National Interests Collide with Globalist Controls as Czechs Resist EU Gun Ban

By David Codrea

screenhunter_05-jan-05-17-35
The Eurocrats say “Stricter controls on sale and registration of firearms, and stronger rules to irrevocably deactivate weapons. The objective: to tackle the threat of weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. Package of measures to make it more difficult to acquire firearms in the European Union here:europa.eu/!Nx87GD.” Who believes that objective will be met, or that it’s even the real objective? [All Photos: European Commission/Facebook]
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “The Czech Republic has resisted calls by the European Union’s executive Commission to tighten gun controls in response to terror attacks, forcing the E.C. to alter its proposals, allowing for the private ownership of semi-automatic weapons,” CNS News reported Tuesday. “The Czech interior ministry now wants to loosen its own laws a step further, proposing a constitutional amendment on Monday that would allow its citizens to bear legally-held firearms against the perpetrators of terrorist attacks, such as those in Nice or Berlin, the Czech news agency ctk reported.”

The upshot:

The government says that putting weapons into the hands of citizens is the best defense against terror.

In other words, they recognize an armed citizenry is “necessary to the security of a free State,” something the Founding Fathers in this country recognized as a self-evident truth, as do those intent on undermining that security and freedom.

Despite that hopeful sign of moving in the right direction, the Czech Republic still has a long way to go. Per GunPolicy.org, globalist gun-grabbers in their own right who nonetheless provide an invaluable online compilation of world gun laws:

The regulation of guns in the Czech Republic is categorised as restrictive … In the Czech Republic, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law.

This means all the usual infringements: Mandatory background checks and training, licensing, registration and storage requirements. Still, there are provisions for both open and concealed carry, “subject to a valid permit (in exceptional circumstances).”

That’s what they’re hoping to improve on, and helps explain why they’re resistant to new outside gun grabs – people who stand to lose something have something to fight for. Many in the EU have lived under surrendered rights regimes for so long they literally have no idea they’ve been robbed of their birthrights, and they wouldn’t have it any other way.

The Czechs weren’t alone in raising objections, albeit Sweden initially squawked because it would impact “sport shooting.” Finland made a more persuasive argument (based on a history personally remembered by some still living) that “such ban would affect its national defense, which relies on reservists being able to train with semi-automatic weapons,” but with the new agreement side-stepping those (for now), their interior minister announced she is “very pleased with the outcome.”

screenhunter_06-jan-05-17-41
Juncker junking European national sovereignty…

“Of course we would have liked to go further,” EU Commission President Jean-Claude Junker admitted in the late December press release announcing the agreement. Of course. And the globalists intend to keep at it until they get the total control they covet.

“We have fought hard for an ambitious deal that reduces the risk of shootings in schools, summer camps or terrorist attacks with legally held firearms,” Juncker declared, cavalier in his admission of just who was being disarmed.

14344047_1135032293210916_1100969103027454940_n
Globalists meet to dictate where “migrants” will be embedded next.

As “legally held firearms” aren’t the problem, the only logical conclusion is Juncker and his kind want them all “illegal” (at least the ones they don’t control) so the murderous enemies embedded in the replacement cultures they are importing have an even greater advantage. And as we see from “progressives” trying to do the same subversion here, those resisting on both counts are increasingly demonized as haters and extremists.

—–

Also see:

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 49 thoughts on “National Interests Collide with Globalist Controls as Czechs Resist EU Gun Ban

    1. John Dunlap says:
      January 12, 2017 at 5:04 PM

      ” If this happens, 90% of the world’s population is dead, including Mexico’s, as ALL of the heavily interconnected tech we depend on for food, water, medical, etc. simply ceases to function”
      You could be right about the 90%. Who knows? But we won’t all be dying off at the same rate. There are far more Mexicans accustomed to living rough and making do with next to nothing, than Americans or Canadians. Their food supplies are also less “globalized” than ours, their water distribution less high tech and much more robust. So greater numbers of Mexicans may live on considerably longer than us.

