Warning From Russia: Americans Never Give Up Your Guns!

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
A powerful article from a Russian on how they were disarmed and millions slaughtered and why we should never give up our arms! Well worth the read and a poignant reminder on why we should never give up the guns


This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.


He talks of how disorganized people were and mostly farmers and peasants but still managed to put up a nasty fight and felt they would have won but That the US supported the Reds giving them the advantage.


This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.


And this is perhaps the most powerful part of the article:


No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.


Read the whole article here: english.pravda.ru...




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   
The Russians and most of Europe have been through this already and I guess if we were to take a look at the facts, crime in those countries has spiked to some degree. Theres something about the Russians. I don'tknow if its their no bs ways or what but they seem to get straight to the point. I remember another Russian who was a citizen in the former Soviet Union also sending a message to Europe. He pretty much let the audience know that he has already been through what Europe is now and that they should be ready for the European Union to fail. As we can see, countries are now collapsing left-right and centre.

I like the Russians, I think they can show us where we are going wrong in some places..
edit on 10-1-2013 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Just because you have the right to own a gun does not mean you are responsible and stable enough to own a gun.

Oh and by the way...Hitler never implemented a single gun ban ever in Nazi Germany his most powerful tool in seizing full power was something called Propaganda.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I fail to see how giving up assault weapons is disarming America.

It's like the government banning monster trucks from driving on the road and people crying that they are going to lose their Prius.

All I've heard from the pro-gun lobby is that firearms are going to be banned completely.

This simply isn't true.

Here in Australia we have gun laws like what is being proposed in the US. I can still own 5 guns (and store them at home) without much fuss. You can also apply to hold more guns at home if you have a good enough reason.

I don't see the issue.

Gun-nuts crying because they can't have automatic assault weapons?


awwwwwww diddums.




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Don't forget that the 2nd amendment must be refreshed every couple of weeks with the blood of Students, Kindergartners, clerks, Police officers, co-workers, teachers, parents, sisters, grandchildren and innocent kids in order to keep tyrannical governments from taking over this country!



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Unnecessary warning, as if...

Pfft, the quote in reference to; "behind every blade of grass", may be a false statement, but the sentiment is accurate enough.

Does any one really think all the red necks, gangs and organized criminals allow a foreign move on their turf?

Exactly.
And then there is the military whom are stateside...retired, veteran and otherwise. It is no contest, otherwise such would have been attempted by now.



I do like the thread subject though, and it should hopefully raise awareness.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin


Gun-nuts crying because they can't have automatic assault weapons?


awwwwwww diddums.



Huh?

Semi auto.. Semi auto "Assault weapons" was the answer...



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Oh and by the way...Hitler never implemented a single gun ban ever in Nazi Germany his most powerful tool in seizing full power was something called Propaganda.


Actually Germany had gun registration and when Hitler came to power he used it to disarm the population then proceeded to murder 10 million of his own citizens who were unable to defend themselves.

PS to everyone on the thread; Don't feed the trolls!



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 


Automatic assault weapons (which criminals & organized gangs have and use whether they're illegal or not) are already illegal. There really isn't much difference between what you would consider a legal military semi-automatic and a traditional semi-auto rifle, that isn't on trial here, except for maybe the magazine capacities available. What else about 'military assault weapons' allow people to kill more people than a regular one? A scope or modern sight? The main difference is they're black and scary and don't have a ton of wooden parts. Let's also not forget that only 400 deaths are attributed to rifles, out of the 8 or so thousand. If they're coming after something that causes so few deaths (just sometimes a bunch at once (rare)) when do they start banning handguns and shotguns? Its the next logical step right? We're going down a scary path, and they're using tragedies in the media to get their way. Remember the patriot act?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Just because you have the right to own a gun does not mean you are responsible and stable enough to own a gun.

Oh and by the way...Hitler never implemented a single gun ban ever in Nazi Germany his most powerful tool in seizing full power was something called Propaganda.


What about in Austria? He may not of done it in Germany except to maybe the Jews but surrounding countries certainly copped the full brunt of Hitler.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 


But there is even some controversy over how Port Arthur occured. I remember someone mentioning that in 1987 a politician said they needed a Massacre in Tasmania to get people to hand in their guns. I think we were duped and the Americans shouldn't give up their rights because of a few mad men that make every gun owner look like a lunatic.
edit on 10-1-2013 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 


Automatic assault weapons (which criminals & organized gangs have and use whether they're illegal or not) are already illegal. There really isn't much difference between what you would consider a legal military semi-automatic and a traditional semi-auto rifle, that isn't on trial here, except for maybe the magazine capacities available. What else about 'military assault weapons' allow people to kill more people than a regular one? A scope or modern sight? The main difference is they're black and scary and don't have a ton of wooden parts. Let's also not forget that only 400 deaths are attributed to rifles, out of the 8 or so thousand. If they're coming after something that causes so few deaths (just sometimes a bunch at once (rare)) when do they start banning handguns and shotguns? Its the next logical step right? We're going down a scary path, and they're using tragedies in the media to get their way. Remember the patriot act?


Actually automatic rifles are legal in most of the states. They are just really expensive and require a $200 federal tax stamp so they can track them despite them rarely being used in a crime. But then again Semi auto black rifles are also rarely used in crimes.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
I would argue that the fact that the Russians had guns is what allowed for a violent revolution and for communism to be established.

