If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Pravda)   The Russians remember what it was like when their guns were taken away - and have some choice words about the notion   (english.pravda.ru) divider line 152
    More: Scary, mass arrest, famine, Cossacks  
•       •       •

3030 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Jan 2013 at 10:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-03 09:23:13 AM
These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.

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.


So in the opening two paragraphs, an amusing misspelling and a nostalgic yearning for 19th century life, completely devoid of any facts of what life was actually like back then.

This guy belongs on Free Republic.
 
2013-01-03 09:31:05 AM
Actually reprinted from this blog (as noted at the bottom):

http://www.mat-rodina.blogspot.ru/

Enjoy that ball of crazy. These are not the allies you're looking for, gun people.
 
2013-01-03 09:36:07 AM
the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions

I don't know about the next guy, but I wouldn't trust some sissy boy with shaved arms to help me defend the country
 
2013-01-03 10:16:06 AM
When did most Russians own guns? I thought they went from being serfs to proles pretty quickly.
 
2013-01-03 10:16:49 AM
Enjoy your first gun control thread of the day, boys and girls, but imma sit this one out.
 
2013-01-03 10:16:53 AM
* Plenty of guns didn't keep the Bolsheviks from taking power.
* Those guns didn't overthrow the Bolshevik regime.
* But we need guns to protect our freedoms.
 
2013-01-03 10:16:55 AM
I haven't even finished my coffee yet ... but ...

... sigh ....
 
2013-01-03 10:17:25 AM

scottydoesntknow: I don't know about the next guy, but I wouldn't trust some sissy boy with shaved arms to help me defend the country


That doesn't necessarily mean that his arms are shaved. Maybe he just hates sleeves.
 
2013-01-03 10:18:07 AM
Because when I want advice and suggestions on the American political and social systems, I look to a Soviet propaganda rag.
 
2013-01-03 10:20:08 AM
Strange times, stranger bedfellows.
 
2013-01-03 10:20:14 AM
Heavily armed krokodil addicts seems safe to me.
 
2013-01-03 10:20:56 AM
If Ayn Rand had had a gun, the Reds would never have dispossessed her aristocratic family and she would never have become an American novelist.
 
2013-01-03 10:20:57 AM
Ah, yes, the great freedom Russia enjoyed under the Romanovs.
 
2013-01-03 10:21:04 AM
The NRA is acting like someone is trying to take all guns away. This argument is simply a lie. It is completely false. It is not and will never be true. (got it?)

What we are talking about is blocking access to the kinds of guns and equipment which are required to mass murder our citizens, such as high capacity magazines for semi-automatic weapons. If a shooter has to reload every 5 shots, his ability to kill more than 20 people in a short period of time is impacted. Also, we should consider banning all high caliber semi-automatic weapons.

That still leaves almost all handguns, shotguns, and bolt action rifles. A populace can be well armed without the mass killing machines.

So to make sure everyone understands, these references to Russia and Hitler, and these other bad dudes and situations are based upon pure lies. Get it people, lies.
 
2013-01-03 10:21:50 AM
Late to the last gun thread, but here we go. The question that needs to be answered about gun control is this:

Is the collateral damage that may come from having a population with access to arms a appropriate level of sacrifice for that same population to have access to arms for self defense, whether it be against other people or the government?

The writers of the Constitution believed that the ability for self defense outweighed the collateral damage by such a large margin, that they made it the second amendment. A similar argument that would be made about the first would be: Is the collateral damage of allowing the KKK to spew vile and racist things an appropriate level of sacrifice to ensure that the entire population will always be able to have the right to free speech. Fourth amendment: Is the collateral damage of allowing people to occasionally get away with crimes an appropriate level of sacrifice to ensure that the entire population will not have to fear the government invading their privacy.

And so on. The framers decided that the collateral damages that would occur with these amendments were outweighed by the rights that they wanted to ensure the population would always have. Presumably, the argument follows that Aurora/Newtown/Columbine are unfortunate sacrifices that have to be accepted in order for our right to self defense to exist, the same way that the KKK/Westboro/NeoNazis are unfortunate sacrifices that have to be accepted in order for our right to free speech to exist.

It appears people are deciding that our right to self defense should isn't as valuable as preventing these sacrifices. That is certainly an argument that can be made, but it is not the argument that the framers made, and I personally believe it is a rather knee jerk reaction to an incredibly tragic but even more incredibly rare series of events.
 
2013-01-03 10:22:02 AM
This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar.

What the goddamn fark?
 
2013-01-03 10:23:01 AM

MacEnvy: Actually reprinted from this blog (as noted at the bottom):

http://www.mat-rodina.blogspot.ru/

Enjoy that ball of crazy. These are not the allies you're looking for, gun people.