      ” NO hospitals will be functioning after the first week, as supplies of medications and basic supplies will have been exausted, and no more is being manufactured.”

      When supplies are scarce, and no replacement in sight, they can be used more sparingly. The operating rooms, surgical instruments, and other tools will not disintegrate in a week. The key is to keep the staff working and protected, rather than have them run off home to die, even if it means letting them bring their families to live in or near the hospital.

      “..a percentage on both sides will be cut down in the fighting as a flood of refugees moves South.”

      There won’t be any sides, and there won’t be much movement, except perhaps by motorized military units of considerable size. If motor vehicles are still operable, the military will move to appropriate and guard all fuel supplies. How is this mass of humanity going to move South, or anywhere for that matter? Where will it get fuel for its vehicles?

      I’m not as optimistic as you about the possibility of adequately preparing for such an event. It will probably catch us flat-footed. Those of us lucky enough to have a week or two to breathe and take stock (ie. those not living in or near NYC, Montreal, Toronto, Boston, LA, Vancouver, etc.) should then try to assess the severity of the situation, exactly what is possible to do, what is the most imminent danger, etc..

      This will require considerable technical knowledge and equipment. And hence the need for a substantial population, including people who will know how to test for the arrival of toxins and radiation from upwind and upstream and how to protect the population and the food supply against the dangers. You can’t do this with a small circle of family and friends while embarking on a trek of a thousand miles or more.

      If the disaster happens in Winter, food won’t be a problem for a while. There will be lots of dead bodies that can be kept fresh with enough snow or under water. For those too squeamish to eat human flesh, they can always hunt or trap and eat the wolves or coyotes who won’t have any such scruples.

      If it happens in summer, then belt tightening, conservation of existing supplies, and planting of crops will have to start quickly. But above all, order and calm must be kept, and the local resources and population protected. In this regard, climate refugees such as you intend to be pose the greatest threat.

      And this is where the maintenance of policing and of places of incarceration, such as only a medium sized city and its population can afford, is essential. Without the ability to safely detain people, there’s no alternative to barring entry to the territory with deadly force. Otherwise everything goes down the drain. With the option of internment, people can be vetted and integrated, and possibly contribute to the strength of the community.

      But that has its limits, and so difficulty of being reached from areas of large population is an essential for the survival of the city and its population.OTOH, if, by whatever means, it’s able to maintain itself as a repository of order, expertise and whatever remains functional or reparable of technology, it will be able to reseed the more devastated surrounding areas if long term survival proves possible.

      If not, then such a place might at least afford its residents a chance to die relatively peacefully, among neighbours and familiar surroundings.

    2. It’s not about Left or Right. The Bushes are good friends with the Saudis. The Donald may be buddying up with Putin. The people at the top will always be closer to each other than to their countrymen. For one thing, they might need a safe haven to fly to when their misdeeds are “discovered”. It certainly worked out for Idi Amin, who retired quietly to Saudi Arabia. I don’t remember any hue and cry to extract him to face justice. The exception is when a whipping boy is needed. That’s what happened to Noriega, Sadam Hussein, and Gaddafi.

    3. Hmm…What moon do you guys live on? There’s no country in the world that actually bans guns, not North Korea, not Monaco.
      Put on your thinking caps! Do you think the rich and the powerful of this world go through life unprotected? Gun control is about creating two levels of citizenship. Just as in medieval times, there are those entitled by social status to have high-tech weapons, and those who are prohibited from owning them.

      Police, security guards, body guards, and military personnel get honorary entitlement, revocable at any time (unless they happen to be entitled by social status), and mostly under strict supervision. The higher ups often don’t even need formal permits, they have automatic “get out of jail” cards. Keeping guns out of the hoi polloi’s hands improves their survival odds. They’re much more afraid of the wrath of the law-abiding masses than of the depredations of the criminal class.

