I's sure like to see a reference that ordinary people were allowed to keep and bear arms under the Tsarist regime. I very much doubt it.
My understanding is that this was one of the primary privileges of the Cossacks. They were given the privilege of bearing arms because it was assumed they'd be loyal to the Tsar, partly because of this privilege.
Also, by definition the Tsar was an autocrat. I suppose it's possible to be an autocrat but not a tyrant, but it's been accomplished only rarely. It is, however, true that the commies were much worse by almost any standard you care to use.
One definition of tyrant is ‘self made ruler’. The Tsar didn’t make himself, nor did he take power that was not his by tradition.
By contrast, Obama seems to be doing executive orders to add more power to himself.
The Tsar was also head of state of Finland, but that state was not ruled by the Tsar as an autocrat. When the Tsar was murdered, Finland changed their constitution to select a head of state in another way.
The tsar was a king essentially
Have all kings been tyrants then?
Historically that term was reserved for especially unjust kings not monarchs in general
Autocratic rulers.....kings......tsars...etc who ruled for self at an excessive expense of his subjects
That is a tyrant...and Nicholas was not
Stanislav has a blog link at the bottom of the Pravda article, and in it he has a few phrases that lift a red flag for me (pardon the pun), but while he spouts the class warfare propaganda, his history seems pretty solid.
I got down to May 12, 2007 and found he predicted Putin's invasion and punishment of Georgia in August 2008.
Putin's strategy was unpublished until March 2008, so this guy has a great deal of knowledge about things Russian.
Likewise, it appears to me that Pravda is the clear choice over the American MSM.