Polish translation needed

translated, but not very well

compliments of www.intertran.com - have no iodea how accurate it is. They translate word-for-word, with no regard for syntax. Reminds me of first-year Latin classes.

stay safe.

skidmark

lipca 2004, 1115: AND - A CLASSICAL SCHOLAR RIGHT c by Oleg Volk While ago , you are right on target aside american snapshot Olega Volka będącego simultaneously urgent partisan steady on accession until vindicates burner , why seizes word on swoich clever as well racy of soil bill. Podzielając views Volka to weapon bumped , and dispensable all other zdaje yourselves she be consistent anarchistycznym libertarianinem , appreciatory propaganda siłę thereof creative work. Bill on the lines of " and real feminist doesn't dispatch she men for furtherer " dispensable reflect moją of one's dreams vision conservatively Charges , whereas does goods labour or else switch are not until habitats traditionally vindicates opposed. Volk not tries persuade positive , whereas , use the following leftists liberalnego language's as well arrangement reach may until lover Micheala Moore'a. AND conservative may simply journal , that An Armenia society is and Police society ", wherebyprzez co write down Heinlein. Recently , revising Internet warehouse of vindicates , found quaint contribution , plumes ( keyboards ) Julianka Gorin pt. Combine returned moją note. Both Julianka Gorin , as well as Oleg Volk wyemigrowali until GOD'S OWN COUNTRY with Federations Radzieckiego. Either are not jewish sources. May wherefore to determining , that " weapon duty be accession only to trust , state establishment Volk responds question : " such wherebyprzez co Motion KGB as well Stasi? " __________________

Click to expand...

We need a translation for the translation.

Good thing I was born and raised in Poland, ha?

Crap, this is going to be difficult, his Polish is, well, very Shakespeare like if you would. Give me some time Oleg.

It's an article by Julia Gorin, Russian-American comedienne and writer.
here's the original:

Jewish World Review March 8, 2002 / 24 Adar, 5762
Julia Gorin






The anti-gun male


http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- LET'S be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable--so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.


A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.


He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.


Of course, sexual and psychological insecurities don't account for ALL men against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are pure, who perhaps do care so much as to tirelessly look for policy solutions to teenage void and aggressiveness, and to parent and teacher negligence. But for a potentially large underlying contributor, psycho-sexual inadequacy has gone unexplored and unacknowledged. It's one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it's another to impose the same handicap onto others.


People are suspicious of what they do not know-and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do, or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don't sit cross-legged. That they're able to handle a firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear.


Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of crowds.


The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some assertiveness and a certain self-reliance. But if our man kept a gun in the house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of him, he wouldn't be able to later say, "He had a knife--there was nothing I could do!" Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn't be the option it otherwise is.


No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let's face it: He's a lover, not a fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife.


Of course, it wouldn't be completely honest not to admit that owning a firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That's the tradeoff with a gun: The right to defend one's life and way of life isn't without peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to do is risk his life-if even to save it. For he is guided by a dread fear for his life, and has more confidence in almost anyone else's ability to protect him than his own, preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the sporadically competent hands of authorities (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase).


In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's containment.

To the best of my abilities...

A-HUMAN-RIGHT (c) by Oleg Volk Jakiś czas temu, trafiłem na stronę amerykańskiego fotografikia, Olega Volka, będącego jednocześnie gorącym zwolennikiem wolnego dostępu do broni palnej, czemu daje wyraz w swoich inteligentnych i błyskotliwych plakatach. Podzielając poglądy Volka na broń palną, a niekoniecznie wszystkie inne - zdaje się on być konsekwentnym, anarchistycznym libertarianinem, doceniam propagandową siłę jego twórczości. Plakaty w stylu "A real feminist doesn't depend on men for protection" niekoniecznie odzwierciedlają moją wymarzoną wizję konserwatywnego Ładu, lecz robią dobrą robotę - bo skierowane są do środowisk tradycyjnie broni wrogich. Volk nie próbuje przekonywać przekonanych, lecz, używając lewicowo-liberalnego języka i systemu dotrzeć może do wielbicieli Micheala Moore'a.
A konserwatysta może po prostu pamiętać, że "An armed society is a polite society", jak napisał Heinlein.

Niedawno, przeglądając internetowy magazyn o broni, znalazłem ciekawy artykuł, pióra (klawiatury) Julii Gorin, pt.
The Anti-Gun Male.

Click to expand...

Some time ago I came across a website by American Photographer Oleg Volk, how's also a warm proponent of easy access to firearms, which he illustrates through his intelligent and catchy posters. Sharing his views on firearms, but not necessarily all others, he seams to be an anarchist-libertarian, and I appreciate the propaganda-like power of his creations. Posters such as "A real feminist doesn't depend on men for protection" not necessarily portray my dreamed up vision of the conservative order, but are doing a good job because are directed toward traditional anti gun establishments. Volk isn't trying to convert the converted, but rather, using left-liberal language and system aim at the Michael Moore's fans.
A conservative may simply remember that "An armed society is a polite society", as Heinlein wrote.
I was recently browsing through an internet gun magazine, and found an interesting article, penned (keyed) by Julii Gorin.

As is:

" Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of crowds.
The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some assertiveness and a certain self reliance. But if our man kept a gun in the house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of him, he wouldn't be able to later say, "He had a knife--there was nothing I could do!" Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn't be the option it otherwise is.

No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let's face it: He's a lover, not a fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife. Of course, it wouldn't be completely honest not to admit that owning a firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That's the tradeoff with a gun: The right to defend one's life and way of life isn't without peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to do is risk his life - if even to save it. For he is guided by a dread fear for his life, and has more confidence in almost anyone else's ability to protect him than his own, preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the sporadically competent hands of authorities (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase). "

Click to expand...

Jedno zwróciło moją uwagę. Zarówno Julia Gorin, jak i Oleg Volk, wyemigrowali do USA ze Związku Radzieckiego. Oboje są żydowskiego pochodzenia. Może dlatego na stwierdzenie, że "broń powinna być dostępna tylko dla odpowiedzialnych, państwowych instytucji" Volk odpowiada pytaniem: "Takich jak Gestapo, KGB i Stasi?"

Click to expand...

One thing caught my attention. Both Julia Gorin and Oleg Volk emigrated to the USA from the Soviet Republic. Both are of Jewish decent. Maybe that's why their reaction to "Guns should be available only to responsible, government institutions" Volk responds by asking "Such as Kestapo, KGB, and Stasi?"




Oleg, his polish is really hard and convoluted. This is the closest I can come up with.

There is a poster by username Nestor on GT, I will PM him with this thread.

Nestor speaking.
Three hours ago I came back from the two weeks vacation with my family, so please forgive me the silence here.
I will translate the text this weekend.
Take care.
Adam

It's me again.
I've read the article and I think that Eric did very well with the translation.
That's exactly what the author wanted to say.
BTW, why I feel uncomfortable reading about the "Jewish decent" from the Polish author?
:banghead:
...but after all it's a positive feedback, so plus for him.
Hiya Oleg!