      Some years back a reporter is said to have obtained and published a list of New York City residents who had concealed carry permits, and it reportedly included the names of many prominent liberal anti-gun advocates. I can’t vouch for this, as I wasn’t able to find the list, but maybe someone better informed can provide a pointer.

      1. You’re criticizing the people here that are mostly in agreement with you. I’m sure no one here is blind to the lefts hypocrisy of wanting to disarm the masses while keeping their own arms and armed guards. With your statement, you could also say that free choice of medical care is still available; but not to the masses.

    4. Isn’t it fascinating how leftists push for mass third world muslim immigration, then when the inevitable terrorist spree takes place the same people call for banning guns? Also, note how much easier it is to displace a population with third world invaders who are openly hostile to local laws and customs if the people are disarmed. Think about it here in the US – almost all of the globalist open borders zealots also favor disarming the american people. Why is that? Because events like mass rapes and sexual assaults would result in mass muslim homicides here, as opposed to leaving defenseless victims in europe?

      This is why, as codrea has brought up over and over, immigration and gun rights are joined at the hip politically – no matter how hard the nra tries to pretend otherwise.

    5. Hey, Czech here,

      just a few comments on some irregularities in the article. Czech gun law is considered to be one of the best in the world, if not the best one, in terms of good balancing of freedom and regulation.

      Couple of random facts: gun license is a “shall-issue” – if a person meets necessary criteria the license shall be issued. Criteria being good health condition (mainly mental but there are a few limitation on disabilities mostly related to vision), background check (criminals do not get legal guns), passing a theoretical and a practical test (similar to driving license, practical tests stressing safe manipulation and shooting) and permanent residency. In this respect the gun law doesn’t discriminate between citizens and foreigners except that all the test and formalities are only held in the Czech language. One must have a “gun licence” to be able to acquire any firearm and each firearm is then registered separately. The registration is also a license, except for “category C guns” to which most hunting rifles fall into. Those aren’t licensed, just registered. Except for “category A guns” (military and full-auto) the license is a “shall-issue” licence. One must state licensing reasons but all of the reasons (including self-defense!) are shall-issue reasons, provided the person has proper “gun licence”. There is no “open carry” in public, “concealed carry” is permitted implicitly provided the holder has the proper gun license and one of the reasons of the gun registration was self-defense. Carrying a gun on a private property with the approval of the owner of the property is not considered “carrying” but rather just “owning”, hence no restrictions. One can’t shoot a gun anywhere though, only at licensed shooting ranges (and, of course, in case of (self)defense). Generally there are no “gun-free zones”. One can carry a gun on a private property without the approval (or knowledge for that matter) of the owner but in that case it’s concealed carry and the owner *may* issue a search policy if he wants. In that case however, if a firearm holder is “caught” in such a “gun-hate zone”, he’s not committing any crime as long as he leaves the premises when asked to. Military and full-auto guns can be acquired too but not for self-defense and there’s a “may issue” policy on those. Individuals, including collectors, rarely get the license. The entire gun policy is currently regulated by a common-level law that can be abolished just like any other law. There’s no “second amendment”. Gun rights, even through the general shall-issue policy, are still considered more of a privilege. And the new constitutional amendment (in fact it’s just a constitutional law, not an amendment – the constitution itself remains unchanged) does not extend gun rights in any way except for giving gun owners a constitutional protection against disarming. And yes, that is what’s EC’s been trying to do for the past decade or two and that’s probably the main reason it’s been proposed.

      1. I am sure you enjoy those laws because they are better than most european nations, but all of the licensing and requiring of permission is hardly freedom based from the perspective of most americans. It is also a bureaucratic based process that makes it extremely easy for future gun bans and confiscation to take place – either by the EU or by a Czech government that is anti gun – even if the latter doesn’t seem possible, immigration can change things within a generation or two. It is similar to how america has open political speech, while europe heavily censors political speech under the guise of “hate speech” laws. We in america think it is crazy to see politicians and reporters charged with crimes for accurately stating facts about mass third world muslim immigration.

