300,000,000 Is Not Enough

[Flanders]

Approximately 300,000,000 guns is the accepted number of guns in America. I don’t know how it breaks down, or how many of those guns the government has targeted for confiscation, but 300,000,000 is not enough guns in civilian hands. Here’s why:

I’m pretty sure the government has the names of every member of the NRA, Gun Owners of America, gun clubs, and so on. That means the government knows where many of those 300,000,000 guns are located, while the Communists seized the opportunity to go all out for gun registration because of the school shooting in Connecticut. My point: It’s the number of guns the government does not know about from this day forward that count the most.

Incidentally, if you are not a member of the NRA, but support that organization’s efforts, I would advise you to make anonymous contributions.

Now, let me admit that I never knew Russians were so well-armed in Tsarist Russia:

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 common items. People carried them concealed or holstered. Daggers were a prominent part of many traditional attires.

Various armies -- the Poles, Napoleon, or the Germans -- found out that holding Russian lands was much harder than invading them, as every occupier faced a well-armed and aggressive population, hell-bent on driving out the aggressor.

This well-armed population was what allowed the various groups to rise up in 1918 and wage a brutal civil war against the Red Army. Disorganized politically and militarily, many factions of the White Army were mostly armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own property.

When the Reds approached Moscow, the city was a home to over 30,000 active and retired military officers, all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of armed citizens. The Communists promised to leave them alone if there would be no armed resistance. The Muscovites believed them and didn't intervene when a few hundred White military cadets and their instructors died defending the city against ten thousand Reds. Shortly afterwards, the Communists asked everyone to register their weapons. Those who showed up, where promptly shot.

Once they won the civil war, the Reds disarmed the entire population. From that point on, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, and mass famine were a safe game. The worst the Communists had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts, a knife in the back, or the occasional hunting rifle.

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare source of light in the ever darkening world.

If politicians really believe that our society is full of incompetent adolescents who can't be trusted with weapons, let them explain why we should trust them or the police, who also come from the same society and grew up in this culture.

While various governments try to limit gun ownership so as to protect the people from lunatics and criminals, what they really protect is their own power. Everywhere the guns are banned, gun-related crime increases. If lunatics want to kill, they can use cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China), or home-made bombs (world over). They can throw acid (Pakistan, UK), or fire bombs (France). Often times the only way to stop a raging maniac on a killing spree is a bullet to the head fired by an armed citizen.

Do not believe for a moment that progressives and other leftists hate guns. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who will not march in lockstep with their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves, refuse to comply, and eventually will have to be scheduled for a bullet behind the ear.

Do not fall for their false promises. Do not extinguish the last remaining light that allows humanity a measure of self-respect.

January 11, 2013
Pravda, Guns, and America
By Oleg Atbashian

Articles: Pravda, Guns, and America

Nor did I know that it was the Communists who confiscated the guns leaving the Russian people in a position of bringing a knife to a gunfight.

. . . the Communists asked everyone to register their weapons. Those who showed up, where promptly shot.

Once they won the civil war, the Reds disarmed the entire population.

Notice how Soviet Communists lied just as Hussein & Company are lying today. The difference is that American Socialists prefer brainwashing over posters. Listen to a young Eric Holder:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nM0asnCXD0&feature=player_embedded]Eric Holder "Brainwash People" about Guns - YouTube[/ame]​

Rather than believe anybody in Hussein’s administration put your trust in a few words by Andrew Napolitano:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MpYTzvY1ZFs]Judge Napolitano wants to know... - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Flanders]

After reading this I got to thinking about the role journalism played in the events cited in the OP:

O’Keefe’s crew asked journalists working for CNN, MSNBC and others whether they would put a sign in their lawn that says “Citizens Against Senseless Violence. THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE!”

“No journalist wanted the sign,” he says. “Many journalists had armed guards.”

“We also showed up at Eric Holder’s house,” O’Keefe added. “Authorities came to protect him.”

Journalists reject personal 'gun-free zone' signs
Many media personalities have their own armed guards
Published: 10 hours ago

Journalists reject personal ‘gun-free zone’ signs

It wasn’t long before I realized that no matter which role print press played in Tsarist Russia —— newspapers did not have the influence, or trust, our talking heads exercise, yet a majority of Americans know better than to hand over their guns to a Communist government that is afraid well-armed Americans will do the same thing to them that Communists do to everybody else.

This excerpt opens the article I linked in the OP:

Has Pravda gone anti-Communist, as many of its opinion pieces suggest?

First, let's just say that the hard-copy version is not the same as its digital namesake. The original newspaper had been started by Lenin in 1912 and shut down by Yeltsin in 1991. It was later restarted; it changed several owners, including some foreign millionaires, and in 1997 became the official organ of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

I’m not certain what a comparison between our media and the one that helped bring the Communists to power in Russia means. I do know that the so-called intellectuals in Europe and in America supported the Communists.

As a matter of fact American millionaires funded a large part of the Russian Revolutions. I don’t recall ever reading what intellectuals and millionaires thought about Communists disarming the Russian people. That’s a line of inquiry historians might want to look into.

Oh well, 1 million words cannot say it as effectively as this picture:

 

[Moonglow]

SO now you are comparing the Bolsheviks to modern America?

 

[Flanders]

SO now you are comparing the Bolsheviks to modern America?

To Moonglow: Bolshevik is a group, or an extreme radical. America is a country. Communists are the same in every generation. That’s the comparison you cleverly avoid.

 

[Mad Scientist]

No offense to you OP, but I get pissed when I hear gun grabbers call us "Civilians". It's like were a lower class or something.

We are the Sovereign, not the "civilian".

And they are the Servants, not the "authorities".

They're supposed to work for us.

Remember that.

 

[Flanders]

No offense to you OP, but I get pissed when I hear gun grabbers call us "Civilians". It's like were a lower class or something.

We are the Sovereign, not the "civilian".

And they are the Servants, not the "authorities".

They're supposed to work for us.

Remember that.

To Mad Scientist: I agree. Good point though. I should have been more precise.

My distinction was meant to identify armed government forces AND THEIR ARMED SUPPORTERS as opposed to armed non-government forces. With my distinction in mind ask yourself who will command the loyalty of the people Hussein wants to arm:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UHmecy94z-M]Obama calls for civilian paramilitary force - YouTube[/ame]​

Incidentally, funding for Hussein’s CIVILIAN PARAMILITARY FORCE is in the Healthcare bill.

Basically, government forces consists of two groups while the people who would fight to protect the Constitution and their own liberties are one group.

 

[Flanders]

Hussein is persistent if nothing else. He started out trying to set himself as the nation’s spiritual leader. Lie after lie after lie turned that into a joke. Now, he’s back at it on the graves of 20 murdered children. It pains me to post a video of this guy since I can’t stand to look at him on TV, but you have to listen to him in this brief video to get a sense of his duplicity:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTcF17Je6Co&feature=player_detailpage]Obama: If we can 'save even one child' we should - YouTube[/ame]​

The filthy sneak is all about politics. “Stronger background checks” would make some sense if it kept guns out of the hands of criminals and the criminally insane. It won’t. What it does do is help the government identify gun purchasers. Background checks ain’t as good as registering all guns, but it accomplishes the same thing with new gun purchases. Once the government does a background check the law-abiding American is tagged as a gun owner forever. It’s a pure political move that works for the government’s agenda.

Hussein’s delusions about his own infallibility makes him think he can get around the 2nd Amendment by pretending more gun controls is about children. Concern for children is coming from a guy who heads the party of infanticide, assisted suicide, population controls, euthanasia, and death panels. Now he wants everybody to believe he cares about saving children. The only thing he cares about is trying to win the House in 2014 on the strength of gun controls. His remark about members of Congress examining their consciences prove it.

The man is really sick if he is waiting for recommendations from Biden. After the all-time baby butcher, Ted Kennedy, died, Biden inherited the title of the worst piece of Democrat excrement in the Senate. Oh yeah! By all means let’s hear from Biden.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel. It’s very far away but at least it’s there:

Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.

Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”

GOP congressman threatens impeachment if Obama uses executive action for gun control
5:20 PM 01/14/2013
Caroline May

GOP congressman threatens impeachment if Obama uses executive action for gun control | The Daily Caller

There isn’t much chance a Senate trial will remove Hussein. It would if Democrats took the advice of their spiritual leader and examined their consciences. Like I said, the light at the end of the tunnel is very far away if anyone expects Democrats to put the Constitution ahead of party politics.