From his blog:

The great enemy of the American Redneck and the Leftist intelligentsia, Russia, is at it again, and why I really do not know. Regardless of how many times we have done it, and we are ever slow to learn, we only get bitten in the process for it. Ever will a scorpion remain a scorpion and it is time we learned that lesson.

From being the first nation to recognize the American nation, to being the one force that kept Europe out of the US Civil War, by placing Russian warships in NYC and San Francisco harbours (that was a monumental mistake in my opinion), to various aids and assistance, such as being the first nation to call and offer condolences AND any needed aid after 911 and the first and only other monument to those slain in 911 (911 and the Enemy Who Mourned For America), Russia has garnered nothing but misfortune every time.

From the US funding and supporting the overthrow of the Tsars and the murderous Soviet take over in the Civil War. To the US monetary support of the Soviets after they went bankrupt (why the SU owed $48 billion to the US in 1990), to the out right theft of everything not nailed down to the continuous Jihad on our southern borders sponsored by those same American elites.

And in return?

In return we offered aid and support, to those who have hated us, murdered us, stolen from us and continue to threaten us from every angle, not just with nuclear mass murder but with the slow genocide of Jihadism.


USA! USA! USA!
 
2013-01-03 10:23:53 AM
Is there a proper blessing for the Tsar?
 
2013-01-03 10:24:12 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Russia

This man knows nothing of his own laws.
 
2013-01-03 10:24:15 AM

JAYoung: If Ayn Rand had had a gun, the Reds would never have dispossessed her aristocratic family and she would never have become an American novelist.


Well, that's one of the strongest arguments against NOT banning guns in the US. Do you want to be responsible for the next Ayn Rand, gun grabbers? DO YOU?
 
2013-01-03 10:24:58 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar.

What the goddamn fark?


Yeah that's about where I checked out.
 
2013-01-03 10:25:42 AM
Either this comrade is a member of the FSB or there is an Onion in Russia.

/Or, considering this is Russia, maybe he is a Beet reporter.
 
2013-01-03 10:26:18 AM
:clicks link:

{Ctrl-F}

"gun bears you!"

No matches

/disappoint
 
2013-01-03 10:28:04 AM

Boudica's War Tampon: /Or, considering this is Russia, maybe he is a Beet reporter.


www.billrotelladrumbeatings.com
 
2013-01-03 10:29:09 AM

rufus-t-firefly: :clicks link:

{Ctrl-F}

"gun bears you!"

No matches

/disappoint


I thought that in Russia, bear guns you.

media.giantbomb.com
 
2013-01-03 10:29:24 AM
It's sad to watch the gun control crowd really.

On one hand you have the people who have really been convinced by the anti-gun propaganda and really believe in that whole idea of just how much better and safer we would all be if only that pesky 2nd Amendment could be done away with.

On the other hand you have the liberal elite who preach about the horrors of guns and the need for control but they didn't mean themselves. They will still have guards and expensive security for themselves and their family because... Well... They're important, and you're not.

Then finally you have the people behind the gun control movement whose true motivation is nothing except disarmament of the population. When you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns as the saying goes and they know that. They not only know it, they're counting on it. If you can't protect yourselves then you will just have to trust... them... to do it.
 
2013-01-03 10:29:31 AM

phaseolus: Is there a proper blessing for the Tsar?


Only if he sneezes.
 
2013-01-03 10:31:19 AM

Generation_D: These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.

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.

So in the opening two paragraphs, an amusing misspelling and a nostalgic yearning for 19th century life, completely devoid of any facts of what life was actually like back then.

This guy belongs on Free Republic.


I think you will find the bulk of those who lived or are a generation away from those who lived in the USSR, are absolutely bonkers when it comes to their political beliefs.
 
2013-01-03 10:31:45 AM

randomjsa: When you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns as the saying goes and they know that.


If you legalize guns, only inlaws will have guns.
 
2013-01-03 10:32:29 AM

rufus-t-firefly: * Plenty of guns didn't keep the Bolsheviks from taking power.
* Those guns didn't overthrow the Bolshevik regime.
* But we need guns to protect our freedoms.


Didn't protect the Jews from the Germans either, but this was an era where nationalism had become the big thing. People sometimes commit atrocities willingly. In relative disarmament, they also suffer willingly.

The culture breeds these disasters.

/In America we avoided most of this madness.
/except for the Indians... But guns helped draw that fight out quite a while.
/historically, Russia became Russia by being an unruly mess. It's ironic they finally fell into totalitarianism.
 