        Also, with all due respect, it is unbelievably naive for you to think criminals do not get guns in the czech republic. Do you also think criminals don’t get drugs?

        Don’t take my post as an attack – I love to see a fellow gun enthusiast in europe. We just have different perspectives because we have grown up in different surroundings and sitautions. All of the best to the brave Czechs for standing up to the EU!

        1. I understand the US perspective and that’s why I did not ever said anything about freedom except in the first paragraph where I mentioned the freedom-regulation balance. At the end I also emphasized that “it’s more of a privilege” to have a gun in CZ even though in fact we have a general shall-issue licensing policy. It’s easily comparable to having a car – one need a license and registration 🙂 However, I completely agree with you that’s not an actual freedom. It’s close though, closer than any other country except US (to my knowledge).

          Fun fact: until last summer there was a paragraph in the gun law stating that in the event of war or similar crisis the CZ government can confiscate weapons acquired by people under the terms of that law. Surprising every gunner in CZ the government stroke that paragraph out. This alone is a nice gesture but considering the context of then-actual situation it was more. This happened when the law was supposed to be tighten up after one “mass” shooting (the first mass shooting since the beginning of modern Czechoslovak history, excl. the world wars). Medial hysteria, guns are bad… you know the drill. But instead of tightening the law up the govt. eased it a little – they stroke the confiscation out and also legalized laser sights which were “category A” for some reason. The last thing we’re missing here is legal pistol HP ammo but that’s gonna be hard as it’s banned by EU. It’s not banned for rifles though so it’s perfectly legal to buy 9mm HP ammo if you have a 9mm carbine. But you can’t carry the ammo loaded in your pistol. This little thing may also change if the constitutional law passes. I certainly hope so.

          As for criminals, I didn’t say anything about criminals being unable to get guns. I specifically said criminals cannot not get *legal* guns.

          1. I’m glad to see pro-gun comments from people from Europe. Fight to keep those privileges and don’t give them up. Even with our Constitutional “Rights”, it is a constant battle to keep the corrupt politicians in America from disregarding our rights. As the saying goes: “Freedom isn’t free.”

    6. Just some points from Czech perspective.
      Our gun laws are just fine. Not everyone can have a gun – you have to be law abiding, non agressive person. You have to prove, that you know laws tied to guns, that you know how to handle the gun safely, and you know how to shoot. After that you pass this, you are fine. For semiautos you need permit, but the permit is shall-issue! You fill the request, after week you have it.
      This really sort out people who are hot-heads and could be dangerous to themselves, and others. Therefore, most of the crimes with guns (around 500 in 2014) was made with alarm acustic guns, which are not regulated…
      The propossed constitution amendment is not in the way of 2A of USA. It just says, that people can own weapons and ammo as it is neccesarry to defense of our country, but that the details will be specified in normal law.
      In fact it is just securing current status of guns in our country as it is harder to change the constitution, than a law. We currently can use weapons and if the need arise, we will. But we dont want EU to take away our guns or even restrict us in any other way. Wehave good realtionship with our government, which trust us, and in last gun law novelisatuion, it surrendered its right to recall all of our firearms in state emergency and allowed us for lassers, which were banned. Hopefully, supressors will be enxt.

      1. “Andrew says:
        January 7, 2017 at 5:57 AM

        Just some points from Czech perspective.
        Our gun laws are just fine. Not everyone can have a gun – you have to be law abiding, non agressive person. You have to prove, that you know laws tied to guns, that you know how to handle the gun safely, and you know how to shoot. After that you pass this, you are fine. For semiautos you need permit, but the permit is shall-issue! You fill the request, after week you have it…”

        All of the above means NOTHING! The devil is in the details:
        Are the criteria for “law abiding” and “non agressive” clearly and publicly defined?
        Is there transparency in this process giving historical access to prior decisions to deny or reject applications on this basis?
        Ditto for “prove that you know laws… how to handle the gun…how to shoot”. Who decides this? Is a meaningful record of the testing kept for review of the examiner’s competence and fairness, and to compare to the assessment of other applicants?
        And, above all, is there a meaningful, independent, quick and affordable and transparent tribunal for appeal?
        If any of the above issues are in question, then the “shall issue” of automatic weapons permits is a dead letter, since you have no guarantee of ever getting to the point of applying, no matter how well qualified you are.

