Posted on 08/05/2011 11:49:35 AM PDT by klpt
AGRA, Russia — When Sergei the Gypsy wanted to show who was boss in this tiny settlement on the edge of the Ural Mountains, he gathered a posse of armed men and drove down a narrow road through the night, illuminating the forest with his headlights. “They are coming to kill us,” one of the villagers shouted, and Viktor Gorodilov, who was in his bathhouse, threw on some clothes and joined a small group of men with shotguns, pitchforks, chains and knives to guard the road. “We just had three guns, including me,” said Mr. Gorodilov, 56. “But they didn’t expect any resistance, and we had them in our hands.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Coming soon to a U.S. town near you?
When minutes count, the police are hours away.
They already have started. It is call communists Union thugs. Soon the shooting may start and goodbye Unions.
There is even a T-shirt honoring the town’s signal event: “If the government can’t help people,” it reads, “It doesn’t have the right to forbid them from defending themselves — Sagra 2011.”
I. Love. It. Wonder if there’s a copyright on it?
Maybe we ought to adopt that slogan for ourselves. After all, that's what the 2nd Amendment says.
Sagra t-shirt http://ura.ru/content/svrd/14-07-2011/news/1052131406.html
More on the incident: http://www.agoodtreaty.com/2011/07/14/russia-after-sagra/
The NappyOne
Nice! Looks like the event is strengthening a Russian RKBA movement.
I do not know enough about the Russian political landscape to be conversant, but if you mean the movement to incorporate into the Russian Constitution the right to bear arms, I would seem so. The first comment at the “a good treaty” site directly stats this and identifies it as “Implementing the ‘second amendment’ in Russia”.
The NappyOne
Notice that the NYT didn’t call what had happened by its rightful name: Vigilantism?
The left has created the idea that vigilantism is just mobs of racists hanging innocent black men, but the truth is that those were *not* vigilantes, but just mobs.
Vigilantism results because of either a failure of government to protect the public from criminals, or worse, the complicity of government with criminals against the public.
Vigilantism never begins with violence. Instead it is a petition to government to do its job, which is ignored. Then people form a vigilante organization to try and reform government, which fails because the government has complete control over the reigns of power.
The the vigilantes try to form community watches, to protect their neighborhoods from criminals by notifying the government quickly when criminals are about. This also fails, because the government does not want to restrict the activity of the criminals.
Eventually, the vigilantes make enough of a fuss so that the government sees them as more of a threat than the criminals, and starts to oppress them, breaking up their meetings, and threatening to arrest, or arresting some of their “leaders”. Often they are aided in this with the help of the criminals.
Sooner or later, then, the criminals and police decide to beat up or kill some of the citizens, to put them in their place, and this finally results in a reaction of violence by the vigilantes as a group.
But even then, they do not want to kill anyone, they just want to drive them out of the area. Yet invariably they resist with violence, and the vigilante mob turns its full anger on them. At this stage, they start to kill known criminals, drive out others, and they will no longer stand for the corrupt government, so try to drive them out as well.
At this point, the vigilantes have won, and after some period of time, a higher, usually less corrupt, government intervenes, to resolve a situation that is long over. At first they want to restore the failed government, but it is made clear to them, with the last act of vigilantism, that a new government is in order, that the public will not tolerate a restoration of corrupt officials.
This is vigilantism. There is nothing either racist or undemocratic about it. But it is also obvious why leftists hate and fear vigilantism, and seek to besmirch its name.
For some reason NYT failed to report it was a muslim gang attacked that town.
In fact in Russia they have a right to bear arms and their lawmakers aren’t busy to outlaw pistol grips, folding stocks and 5+ mags.
Their main idea on legal civilian firearms it may not be full-auto or over 50 cal which counts as a military weapons.
And the most interesting it has to be minimal 30 inch long. So as we see Russian government has no problem with guns in general but for some reason don’t like an idea of consealed carry. It is very difficult to own a pistol or a revolver there but there are still some legal tricks for those who want it too much.
The Kremlin won't do that however, because they do not care about the Russian people, they only care about rebuilding a mutiethnic Soviet Union and forcing it on non-Russian people like the brave Georgians who escaped Soviet tyranny before.
Russians who support Moscow's revanchist imperialism in Georgia deserve to die.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.