2013-01-03 10:33:26 AM
"They're gonna take yer guns away" from the people that brought you "Romney landslide!"

Seems legit
 
2013-01-03 10:36:13 AM

BMulligan: Enjoy your first gun control thread of the day, boys and girls, but imma sit this one out.


Why? All smart people know, you can't kill defend yourself against classrooms of children without rapid-fire semi-automatic weapons and giant clips.

"They were coming right at us!"
 
2013-01-03 10:37:42 AM

USCLaw2010: When did most Russians own guns? I thought they went from being serfs to proles pretty quickly.


Thats what I thought too ... but apparently we missed this golden age of gun ownership and freedom in jolly old mother Russia.
 
2013-01-03 10:37:42 AM

Infernalist: Because when I want advice and suggestions on the American political and social systems, I look to a Soviet propaganda rag.


Yeah I haven't quite figured this one out yet.
 
2013-01-03 10:39:07 AM

Moosecakes: Infernalist: Because when I want advice and suggestions on the American political and social systems, I look to a Soviet propaganda rag.

Yeah I haven't quite figured this one out yet.


republicans love putin and by the rates of diabetes in redstates they also love puddin
 
2013-01-03 10:41:47 AM
This is where I stopped reading: "when we were free under the Tsar"

That is pants on head stupid right there.
 
2013-01-03 10:41:49 AM
My fellow gun nuts who shiat themselves with fear that Feinstein's new AWB will pass, as well as the anti-gun nuts that wet themselves in anticipation that it will, are idiots. Interest in gun control is falling back to pre-newton levels, the republicans have the majority in the house (as opposed to when the 94 AWB passed), and December saw the highest levels of gun purchases in any single month (which means more money for the NRA to bride with). DiFi knows this wont pass, and only submitted this bill to gain street cred from her retarded constituents.

And all the idiot panic buyers will start selling their $2000 shiatty Bushmaster AR-15s at a lose and I'll be able to buy at a reasonable price again.
 
2013-01-03 10:42:23 AM

T-Boy: The NRA is acting like someone is trying to take all guns away. This argument is simply a lie. It is completely false. It is not and will never be true. (got it?)

What we are talking about is blocking access to the kinds of guns and equipment which are required to mass murder our citizens, such as high capacity magazines for semi-automatic weapons. If a shooter has to reload every 5 shots, his ability to kill more than 20 people in a short period of time is impacted. Also, we should consider banning all high caliber semi-automatic weapons.

That still leaves almost all handguns, shotguns, and bolt action rifles. A populace can be well armed without the mass killing machines.

So to make sure everyone understands, these references to Russia and Hitler, and these other bad dudes and situations are based upon pure lies. Get it people, lies.


Impacted by half a second or less. A man can easily tape multiple magazines together and just flip them over and insert the next one. You'll see a lot of 'tacticool' types on the range do that. Half a second is NOT enough time to rush a man when you're already running for your life and half a second is actually quite slow for trained hands.

I do agree that hyperbole isn't the answer either and neither is arming everybody if for the sole fact there are people simply not responsible enough to own a gun. The Second Amendment, of course, doesn't take that into consideration, but we had a much smaller population when it was written with a VERY different culture. That's what it's really about - it isn't the fact the weapons changed; it's the fact the CULTURE has changed.

That being said, though, gun control will not work anymore than Prohibition worked or neo-Prohibition (the Drug War) is working. You start taking things off of the market and you'll start driving up demand for them big time. Look at something as innocuous as Twinkies. I'll bet you half of the people scrambling to get them didn't even care about them, but since there was a chance of them being scarce, people bought them up because of a perceived future value. That's just the LEGAL market. Even in a world where box magazines with higher capacity than five rounds cannot be transferred despite being grandfathered in, people will find ways to get a hold of them.

Gun control, at this point in the game, will cause MANY more problems than it starts. The US' violent crime rate has actually been dropping significantly over the past decade. You don't have to take my word for it, by the way. Check the FBI's site. That doesn't get reported on TV, of course. Neither does the fact that a vast majority of this violent crime happens in urban centers where gun control laws are some of the strictest in the country. It doesn't help. We have less violent crime per capita in our urban centers than the UK does. That's a fact. Check the site of the Home Office compared to the statistics on the FBI's site. We do have higher homicide rates per capita, though of those homicides, only a SMALL fraction were done with a gun. These are all statistics you can easily find from unbiased sources. Don't take the NRA's word for it; in fact, I urge you not to. Their leadership is pretty crazy themselves.

Do your own research and your own thinking. The gun debate extends far beyond 'if we limit the (whatever) of a gun, we can limit its mortality rate and that'll solve everything!'
 