        In Canada we have a law that says firearms are legitimate for possession and use for both sporting and self defence purposes. However, the criteria for self defense use of handguns and other restricted firearms have never been made public.In fact they have become more mysterious since the gun regulation was supposedly unified throughout the federation under the RCMP.

        Now you pay a non-refundable $40 “application fee”, just to get the provincial application forms. Their requirements are nowhere described, and they seem to vary hugely from province to province, although the Law and Regulations governing firearms are federal and should be equally applied throughout the country.

        So you pay your $40 (or $80, if it’s a renewal) for a permit to carry a restricted weapon (Authorization to Carry -ATC), complete the forms as best you can – they don’t make any sense if you’re applying for a wilderness carry authorization, as the forms are geared to armoured car guards. And then you’re informed whether the application is approved or denied. But you never learn the criteria applied.

        By process of elimination I have learned that in British Columbia, in the first decade of this century at least, wilderness permits were (sometimes) granted for wilderness photographers and big game guides, but not necessarily for mushroom pickers (an important seasonal occupation for thousands of pine and morelle mushroom pickers).

        Hunters, including bow and crossbow hunters (the latter being most vulnerable to attack by grizzly, black bear, and cougar) were denied wilderness permits categorically. In this case an informal reason was offered – they could defend themselves with their hunting weapon.

        The senselessness of this argument was vividly demonstrated by the fatal mauling by a grizzly of two experienced elk hunters in the Palliser area of the East Kootenay region. Ironically, one was a former Conservation Officer, who in his previous job had been authorized to carry a .357 Mag revolver for protection. The two were attacked and killed by a large male grizzly on a hillside while they were field dressing an elk they had downed. There are no guarantees when a handgun is stacked against a charging grizzly, of course. But had they both had magnum revolvers on their belts, they would have had a chance to survive.

        The details of the encounter are not known. The killer grizzly was never located. So it’s impossible to say whether either hunter even got a shot off. But I can state with total certainty that a scoped hunting rifle is not the appropriate defense for a close encounter of this kind, even if it happens to be close at hand, whether leaning against a deer carcass that is being gutted and quartered or lying beside you in a flimsy tent. As someone who has hunted alone more than 90% of the time, I would bet my life without hesitation on magnum handguns over long-barreled firearms for defense.

        But even for occupations for which the wilderness carry permits were chiefly intended, applications could be and were repeatedly denied without explanation or recourse (there is no judicial appeal available to the administrative decisions to deny firearms licenses or authorizations to transport or carry in Canada, even for those able to afford such legal procedures). During the same period in which the two hunters were killed, and in the same general area, a long time professional prospector was attacked, killed, and partly eaten on a logging road by a grizzly sow and her two cubs.

        His car had broken down, and he was hiking back to his base camp after a backbreaking day of prospecting in the mountains. I happened to speak to the former Government Agent for the region about the incident and was told that this prospector was a hard working native who had always been fearful of predators, especially bears, and had applied repeatedly for a handgun wilderness carry authorization, and always been refused without explanation, until he finally stopped applying. I’ve never carried a basket of rocks on my back in the mountains, so I can only imagine what it would be like to add the additional encumbrance and weight of a rifle or shotgun to that load. Evidently he decided carrying a long gun would be unworkable.

        The day he died, his car broke down on this lonely mountain logging road, and so he was defenseless when the grizzly family targeted him for their supper.

        I hope things are better in the Czech Republic. But I somehow doubt that they are as different as its admirers suggest, except for the absence of grizzlies, black bears (who have also stalked and killed people in the same area), and cougars.