In most cases dictators emerge after a violent conflict, either between the military and the state, or the state and it's public - and in both cases it is the access to firearms which allow it. Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Castro... and so on.

Remember, the Tzar was the current establishment. Like Obama is the current now. The public became very dissatisfied, and they killed the Tzar and his family - and then they got a dictatorship.
If Americans ever rise up and overthrow and elected government, you can be sure that what you'll end up with is a facist dictatorship.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mads1987
I would argue that the fact that the Russians had guns is what allowed for a violent revolution and for communism to be established.

In most cases dictators emerge after a violent conflict, either between the military and the state, or the state and it's public - and in both cases it is the access to firearms which allow it. Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Castro... and so on.

Remember, the Tzar was the current establishment. Like Obama is the current now. The public became very dissatisfied, and they killed the Tzar and his family - and then they got a dictatorship.
If Americans ever rise up and overthrow and elected government, you can be sure that what you'll end up with is a facist dictatorship.


They got a dictatorship because of a communist revolt. Things were not perfect under the Tsar so yes they influenced young people to believe in communism. However to say it was because the people were armed is ridiculous. The people resisted with their arms or the communist would not have had to fight and could have taken over with out much of a fight. And the first thing the communist did was disarm the people and then round up and then proceed to kill 20+ million disarmed people... Yeah it was the guns fault... Sigh!



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


The communist influenced the people to revolt against the Tzar, which is obviously only possible if they have weapons.
How would it have been possible without them?

Once the communist regime had been established, they didn't want history to repeat itself (loose power because of revolution), so they disarmed the people.
But the people didn't fight the communist at first - and first when Stalin introduced the forced collectivisation did people start fighting. At which point it was completely too late.

But either way - doesn't really matter. My point is this - you will NEVER create a harmonies society through violent revolution. Can't be done. Never in the history of man has such a thing happened.

The French Revolution ended the age of absolute monarchy in France, but was followed by the Reign of Terror.
Night of the Long Knives was the start of Hitlers third reich.
Cuban revolution resulted in Fidel Castro, who overthrew Batista another dictator.
The russian revolution resulted in the Soviet Union.

Any government can become corrupted, unfortunately, but to think that you can ever solve it with violence is naive.
Only people who come out on top is the people selling the bullets.
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 





The communist influenced the people to revolt against the Tzar, which is obviously only possible if they have weapons.
How would it have been possible without them?


The communists would have provided them weapons like they have most of their revolutions and the rest of the people who resisted the communists would have had no means to fight back. Their officers stayed neutral believing the communists would not harm them and they were all shot for their trouble.

Your logic is it is better for the people to be disarmed so there can be no communist revolution how naive of you. That means guns will be provided to the revolutionaries a the people will be assimilated or slaughtered.... Sigh



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I don't think we will ever agree on this.

But come to think of it, I can recall one revolution which ended differently, and I must apologies for neglecting to recognizing the American Revolution, which in contrast to the ones I have previously mentioned, actually turned out quite well. No dictatorship as far as I am aware.

But you and I come from very different background. I live in Denmark. I don't believe it has ever been legal for a civilian to carry a firearm unless he is going hunting. Currently we have some of the most strict gun laws of any nation in the world, and have had them for a long time. We have very few gun related deaths. Zero dictators. Zero revolution.

And according to a study done by Colombia university, we are the happiest people on earth.
Here is a link for the report - World Happiness Report

But you guys had the wild west, and all that jazz.Two completely different worlds we live in.

Anyway - I believe, that instead of spending money on weapons to defend yourself, your nation or something third, from something scary, it would be more beneficial for your country to use that money for charity. Not just give the money away, but invested in some of the areas that need it more than others.

But since we are talking about Americans not giving up their weapons to defend their nation against dictatorship, fascism, communism or something along those lines, I couldn't help but wonder how possible you think it is that we would see such an event in the near future?
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 





But since we are talking about Americans not giving up their weapons to defend their nation against dictatorship, fascism, communism or something along those lines, I couldn't help but wonder how possible you think it is that we would see such an event in the near future?


North Korea has fewer guns deaths then America also so by the logic of some we should have a north Korean style dictatorship to reduce gun crime.

Americans will never give up there weapons. Most people have car or house insurance not because they think something will happen but just in case. Preserving the right to bear arms is insurance against tyranny giving them up because you think nothing will happen is just naive. Britain also has fewer gun deaths then America but 3 times the crime rate. You are more likely to be a victim of violent crime in Britain then America. I do not know what Denmark's crime rate is. Gun related deaths in America are only 1.5 percent of the deaths. You are 100 times more likely to die at the hands of a doctor or in a car accident. The irrational fear of guns is media propaganda.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Right..
I am confused why you qouted my question, but neglected to answer it. But nevermind. I have stated my point of view, and tried to understand yours - but this discussion is not going anywhere.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
A powerful article from a Russian
So, an Opinion from ONE RUSSIAN has become the Voice of Russia as a Whole, as your title Implies?

If I as an American, writes a Article on the Need for Disarmament, would that Make me the Spokesman for America.

I think not, neither are your Implications, that Russia agrees with this ONE MAN.

FAIL





top topics
 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join