranoia" betrays his paid character.
    If the author is such an ideological fighter, then let him create a shooting club, gather a group of like-minded people, equip a shooting range, multiply it in other cities, then formalize the public organization "Lovers of the short" (women can ignore) and speak on behalf of a significant group of the population, and not clap that "it's scary to sit on a pot without a pistol, suddenly there are criminals hiding there"
  8. Loess
    Loess 18 September 2018 10: 05
    -2
    Hoplofob constantly ask us:
    Who are "hoplofobes" and what "phobes" does the author consider himself to be?
    At the same time, the experience of tsarist Russia was pointed out, where a civilian short-barrel was available, and purely criminal crime was one of the lowest in the world.

    In the states, the population has a huge amount of weapons, but is there really low crime?
    1. tracer
      tracer 20 September 2018 22: 18
      +3
      You even poorly imagine how huge it is. And in percentage terms, the use of weapons is scanty. The gangs in the New York subway were eliminated after banal mass shootings. The police changed into a civilian and descended into the subway. Punched dyed punks began to fall in packs and the rest to plant who did not have time to tumble. And crime is gone. Oh miracle! Remember the movies from the 80s with the face of an elderly man with a huge gun? So it was almost like that. They shot everything stubborn and that’s all. Many simply carry a blizzard here. Well, you don’t like weapons. Do not buy. Pass by. Buy multi-colored inflatable balls or something, whoever likes what. Whoever likes and needs weapons let them buy. Violate what they sit down. What's the matter then? Will they shoot a shpana with speed? So nothing good will come out of the AUE adherents. Wait until they grow up and unite in gangs like Kazan or what other lads in the 90s? Everyone remembers how much blood they shed of innocent people? By putting the future gang organizers in the rocking puberty period, it was possible to save hundreds if not thousands of lives, and save hundreds and thousands of families from the loss of loved ones. A man must be a man and weapons are part of the male spirit and character. It is not in you and wear pants .. pass by.
      1. Loess
        Loess 21 September 2018 08: 05
        -1

        Quote: tracer
        A man must be a man and weapons are part of the male spirit and character. It is not in you and wear pants .. pass by

        A man who is a man is a weapon in itself. And if you only wear pants, then weapons will not help you either.
  9. Catfish
    Catfish 18 September 2018 12: 59
    +7
    Quote: Begemot

    It’s scary to live in a world of aggressive jerboas, especially if you give them a short barrel. Who knows why they might be scared and into whom they will start firing.


    Are you obviously a depressed Jerboa? You, most likely, do not distribute anything, everything is not "fodder for the horse". Depression, it is such a thing ... From there you, apparently, and appeal to women. Do not be depressed, my dear, about the "short trunk" - a normal woman does not care whether it is short or long, the main thing is that there is a real man next to her, and not a hysterical impotent man. Women and "will help you to sit on the potty" if they think that you deserve it. I mean about a pot, like worthy. Happy landing, Jerboa. bully
    1. Begemot
      Begemot 19 September 2018 15: 14
      -6
      Well, you asked for it yourself. It’s in vain that women don't care how long it is — you didn’t want to offend you and lied. I don’t have depression from the short trunk, I have all the trunks long and the weapons are full safe, starting from 7,62, ending with 12. If you don’t feel like a man without a gun, you can’t imagine how you can be free, if you don’t have any Luger hanging in your bosom and look around hunted while walking along the streets, then what kind of man are you - drooling drisch. That’s why you put off these little articles, that at night shaking from every rustle you dreamily orgasm from the thought: if I had a little gun, I would show them all.
      1. tracer
        tracer 20 September 2018 22: 22
        +2
        Did you have any kind of psychopathy?
        1. Begemot
          Begemot 21 September 2018 07: 42
          -1
          No, but what, for their accepted? Do not flatter yourself, I am not in a way with paranoid people.
  10. Terenin
    Terenin 18 September 2018 19: 55
    +5
    Whoever needs one has a weapon. No law will hinder. Example, a cemetery for young children in Togliatti.
  11. Tired
    Tired 18 September 2018 20: 02
    +2
    If you throw out all that is superfluous, then there will be a remark about the possibility of improving public safety through the transfer to citizens of the possibility of detention at the place of an armed criminal. This can indeed be used as an argument in favor of legalizing the short barrel. But where does all these LGBT-Napoleon-Hoplofoby have to do with it?
  12. Curious
    Curious 18 September 2018 21: 13
    -2
    There is a proposal to collect signatures under the appeal to the appropriate authorities, so that Goldreer is given a gun. And then he already obsessive-compulsive disorder is outlined on the basis of short-barrel ownership. He presses the hunchback to the wall, inventing some unprecedented arguments. I have already added to the fact that society is kept only on short-haul, and a decent and courageous person can only be raised with a gun in his pocket. And if you don’t have a gun, there is a direct road to the LGBT community.
  13. KBACYPA
    KBACYPA 19 September 2018 06: 02
    +8
    Quote: Begemot
    especially if you give them a short barrel.

    If you give it out, then yes, it's scary. So it is not necessary to distribute. Unlearn, pass exams, annual retake. These are two. And one is to throw the very notion to hell from the Criminal Code: "... exceeding the limits ..." Self-defense has no limits. There is either the fact of self-defense, or the fact of the absence of such. I am an adversary if weapons (any) will be sold like potatoes in the bazaar and a supporter of the already indicated approach. Do you want a barrel? No problem. Medical examination, study, etc. Because weapons are RESPONSIBILITY. The responsibility is not so much for the safety of weapons as for life and health. And not only your own and your family, but also those around you. Everyone. An armed man can no longer, has no right to ignore illegal actions. He MUST ask what is happening and, if necessary, stop. Because there really isn't enough cops for everyone. Go to the mirror and ask, is the person who is reflected there ready to take on such responsibility? And not just take, but also pay for it?
  14. Loki_2
    Loki_2 19 September 2018 08: 36
    -5
    Michael, as always, is beautiful. Level 80 arms lobbyist. Its energy, but for a good deed ...
    Minus article.
  15. shura7782
    shura7782 19 September 2018 10: 56
    -8
    Michael, your persistence and enviable constancy in the chosen topic should be given credit. But I do not share your point of view. This is far from the first article and my wishes have been expressed by me. You have everything, in general, simplified and it turns out specifically about nothing. Like the offender must be uniquely punished with a gun. If everything is with arms, then the culture of human behavior will be tightened. But it doesn’t work. When the judge asked: “Why did you shoot him?” There will be answers:
    He looked askance at me, at his wife. This cleaver spoke impudently. Took my place or not lost. I cut my car ... .. etc, etc .. These cases will be much more than robberies. In short, as a result, we come to how in the cowboy westerns whoever shoots the first is right. The output is the result “For that I fought for it and ran into it”.
    1. KBACYPA
      KBACYPA 19 September 2018 11: 45
      +5
      Shura, why are you simplifying everything so much, huh? Why do you consider the people around you a priori feeble-minded? Excluding completely ohamevshayu "golden youth" and other "masters of life" cases of shooting in such situations will be extremely rare. Mat, scuffle, as they were, and will be, but shooting ... The responsibility is different, therefore they will be careful, because in none of the cases you have listed there is not even a hint of self-defense. And all sorts of majors, rolling on the sidewalks and knocking people down because "it got on the road" ... Honestly, do you feel sorry for them? In addition, a car moving on the sidewalk is ALREADY a threat to life and health, and the use of weapons in this case is quite justified. Do not think people are worse than yourself, please. Unless, of course, you do not judge others by yourself.
  16. tank64rus
    tank64rus 19 September 2018 17: 22
    +2
    Again the old songs about the main thing. The first thing the author writes is his opinion. I think this is the first who said that they will distribute weapons. No. only after a medical examination and passing exams and the readiness of the storage place. The price of the weapon will not be the same. They say that everyone will shoot, but the Russians are worse than the Baltic states and even Moldova where the population didn’t shoot each other. Now, we have so many illegal trunks in our hands that if we follow the logic of the opponents of the author, we should all die. The crime at us is perfectly armed. American gangsters are resting. By the way, deputies of the State Duma, artists, senior officials, artists, businessmen, etc. are armed with everything. Most likely, the prize for services to the people. Well, of course, our people only think how to kill everyone if you listen to them. But only the conversation is about the RIGHT and OPPORTUNITY of acquiring weapons.
  17. Catfish
    Catfish 19 September 2018 21: 49
    +4
    Quote: Begemot
    Well, you asked for it yourself. It’s in vain that women don't care how long it is — you didn’t want to offend you and lied. I don’t have depression from the short trunk, I have all the trunks long and the weapons are full safe, starting from 7,62, ending with 12. If you don’t feel like a man without a gun, you can’t imagine how you can be free, if you don’t have any Luger hanging in your bosom and look around hunted while walking along the streets, then what kind of man are you - drooling drisch. That’s why you put off these little articles, that at night shaking from every rustle you dreamily orgasm from the thought: if I had a little gun, I would show them all.


    "Jupiter, if you're angry, you're wrong." And anyone can scatter insults here without fear of getting on the tinsel. This will never prove anything to anyone. But it was fun to read, continue if your hand is not tired. love
  18. EvilLion
    EvilLion 20 September 2018 08: 57
    -4
    How did they get these panties, who are afraid to get out of the house without a gun ...
    1. Rustic i ......
      Rustic i ...... 20 September 2018 21: 43
      +2
      Are you not afraid to run into a not quite gentleman who has an unregistered trunk? He will definitely get you.
  19. Dull
    Dull 20 September 2018 10: 44
    +3
    The topic was raised correctly. Anyone who has ever been attacked by a crowd will agree. Another thing is that those in power are afraid to arm the population. For extortion, bribes can be shot inadvertently. And it will become dangerous to be rude in the "high office". And what danger would arise when discontented citizens were dispersed. 1905 and 1917 became good lessons for the ruling lads. No matter how we want, the lads will never arm the "rabble", creating additional problems for themselves.
  20. air wolf
    air wolf 20 September 2018 17: 40
    0
    And I think that the short-barrel should be allowed to be worn by people who have undergone special training (service in the Ministry of Internal Affairs) or who have fully served in the army, we have the police, now there will not be enough police for everyone, and there will be armed combatants who can solve issues that are persuaded, it’s not possible to decide with swaggers and fists with criminals!
  21. Horse, people and soul
    Horse, people and soul 20 September 2018 17: 44
    +2
    I live in a country where a short-barrel can be licensed for sports, self-defense, hunting (additional wounded animals) and official activities. If the license is for self-defense, then you can automatically carry it secretly.

    The police always leave after. So that we are not there after - wear a short barrel. There is no more calm Estonia. Black migrants, robbers, dogs ... it’s better to have a short barrel and not have it, than you need it, but no.
  22. Lara Croft
    Lara Croft 21 September 2018 20: 30
    +2
    I have two barrels, I am engaged in practical shooting, in case of an attack on my country I will become a beast ...
    I think who has the trunk, like the athlete who is engaged in boxing and martial arts, has more constraining factors in applying his skills to his compatriots ...