    7. Actually, Czech republic is only EU country where you have right to have guns guaranteed by law. If you have no criminal record, have basic knowledge of laws (when you can use guns etc) and can to hit big target 4 out of 5 times at 10-15 yards with pistol (25 for rifle) you will get license. Then you can buy .50 BMG rifle if you want.
      In Slovakia, we have to provide reason, but as far as I know, everybody gets license to own gun who want it. To get carry license it, its little harder but still 90 000 out of 300 000 license owners have it.
      Funny thing is, we have much lower crime rates than for example UK … and basically everyone else (except maybe Switzerland).

    8. Steve Mandrackie..your comment is correct, however if your country signs over their sovereignty to these un-elected groups then they can and do enact such “laws”. You want to see how it affects a country just look at us up here in Kanada….politicians talking freedom, and similar B.S. when in fact we are one of, if not the most ruled and regulated country in the world…..

    9. Heard a story about Finland or Norway that allows any law abiding citizen to own any firearm (including full auto arms) they want BUT if that citizen COMMITS A CRIME WITH THAT WEAPON and convicted of the crime, one appeal and if upheld, 30 days later they are executed – END OF CRIMINAL – SOCIETY SAFER. None of the almost endless appeals at taxpayers expense, of course these are absolute cases where there is no doubt about who did the crime. If there is doubt then there should be the no conviction. The Japanese system is based on absolute proof of conviction as well, if there is doubt there is no trial.

      1. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/finland
        “The regulation of guns in Finland is categorised as restrictive”

        http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf
        “No one shall be sentenced to death, tortured or otherwise treated in a manner violating human dignity.”

        http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/norway
        “The regulation of guns in Norway is categorised as restrictive”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Norway
        “Capital punishment in Norway (Norwegian: dødsstraff) was abolished in 1979 and constitutionally prohibited in 2014.”

        1. David, I was commenting that in other countries on what I heard or read a long time ago. Thank you for the information on Finland and Norway – at least they allow citizens to have firearms, even with restrictions.

    10. When one discusses firearms one more concept must be unmistakably clear; firearms don’t kill people. People kill people. If u want to ban the cause of all these deaths, ban people.

    11. All 28 nations kissed their sovereignty goodbye when they joined the European Nation. Kinda’ like the states that kissed their sovereignty goodbye when they joined the United States. The difference between the U.S. and the EU is our Constitution, a set of principles that leftists here and abroad are dismantling. Thank God, the civil right to defend oneself stopped the overthrow here and is stopping the overreach in Europe.

        1. Thank you, Mark, But you don’t have to be a member to send free messages to your congress! Just click a link, fill out the email and zip and you’re ready to go…..

          1. Yes, I noticed that and also noticed you can be notified of any new issues that may come up, I appreciate the links and the work they are doing!

      1. I would also advise everyone to get their children OUT of public school, preferably to home school. I was actually taught in high school, by several so called teachers, that the JBS were a bunch of Nazis. They named that particular organization. This was in the early 80’s, long before standardized testing and Harvey Milk day, so I can only imagine how much worse it is now. It took me about fifteen years to recover from my public education, roughly five of them realizing that the JBS is composed of some of the sanest people on the planet and Alex Jones is not a nut (well, perhaps a bit eccentric, but he has the facts to back up his statements). Mind you, we were encouraged to ask questions, but certain subjects were discouraged, and there was a lot of subtle pressure for us to adopt the ‘correct’ answers. Looking at Common Core, I doubt it’s quite so subtle now.

        1. @John D, I agree and lay in a year’s worth of canned goods for each person in the family; at least one weapon and a years worth of ammunition for each member of the family; and a Fariday cage.

