Russian legislative logic at its finest

Larger printable file available on request.

Powerful, long-ranged rifles for hunting and sport — legal.
But even the weakest pistols for self-defense — banned.

Where’s the logic in that?

This entry was posted in interesting people, pistol, rifle, rkba, self-defense, weapon and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Russian legislative logic at its finest

  1. BillCa says:

    Some days I wonder if there is an innate fear of handguns that breeds inside politicians.

    Here’s the likely “logic” I see. A rifle will be used to kill a politician from a distance. Obviously because it’s rather hard to sneak up on your target with a rifle/carbine if he has any kind of adequate security people. So you’ll have to take the shot from a distance, which means you need a specific skill set. It’s not impossible to do, just more difficult.

    But politicians love being photographed waving to crowds and/or greeting supporters. This usually means getting close enough to people to be in handgun range. And with a handgun, any boob with a pistol (except Charles Manson followers) can disrupt a nation, or several like Gavrilo Princip did in killing Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914.

    Though I did notice that when there was a push to ban the .50 BMG rifles, the loudest proponents were the politicians on the left who seldom met constituents outside of tightly controlled environments and rode in limousines. Perhaps they really did believe that someone skilled would use the .50 BMG through their armored limo.

    • Y. says:

      I doubt armored limos are .50 BMG proof. Most older military light armored vehicles are not, they were engineered to survive just battle rifle ball AP.

      Maybe the heads of state have such cars,but I doubt that.

      • Geoff says:

        obama is so worried about it, “The Beast” was upgraded to withstand even shoulder fired rockets. Like anybody except the Military has them. Oh. Maybe that’s why. He is eliminating all the senior officers that do not kowtow to him, and filling the ranks with gays and lesbians that will do his bidding.

  2. alanstorm says:

    Got a translation handy?

  3. Lyle says:

    It’s not a puzzle. Authoritarians want all private guns banned, so as to render the populace more controllable. That’s the starting point for any and all gun restrictions.

    It’s politically easier to ban certain guns compared to others, due to public perceptions. Hunting tends to, or at least has tended to, be more generally supported by the public, and so the authoritarians will ban hunting rifles and bird guns last. Divide (guns and gun owners into different classes) and conquer.

    This is the genesis of the “sporting purposes” angle applied by socialist, mass murderers in the early 20th century and later adopted by our enemies within the United States government.

    This also explains, perfectly, why leftists are more likely to oppose hunters and hunting. It’s all a ruse, aimed at total disarmament.

    AND SO one must understand that all guns are targeted for removal from private hands, and that any politician who advocates, in any way, the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is an enemy of all humanity.

  4. Paul Koning says:

    “If the opposition disarms, all is well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” — Stalin (Works, Vol.10, p.378., from a speech in 1927)
    Since the current ruler of Russia is the direct ideological successor of Stalin, it’s hardly surprising he would act in similar ways.

  5. Pingback: Isn’t She a Beauty? | WeaponsMan

  6. Pingback: Isn’t She a Beauty? | Мария Бутина

Comments are closed.