2013-01-03 10:43:00 AM
". . . free under the Tsar"

Wow.

Hey, I wouldn't trust a bunch of vodka-steeped Russians with firearms, either.
 
2013-01-03 10:44:22 AM

Yakk: Strange times, stranger bedfellows.


This.

Every time I see neocons using Pravda as evidence for their arguments, I weep for the GOP. They used to be rather sensible.
 
2013-01-03 10:45:25 AM

Frank N Stein: My fellow gun nuts who shiat themselves with fear that Feinstein's new AWB will pass, as well as the anti-gun nuts that wet themselves in anticipation that it will, are idiots. Interest in gun control is falling back to pre-newton levels, the republicans have the majority in the house (as opposed to when the 94 AWB passed), and December saw the highest levels of gun purchases in any single month (which means more money for the NRA to bride with). DiFi knows this wont pass, and only submitted this bill to gain street cred from her retarded constituents.

And all the idiot panic buyers will start selling their $2000 shiatty Bushmaster AR-15s at a lose and I'll be able to buy at a reasonable price again.


More than a few Republicans have stated as being okay with certain restrictions. That's why the more imminent magazine restrictions bill is getting put on the block first - it's much more likely to pass. The Feinstein bill will likely not make it through in its current form, but who knows. Republicans and Democrats are still playing the same political game and both want to keep their seats. If the court of public opinion favors gun restrictions then there will be restrictions. Don't count on them to do ANYTHING just because of their party affiliation.
 
2013-01-03 10:47:05 AM

T-Boy: So to make sure everyone understands, these references to Russia and Hitler, and these other bad dudes and situations are based upon pure lies. Get it people, lies.


I find the Hitler/Stalin/Mao comments on gun control/confiscation to be somewhat frustratingly hilarious as the argument completely ignores A) the history surrounding those past events -and more frustratingly- B) ignores current events and why the topic is being discussed. So the Hitler/Stalin/Mao arguments are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I almost want to completely ignore people who use those arguments, but they are a rather large and loud group of people.
 
2013-01-03 10:47:23 AM

Frank N Stein: My fellow gun nuts who shiat themselves with fear that Feinstein's new AWB will pass, as well as the anti-gun nuts that wet themselves in anticipation that it will, are idiots. Interest in gun control is falling back to pre-newton levels, the republicans have the majority in the house (as opposed to when the 94 AWB passed), and December saw the highest levels of gun purchases in any single month (which means more money for the NRA to bride with). DiFi knows this wont pass, and only submitted this bill to gain street cred from her retarded constituents.

And all the idiot panic buyers will start selling their $2000 shiatty Bushmaster AR-15s at a lose and I'll be able to buy at a reasonable price again.


And dozens of innocent Americans will continue to die in mass shootings without a hint of concern from the gun manufacturers or the gun owners.
 
2013-01-03 10:50:03 AM

Gone In 26 Minutes: Frank N Stein: My fellow gun nuts who shiat themselves with fear that Feinstein's new AWB will pass, as well as the anti-gun nuts that wet themselves in anticipation that it will, are idiots. Interest in gun control is falling back to pre-newton levels, the republicans have the majority in the house (as opposed to when the 94 AWB passed), and December saw the highest levels of gun purchases in any single month (which means more money for the NRA to bride with). DiFi knows this wont pass, and only submitted this bill to gain street cred from her retarded constituents.

And all the idiot panic buyers will start selling their $2000 shiatty Bushmaster AR-15s at a lose and I'll be able to buy at a reasonable price again.

More than a few Republicans have stated as being okay with certain restrictions. That's why the more imminent magazine restrictions bill is getting put on the block first - it's much more likely to pass. The Feinstein bill will likely not make it through in its current form, but who knows. Republicans and Democrats are still playing the same political game and both want to keep their seats. If the court of public opinion favors gun restrictions then there will be restrictions. Don't count on them to do ANYTHING just because of their party affiliation.


Some of those republicans have since back paddled from their statements after the NRA told them to. Although I do agree that a ban on standard size magazines is more likely to pass, but of it does it would have so many loopholes it would be pretty easy to circumvent.

The real issue, for me at least, is that my state (Illinois) has a coalition of Dems trying to ram a bill through te state legislature that will effectively ban any modern semi-automatic weapon (vote in the senate is today, i believe). But the usual pro-2A groups have caught wind of this effort and are flooding phone lines and gearing up their lobbyists.
 
2013-01-03 10:50:08 AM
I don't give a shiat about guns one way or the other, but I do find it amusing that the American Right now aligns with Pravda on the crazy spectrum.
 
2013-01-03 10:51:03 AM

T-Boy: That still leaves almost all handguns, shotguns, and bolt action rifles. A populace can be well armed without the mass killing machines.


Most handguns are semi-automatic. So no it wouldn't leave handguns.
 
2013-01-03 10:51:47 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Frank N Stein: My fellow gun nuts who shiat themselves with fear that Feinstein's new AWB will pass, as well as the anti-gun nuts that wet themselves in anticipation that it will, are idiots. Interest in gun control is falling back to pre-newton levels, the republicans have the majority in the house (as opposed to when the 94 AWB passed), and December saw the highest levels of gun purchases in any single month (which means more money for the NRA to bride with). DiFi knows this wont pass, and only submitted this bill to gain street cred from her retarded constituents.

And all the idiot panic buyers will start selling their $2000 shiatty Bushmaster AR-15s at a lose and I'll be able to buy at a reasonable price again.

And dozens of innocent Americans will continue to die in mass shootings without a hint of concern from the gun manufacturers or the gun owners.


Not sure if troll, but Poe's Law being a thing, I'll play:

Why should they? I'm not even going bother with the car analogy here since it's overdone. Let's talk purely weapons. Should people who own and manufacture switchblades (or any knife, really) for protection feel concerned when someone stabs another person with one? Because that happens WAY more often than shootings do in this country.
 
2013-01-03 10:53:00 AM

Gone In 26 Minutes: T-Boy: The NRA is acting like someone is trying to take all guns away. This argument is simply a lie. It is completely false. It is not and will never be true. (got it?)

What we are talking about is blocking access to the kinds of guns and equipment which are required to mass murder our citizens, such as high capacity magazines for semi-automatic weapons. If a shooter has to reload every 5 shots, his ability to kill more than 20 people in a short period of time is impacted. Also, we should consider banning all high caliber semi-automatic weapons.

That still leaves almost all handguns, shotguns, and bolt action rifles. A populace can be well armed without the mass killing machines.

So to make sure everyone understands, these references to Russia and Hitler, and these other bad dudes and situations are based upon pure lies. Get it people, lies.

Impacted by half a second or less. A man can easily tape multiple magazines together and just flip them over and insert the next one. You'll see a lot of 'tacticool' types on the range do that. Half a second is NOT enough time to rush a man when you're already running for your life and half a second is actually quite slow for trained hands.

I do agree that hyperbole isn't the answer either and neither is arming everybody if for the sole fact there are people simply not responsible enough to own a gun. The Second Amendment, of course, doesn't take that into consideration, but we had a much smaller population when it was written with a VERY different culture. That's what it's really about - it isn't the fact the weapons changed; it's the fact the CULTURE has changed.

That being said, though, gun control will not work anymore than Prohibition worked or neo-Prohibition (the Drug War) is working. You start taking things off of the market and you'll start driving up demand for them big time. Look at something as innocuous as Twinkies. I'll bet you half of the people scrambling to get them didn't even care about them, bu ...


In my view, the "gun debate" is now more like this:

Pro gun lobby: 30 years of winning every argument out there.  Results: dead kids

Anti-gun lobby: "We've stood by idly and let you win every argument, and you got us dead kids.  Never Again."

And here is another fun fact: The anti-gun lobby could give a sh*t about how much word walls full of facts about gun technology you post as justification for your position.  We're over it.  Don't care.

The anti-gun lobby is going to pass something, you can either work with them to make sure it makes the most sense, or you can wall up and cling to the NRA view of guns in schools.

Which do you think will win the day?
 
2013-01-03 10:53:27 AM

randomjsa: It's sad to watch the gun control crowd really.

On one hand you have the people who have really been convinced by the anti-gun propaganda and really believe in that whole idea of just how much better and safer we would all be if only that pesky 2nd Amendment could be done away with.

On the other hand you have the liberal elite who preach about the horrors of guns and the need for control but they didn't mean themselves. They will still have guards and expensive security for themselves and their family because... Well... They're important, and you're not.

Then finally you have the people behind the gun control movement whose true motivation is nothing except disarmament of the population. When you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns as the saying goes and they know that. They not only know it, they're counting on it. If you can't protect yourselves then you will just have to trust... them... to do it.


you're getting better at trolling. 6/10
 
2013-01-03 10:53:27 AM

T-Boy: Also, we should consider banning all high caliber semi-automatic weapons.


Why? What does high caliber even mean? The so called assault weapons you want to ban, shoot varmint cartridges, or intermediate cartridges, not full sized cartridges, like the 30-06 hunting weapons, or M1 garand weapon of WWII.
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report