          1. Would that I could afford to do that. We’re working on it in increments. I don’t think the Faraday cage is all that useful, with the exception of replacement parts for your vehicle’s engine computer systems. The reason I say that is that a Faraday cage is only useful to protect stored electronics from the effects of an electromagnetic pulse, and there’s a huge fly in the ointment. I’m referring to the twenty-something nuclear power plants in the U.S., many of which are the same antiquated GE 1st generation design that blew up at Fukushima Daiichi. In the event of a repeat of the Carrington event of 1859, or a successful nation wide EMP attack that takes down the grid, most of our plants have less than a week of back up generator capacity for their cooling systems, assuming the control system and back up generators survive, which is unlikely. So, over a period of a month or so after the event, there will be multiple melt downs and spent fuel rod storage fires and explosions. Many will probably occur in the first few hours, since the reactor control systems will have been fried. This is not a survive in place event; everyone who values their life will be heading as far South as possible at best speed (hence, the engine electronics). Most of the Northern hemisphere will likely become uninhabitable. Living things are tough; there will still be a few people here, but drastically shortened lifespans, and high rates of cancer and birth defects, will be the norm. I once thought the political class, as psychopathic and psychotic as they are, would never consider orchestrating such an event, since they also value their own skins. I’ve had to reconsider that opinion of late. The solution is simple; stop it before it happens. Harden the grid, and get rid of the fission plants. There is legislation in Congress at the moment to mandate the former. Let’s nag them to pass it. And I’ve gone way off topic here. Enough.

            1. “This is not a survive in place event; everyone who values their life will be heading as far South as possible at best speed”
              Do you expect the Mexicans to give you and your family free passage? Ditto for the Colombians.

              Even if you could join up with armoured units of the US army, I think it would be harder to survive than staying in place. The trick is to be in a place with a chance of survival when it happens. Definitely not a metropolis, especially not one on an island. Those who don’t have helicopters or power boats or senior military or police connections will be blocked at all the bridges and turned back to starve.

              Survival in a small, remote community is a dead end too. It won’t have the infrastructure (jails, hospitals, police force) or population to repel, discourage, or integrate armed groups, including military units, that come by looking for food, medicine, fuel, and arms.

              Ideal would be a city of a hundred thousand or so with at least one large hospital, at least a few dozen medical doctors, a university or technical college located far from any nuclear power plant and equally far from any large densely populated area, preferably surrounded by a good deal of agricultural land. Having a combat unit on location would also be a big help in raising and training a local militia to fend off raiders.

              It’s hard to even get people to think about this or similar scenarios, let alone get them to prepare for it. Everything would have to be organized from scratch when disaster strikes, and most likely against the violent opposition of the politicians and other guardians of public safety who failed to do their job.

              Two of the last three municipalities I’ve lived in don’t even have functional sirens to alert the public to a disaster situation. You’re expected to have a smartphone with you and powered on at all times so they can tweet you (after the politicians have had a pow wow to decide who’s responsible).

              In Canada, the Weather Alert system is only permitted to broadcast warnings of weather events, the single recently added exception being tsunamis. Stiff upper lip, and all that…

            2. otropogo, you missed the point. If this happens, 90% of the world’s population is dead, including Mexico’s, as ALL of the heavily interconnected tech we depend on for food, water, medical, etc. simply ceases to function, even without the multiple melt downs. NO hospitals will be functioning after the first week, as supplies of medications and basic supplies will have been exausted, and no more is being manufactured. And yes, a percentage on both sides will be cut down in the fighting as a flood of refugees moves South. Plus, there isn’t enough agricultural capacity south of the equator to support the current population. Doesn’t matter. We can stop it from ever happening, with a little common sense and political pressure. 1. Harden the grid. 2. Phase out uranium and plutonium fueled fission reactors. Problem solved.

            3. @otropogo, I am with John D, and I think that I will be among the 10% surviving. If your plan is to flee, that is fine. At least you have a plan. Some of us already have a plan and are putting the plan in place as fast as finances allow.

    12. Every gun control measure I have see does nothing to gun out of the wrong hands.
      It only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizen no matter what country they are from
      Wake up people of the world! It is all about enslaving the people of the world, to total government Enslavement.
      I will not comply!!!!

      1. Agreed
        They have this misguided belief that once ALL guns are gone their will no longer be any gun deaths. What they ignore is the terrorist will adapt and either find guns or switch to alternative methods to kill like trucks, car bombs, knives, chainsaws, propane tanks, pressure cookers and on and on..

        1. baseball bats. Remember a couple years back when, in Merrie Auld England, some of the “furriners” roamed about causing serious physical harm to the locals, which locals suddenly comrehended their disadvantage and, seeking to rectify that, turned to the purchase of bats….. some six thousands of them in a couple of weeks, whereupon the EverLoving All Wise All Pervasive British Government outlawed the sale of… BATS!!!!!! No guns for the Limeys for far too long, victimising them, when they determined, in a rare instance of standing up for themselves, to arm themselves with SOMETHING somewhat effective against street thugs. Said government then disarmed them of BATS.

          And the Brits shut up and sat down……. Glad the Czechs are making a fuss. Could this be the long awaited “shot across the bow” of the “Ship of State that is the EU?

        2. The more gun restrictions that are imposed, the bigger the black market for guns becomes, meaning the more guns that are available to criminals. Disarming law abiding people only leads to those people becoming defenseless against criminals and government tyranny.

      2. It’s not just about guns, why do you think there is such a push for self driving cars? There is a NTSB/DOT push for 0 traffic deaths by 2030 or some such nonsense! They don’t even want you to control your car. This is about total control of every part of your life.

        1. The appropriate label is Technocracy. It was popular among the self anointed elite back in the 1920’s and 30’s, then revived in a warmed over version in 1970 by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era.” He went on to found the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller. He’s also a member of the CFR and the Bilderberg group, and has been a poisonous influence in our government, shoulder to shoulder with Henry Kissinger, ever since. I suggest you take a look at Patrick Wood’s website. Just search for Technocracy news, it should pop up at the top.

    13. What I find incredulous is that the citizens of the various countries that are members of the EU allow their nations to be drawn into such nonsense. The United States would never allow that to happen in spite of traitor John Kerry and Bathhouse Berry

    14. Steve Mandrackie…!.
      Your alluding to “Star Trek” is on the money…..
      Not until the least of all humans, on this planet, can order….”tea, hot, Earl Grey”…..from the opening in the bulkhead of a starship known as the ‘matter transformer’, will true equal status be achieved.
      Until that time, humans must resist the elitists…..who would enslave us, for sure!

      1. even after that time, because of human nature there will remain elitists who will take it upon themselves “for our betterment” to limit just how much of that “tea, hot, Earl Grey” we can imbibe at our OWN pleasure. Face it, SOMEONE willl decide that the amount of caffeine in Earl Grey tea mandates we limit ourselves to two cups per day……. or else.

    15. The EU and UN are trying to set themselves up as a world government. World governments only work in fantasies such as Star Trek. Let’s remember to keep fantasy from encroaching and overwhelming reality.

      1. 100% correct on BOTH points ! The FIRST thing put in place during a tyrannical government takeover is disarmament, and that is a FACT ! The EU and UN are two of the biggest PANSIES out there, anywhere they have charge, terrorism grows……….. Also a FACT !

      2. Who says they work even there? Every movie is about the crew of NCC 1701-something acting out in some way to save the Federation! So it doesn’t even work in the fantasies!

    16. The EU and the UN don’t have the right or the mandate to dictate to the citizens of sovereign nations. This concept must be clearly understood and ridgedly enforced.

      1. EU law and directions are above the law and even above the constitution of each state in the EU.
        Sad, but true. This czech activity is about earning of political points, cause they have election coming this year.
        They know, that even if this pro gun right will be a constitutional one, eu anti gun rules will apply to czech citizens anyway.
        At that point, elected politicians will just say..oh God.. Eu is above our constitution, sorry guys.. You voted for us, we are the government now, but well, we signed up for eu few years ago and accepted their rules.. Give us your guns now..

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *