1779: The first shoulder-fired Repeating Rifle....

Girandoni System Austrian Repeating Air Rifle, Circa 1795.

   The Girandoni Air Rifle was an airgun designed by inventor Bartholomäus Girandoni circa 1779. It saw service with the Austrian army from 1780 to around 1815. It is reported to have been used on the Lewis and Clark Expedition of North America in the early 1800s. Lewis and Clark demonstrated the rifle to nearly every Native American tribe they encountered on the expedition.

   The advantages of the rifle were a high rate of fire, no smoke from propellants, and low muzzle report. In addition to having a 19, (plus one in the chamber), round capacity of .46 caliber balls in an internal tubular gravity-fed magazine. The velocity was equivalent to that of the .45 ACP cartridge. It was fired by utilizing a detachable air reservoir, which was capable of around 30 shots. It took nearly 1500 strokes of a hand pump to fill the reservoirs. which of course helped lead to its demise. Even though a wagon-mounted pump had been made available later.

Recreation of an Austrian Girandoni system Accoutrements Bag, including spare air flasks, air pump, wrenches, bullet mold and ladle.

   So next time an anti-rights person declares that the founders had no idea of the kind of arms that we would have today. You can let them know with confidence that they [once again] have no idea of what they are talking about.

Also See:

The "Assault Weapons" and 'the founders never could have foreseen the weapons of today' MYTH....

"a few local leaders of the constitutional Democratic party, already compromised by their co-operation with the Communists."

Communist Rule
Waning Fast. Say
Siberian Cables

Messages From Vladivostok
to the American-Russian
Chamber Here Says Pria-
mur Government Grows

   Cablegrams from Vladivostok received by the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce, with offices in the Woolworth Building, say that the Communist forces are weakening and that only a lack of financial backing prevents the population from overthrowing the Soviet government, it was announced yesterday. The cablegram are signed by Vladimir Kolesnikoff Prime and Foreign Minister Priamur government. The cablegrams read:

   "In spite of unfavorable francial conditions and attempts of Communists to interfere with the Priamur government work by means of strikes and propaganda, the Priamur government continues to take measures for the re-establishment of normal conditions of law and order. The Priamur government, re-established independent courts, abolished all restrictions pertaining to the possession of private property and presented to the National Assembly a project of election law for members of the Constituent Assembly, which will be invested with power to establish a temporary government until the restoration of all Russian power.

   "Ninety per cent of the population supports the Priamur government. A big majority of the rural population is anti-communistic, but is disarmed and terrified by Communists and partisans. In general, in spite of communist propaganda, the position of the Priamur government becomes stronger every day. The general strike proposed by the Bolsheviki failed, as 80 per cent of the laborers refused to support it. From Amur and the Trans-Baikal district have arrived petitions for help. If prompt financial support is rendered the population will immediately overthrow the Communist power.

   "Complete unification of national groups has been reached, as some of the national political groups which differed with the general national movement with regard to non-recognition of Ataman Semenoff as commander in chief and supreme ruler of the territory of the Priamur government, have now joined the Priamur government, while former so-called Seminoff troops recognized the authority of the Priamur government. Thus all national anti-communist forces are now headed by the Priamur government and the few groups still hostile to the national movement consist of the local Communist party, which grows more and more disorganized, and of a score of social revolutionaries who preach ideas of agreement with Communists and of a few local leaders of the constitutional Democratic party, already compromised by their co-operation with the Communists."

[New-York Tribune, Monday, September 26, 1921. Vol. LXXXI No. 27,343 Pg. 3]

   You just can't make up this kind of stuff....

PARIS, June, 1871: The Communists "Disarmed but Not Conquered."--Their Proclamation."

The following article is in follow-up to the article posted just below this post.

[The Memphis Daily Appeal, Memphis, Tenn., Saturday, June 17, 1871. Vol. 31.--No. 190 Pg. 1]

If the French can defeat the communists that tried to steal their nation, then we sure as hell can as well!

Paris, France, 1871: "The Communists are actively disarming the loyal nationals...."

FOREIGN NEWS

Crisis of the Red Rebellion

Death to the Rich & the Priests!

Whispers of the Guillotine

Paris to be Attacked To-day

By Thiers and the Germans

Threatened Attack of the Reds

On Versailles Last Night!

FRANCE.

The commune Installed--A Funny
way of Abolishing Conscription.

   London, March 30.--Paris advices state that at noon yesterday, the Sub-Central Committee remitted its powers to me Communal council and that a proclamation, announcing the fact to the citizens, was at once issued. A decree was also made public abolishing conscription, stating that no force except the National Guards will be introduced into Paris, and ordering that all ablebodied male citizens shall belong to the National Guard. Another decree remits lodgers' rents from Oct, 7 to April, 1871. The sale of all pawned articles is suspended. Another decree orders all public officials, on pain of dismissal, to disregard all orders emanating from the Versailles Government. The Place Vendome is placarded with decrees of the Commune. All documents from the Versailles authorities are forbidden circulation in Paris. Deputies Delesciuse and Courniet, desiring a reunion with the Communists, have resigned their scats in the Assembly.

   A proclamation bearing the caption of The Federation National" urges the citizens of Paris to prove for themselves and their descendents the value of liberty; that they will surely assist in founding a universal republic.

Great Exodus From Paris-- Suppressing Religious Worship.

   Paris grows sadder in appearance daily. One hundred and sixty thousand people have left the city in the past ten days. Chaplains are ordered to cease the celebration of mass in the prisons. The insurance offices have been searched by order of the Commune for jewels and money deposited by the Empress Eugenie.

   Ferry goes to Brussels to take part in the peace negotiations. Troops from the South and West of France are ordered to concentrate at Angenloume. The Marine infantry are at Versailles and expect to be reviewed on Sunday in the Champs Lie Mars, Paris.

German Rule.

   London, March 31. A dispatch from Berlin says the state of siege in districts of France occupied by the 1st, 2d, 8th, 10th and 11th corps has become raised from March 27. Prisoners however are still to be subject to trial by court martial.

   The Echo du Parlement of Brussels says a convention has been signed modifying the preliminaries of peace by granting a delay in the payment of the five hundred million francs due April 1.

Gambetta's Old Trick.

   The Independence Belge stales that Ulric Foovielle is organizing a force of 300,000 National Guards at St. Germain for the support of law and order.

A Desperate Struggle Impending.

   A special dispatch to the London Times anticipates an approaching struggle which must be of a desperate character. Le Vengeur threatens the forcible ejection of the National Assembly from Versailles. The insurgents seem confident that the Government troops will not fight. Blanqui gives information that the Paris cabinet followed the example set by Mazzini in founding his ministry in Rome.

Want to Sell the Royal Residences.

   The Communal Council is deliberating on a proposal to pay the Prussian indemnify by selling Versailles for one milliard francs to an Anglo American company; St. Cloud for eight hundred millions of francs to German gambling proprietors, and Fontainebleau for five hundred millions of francs.

The Meat Supply of Paris Cut Off.

   A Daily New special dispatch from Versailles says the Government stops all horses and cattle from entering Paris.

   The mails to and from Paris are greatly delayed and it is expected will be stopped entirely.

   The Communists are actively disarming the loyal nationals.

Whispers of the Guillotine.

   The evening addition of the Times contains a letter describing the situation in Paris as critical. The gravest apprehensions are felt in all quarters. Measures for proscriptions are entirely enforced everywhere and the significant word "guillotine," though spoken only in a whisper, is in everybody's mouth.

The Germans will Take Hold when Theirs Fails.

   The Evening Standard has a dispatch reporting that the Germans will occupy Paris immediately upon the downfall of the Theirs government. The insurrection at Marseilles is dying out. Lyons is quiet.

Consternation--Death to the Rich and the Priests!

   Paris, March 31.--Special to the World. All is consternation. The watch-word of the Commune is, Death to the rich, to land owners, to priests. The guillotine will soon be decreed. The inmates of many houses have been marked as good for the guillotine. Drafts on the Treasury are not paid either in Paris or Versailles.

The Crisis Come! Thiers and the Germans Attack Paris this Morning, If the Insurgents Have not Already Flanked Them.

   Paris, March 31. World special.--The Government has completed arrangements for moving against Paris. The troops will move simultaneously with the Germans along the line by Montmartre and Derry. Learning this, the Commune have resolved to march on Versailles tonight with thirty thousand National Guards via Montrouge and Camp Sartony where the infantry of the line is stationed. Overcoming or fraternizing these, they will proceed to Versailles and dispose of the Assembly. The new decrees issued by the Commune make the workmen wild with delight.

[Nashville Union and American, Nashville, Tenn., Saturday, April 01, 1871. New Series. No. 804. Pg. 1]

   VERY INTERESTING, wouldn't you agree? Am sure that there are many that are just as surprised as I was upon finding this little [hidden] piece of history. Funny how it is that COMMUNISTS always 'regulate' and/or DISARM their opposition, ISN'T IT?

Mass Immigration: One of the historic perversions being applied in order to destroy our country....

Why Did Rome Fall? It's Time for New Answers

 From History News Network

by Peter Heather

Mr. Heather is professor at Worcester College, University of Oxford, and the author of The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians (Oxford University Press).

The Roman Empire stretched from Hadrian’s Wall to northern Iraq, and from the mouth of the Rhine to the Atlas Mountains of North Africa.  It was the largest state that western Eurasia has ever seen.  It was also extremely long-lived.  Roman power prevailed over most of these domains for five hundred years -- and all this in a period where the speed of bureaucratic functioning and of military response rattled along at 45 kilometres a day, something like one tenth of modern counterparts.  Measured in terms of how long it took real people to get places, the Roman Empire was arguably ten times as big as it appears from the map.

The epic scale of the Empire’s existence has always sharpened interest in its collapse, particularly that of the west, which ceased to exist on the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476.  Since Gibbon -- while some role has always been allocated to outside invaders -- explanation has tended to focus on a range of internal transformations and problems as the prime movers in the processes of Roman imperial collapse.  By the mid-twentieth century, causation commonly concentrated upon preceding economic collapse.

This entire vision of late Roman economic collapse was based, however, on assorted references to hyper-inflation in the third century and to various problems associated with the raising of taxation in the fourth.  It has been overturned since the 1970s, when archaeologists developed, for the first time, a method for sampling general levels of rural productivity.  Modern ploughing bites deep into long-submerged stratigraphic layers, bringing to the surface much ancient pottery.  Long-term regional survey projects spent long summers collecting every fragment in the target zones, and every winter analyzing the results.  Once Roman pottery sequences became so well-known that many pots could be dated to within ten to twenty years, and excavations established what surface density of pottery was likely to reflect the existence of a settlement underneath, two things became possible.  Dense pottery assemblages made it possible to estimate the number of Roman settlements in any region, and the dating patterns of those assemblages then made it possible to know when precisely any particular settlement had been occupied.  Against all expectation, the fourth century – immediately prior to fifth century collapse - has emerged as the period of maximum agricultural activity, not the minimum as the old views supposed, for the vast majority of the Empire.  Total rural output, and hence total GIP – gross imperial product – was clearly higher in the later Roman period, than ever before.  It is now no longer possible to explain fifth-century political collapse in terms of preceding economic crisis.

What the hyper-inflation was all about, in fact, was minting enough silver coins to pay an army which was increasing in size out of all proportion to the metalwork stock of silver available.  And this, straightforwardly, was the product of exogenous shock.  From the 230s onwards, the Sassanian dynasty reorganized a huge region of the Near East - Iraq and Iran in modern terms - to create a superpower rival to the Roman Empire.  The new power announced itself with three massive victories over different Roman Emperors, the last of whom, Valerian, was first captured, then skinned and tanned after his death.  The Persian threat was eventually countered by the end of the third century, but it took fifty years of military and fiscal adjustment to mobilize the necessary resources.  This narrower vision of third-century crisis makes much more sense of the overwhelming archaeological evidence for fourth-century prosperity, and, of the brute fact that, even after the fall of the west in the fifth century, the eastern half of the Empire – operating with the same institutions – carried on successfully for centuries.  It also poses Gibbon’s question again.  If there is no sign of major dislocation within the late Roman imperial system of the fourth century, why did its western half collapse in the fifth?

Early in the third century, the traditional cast of small, largely Germanic groupings which had long confronted Roman power across its European frontiers was replaced by a smaller number of larger entities.  This refashioning prevailed all along Rome’s European frontiers, from the new Frankish coalition at the mouth of the Rhine, to the Black Sea where Goths emerged as the new power in the land.  As another large body of archaeological evidence has now shown, much more was afoot here than mere changes of name.  In the course of the Roman period – broadly the first four centuries AD – central and northern Europe saw its own economic revolution.  There was a massive increase in agricultural production, fuelled by an intensification of farming regimes, accompanied by unmistakable signs of increasing differentials in wealth and status between different sections of society, with an ever greater prominence being assumed by a militarized segment of the male population.  It is these broader transformations which underlay the appearance of the new names on the other side of Rome’s frontiers, and most had been stimulated by economic, political and even cultural interactions with the Roman Empire.  These new entities proved much more formidable than those they replaced, operating as only semi-subdued clients of the Empire.  They did contribute to imperial armies on occasion, but also required regular Roman military campaigning and targeted foreign aid to willing kings to keep them in line.  The balance of power in its favor, which had allowed the Roman Empire to come into existence, was being eroded not just by the Sassanians, but also by the new structures of non-Roman Europe.

Some important contingent sequences of events also contributed to the fall of the western Empire.  From c.370, the nomadic Huns suddenly exploded to prominence on the eastern fringes of Europe, generating two major pulses of migration into the Roman world, one 376-80, the other 405-8.  By 440, their different original components – more than half a dozen in total - had coalesced into two major groupings, each much larger than any of the groups which had existed beyond the frontier in the fourth century: the Visigoths in southern Gaul, the Vandals in North Africa, both representing amalgamations of three separate immigrant groups of 10,000 warriors plus.  The immigrants had in the process inflicted great damage on west Roman state structures, by first mincing its armies and then preventing their proper replacement either by ravaging or annexing key areas of its tax base.  This in turn allowed Anglo-Saxons and Franks to take over former Roman territories in Britain and north-eastern Gaul, weakening the state still further.  The immigrants also acted as alternative sources of political magnetism for local Roman elites.  Given that Roman elites were all landowners, and could not therefore move their assets to more desirable locales, they were faced with little choice but to come to terms with immigrants as they became locally dominant, or risk losing their wealth.  In this way, the west Roman state eventually withered to extinction, if not without vigorous martial efforts to restore its fortunes, as its revenues fell away and it could no longer put effective forces in the field.

Without the contingent impact of the Huns, the two main pulses of migration would never have occurred in short enough order to prevent the Roman authorities from dealing with the migrants, which had each group arrived separately, they certainly could.  The important contribution of internal Roman limitations is also clear, not least in the state’s inability to increase agricultural production still further beyond fourth-century levels as crisis began to bite after 400.  The ability of the immigrants to detach Roman landowners politically from their allegiance also reflects the naturally loose levels of control exercised locally by such a geographically vast state encumbered with such primitive modes of communication.  But even giving these points their due weight, external factors – in the persons of the immigrants of 376-80 and 405-8 – were the prime mover behind western imperial collapse.  The Empire’s internal limitations only came into play because the immigrants put pressure on its structures, and there is no sign that, by themselves, these limitations – none of them new - would have been enough to bring the Empire down, any more than they had been over the preceding half a millennium. 

The more contingent aspects of the crisis could not have had the same cumulative effect, likewise, without the preceding transformation of Germanic society.  Had the Huns arrived in the second century, the Germanic groups that might then have been set on the march would not have been large enough to survive their initial brush with Roman power.  By the same token, the processes of political amalgamation required to generate warrior groupings of a few tens of thousands, on the scale of the fifth-century Visigoths or Vandals, would have been so complex, involving so many small contingents, that they could not have been completed successfully before the individual groups were destroyed by a Roman Empire, which prior to the rise of Persia, still had plenty of fiscal/military slack in its systems.  There is a strong sense, therefore, in which imperial Roman power and wealth created its own nemesis, by generating opposing forces which were powerful enough to match its military might.  And here, if nowhere else, the fall of Rome might still have lessons which modern Empires would do well to ponder.

   The answer to this treasonous perversion is really quite simple:

   We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security....--Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

   Our forebears threw off the tyrannical yoke that was attempted to be fashioned, and bind them down in slavery. Will we, their posterity, follow the brave example they set down for us?

The conclusion is really quite simple....

   The whole main reason for the vehement demand for the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. Was due to the fact of what the Massachusetts government had done to those that had participated in the Shay's Rebellion. Which had been an 'act' passed by that legislative body, disarming those that had participated in the rebellion for three years. This of course caused an almost universal detestation in that state. As well as in all of the surrounding states. So much so, that there was a most definite fear that this act would bring on another revolution. For fellow patriots from surrounding states came running, with arms in their hands. And this, in order to help their fellow countrymen whom had been disarmed. This caused such fear, that Massachusetts Governor John Hancock signed a Proclamation which rescinded the disarmament law. And restored the right to arms to those that had participated in the Rebellion.

   Shay's Rebellion had occurred just prior to, and during the Constitutional Convention. (Which had originally met to amend the Articles of Confederation). But actually turned into the Constitutional Convention which was responsible for our present day Constitution. And the happenings that had and were still occurring at the time, were frequently discussed during the Convention(s). In addition to being discussed at length in many of the letters between the delegates to the conventions. These included men such as; George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and many, many other notable people of the period. The majority opinion was that the act passed by the Massachusetts legislature, had been met with total disgust and fear.

   It must be remembered, that all those that had participated in Shay's Rebellion. Were indeed guilty of the high felonious crime of treason, among other crimes. Which of course means, that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. Was chiefly to secure the right to arms to those guilty of felonious violation of the law. Which of course means, that the current 'gun control acts' passed by the U.S. Congress. Are in total conflict with, and a definite violation of, the Constitution of the United States of America. Naturally, this makes all of these acts; NULL and VOID. And any government employee that "enforces" these violations, is guilty of violating their sacred oath to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States. It also can be reasonably contended, that all government branches that have upheld these acts are guilty of treason. For, they have made themselves guilty by "aiding and abetting" the domestic enemies that have carried out this long-running tyrannical conspiracy. This would also include private citizens and organizations actively calling for and promoting violating the Constitution. They can all be held as actively participating in a subversive war against We The People.

   The conclusion is really quite simple. The Constitution guarantee; "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Means precisely that which was written. And, that all past, present, and future attempts to contravene that specific right. Are clear violations of the United States Constitution. And the people attempting to carry out such violations, are guilty of treason. And worthy of the harshest sentence possible; death. Too harsh, some may remark? Not when it is remembered that it was the British disarming of the people of Boston. That was the main spark that ignited the actual fighting of the American Revolution.

"Civilians have been ordered to surrender all firearms...."

BUDAPEST HAS "SUNDAYS" ONLY

 

Red Army Rapidly Being Formed of Bolshevik Converts

Short Rule Predicted

 

Lenine Sends Daily Messages to Kun--Order Declared Prevailing

 

By the Associated Press

 

   Budapest, Sunday, March 30 (Delayed)--"Every day is Sunday" in Budapest. The shops are closed and the workers are having a holiday. The street cars are loaded with passengers, but few automobiles are to be seen except those used by officials.

 

   The commune has nationalized mansions, and the richest families are restricted to the fewest rooms possible, and have been forced to discharge their servants. Civilians have been ordered to surrender all firearms, with the alternative of death. This alternative has resulted in general compliance with the regulation.

 

   A Red army is rapidly being formed, with Hungarian prisoners of war from Russia as its basis. These men are thought to be converts to Bolshevism. Bela Kun, the Foreign Minister, himself is a repatriated prisoner.

 

Regime Lasts While Food Does

 

   It is prophesied that the present regime will live as long as there is food, after which uprisings are expected.

 

   There are pessimists who declare the government will endure less than a month, it being pointed out that its success will be partly dependent upon the success of the Russian Bolshevik army to establish a corridor from Kiev to Budapest by way of Bessarabia and Bukowina, Budapest is orderly and the government is making every effort to stabilize conditions.

 

   Bela Kun receives hundreds of telegrams of an official nature every day, among them being messges from Nikolai Lenine, the Russian Bolshevik premier. He receives newspaper men freely, but has ordered that their dispatches be censored for the purpose of cutting down the material to be sent over already crowded wires as well as to eliminate objectionable features. Kun is most anxious to deny reports relative to the communication of women in Hungary, which he declares to be "preposterous." He also denies rumors of assassinations and disorders. Of the twenty-four members of government nineteen are Jews.

 

   In Transylvania, following the practise in Moscow, the churches have been converted into music halls. In these, the best seats are reserved for the proletariat.

 

   The government officials do not pay house rent and have priority on food-stuffs and clothing.

 

   The Pester Lloyd, which consists of four sheets, contains a large advertisement today dealing with the benefits to the people from joining the "Red" army. The news in this journal is confined to official acts of the government, one of which proclaims that boys may enter the training school of the army, which is officially designated "Red".

 

Reduce Hotel Prices

 

   Prices have been reduced in the hotels. A commission of six men visited the Hotel Hungaria and asked one man what he was paying. Replying that he was being taxed eighteen crown the commissioners exclaimed:

 

   "These robbers! In the future you will pay one crown."

 

   The People's Finance Ministry also has fixed the prices of foreign monies, allotting for a dollar fifteen crowns, and for an English pound seventy-two crowns. All gold, jewelry and precious stones of a value of more than 2000 crowns must be remitted to the state. Insurance companies have been socialized....

 

...Professor Phillip Brown, Lieutenant Weiss and Professor Archibald Coolidge, of the American commission are staying at the Hotel Ritz.

 

[Evening Public Ledger, Philadelphia, Thursday, April 03, 1919. Vol. V--No. 172 Pg. 9]


Alright, LISTEN UP! This is a MUST READ for ALL American citizens!

TRUTH ABOUT RUSSIA
_____
Autocracy Deserves Fate Which is Overtaking It.
_____
HOW A PEASANT LIVES
_____
The Moujik as a Subject for Liberty.
_____
FIFTY MILLION STARVING
_____
Country Soddened With Blood--The Aims of Revolutionists--Day of Reckoning at Hand.
_____

BY C.W. PAFFLOW.

   I shall not attempt either to justify or to condemn terrorism in Russia, but to account for it on the ground of the ordinary and well-known principles and motives of human conduct. The most important facts I shall state are within my own personal knowledge, for I am a native of Russia, where, until almost mature manhood, I was an interested witness to the movement of the people against autocracy and czardom, and know whereof I speak.

   I know of no daily paper in America which is better Informed on Russian political affairs or whose views are more liberal and sympathetic to the cause of the revolutionary movement in Russia than is The Washington Star. I was therefore greatly surprised to read an editorial in a recent Issue wherein you give a list of names of some twenty-eight stalwart bureaucrats who have met their death at the hands of the terrorists during the last five years, and severely arraign the revolutionists for pursuing this course of exterminating the tyrants.

   Among the names mentioned are to be found the most inhuman monsters that ever drew breath. Interior Minister Sipiaguine, who, shortly before he met his fate, petitioned the czar to create him dictator of Russia, that he may the better torture and destroy the subjects of the czar. M. de Plehve. whose character may best be judged by the treatment he accorded his benefactors, as will be seen from what follows. He was left an orphan in his Infancy, and was tenderly cared for and educated by a middle-class Lithuanian family. When he became all powerful in St. Petersburg he promptly deported the entire family to Siberia to languish and die in the mines, because he wished to remove any traces of his humble origin, and because the family indulged in liberal views. Soisalon Sonnen, that arch-traitor to his native Finland, who sought to substitute the imperial ukase of the Russian autocrat to the progressive laws of the diet. Count Bobrikoff, who established a reign of terror in Finland and the Baltic provinces in his efforts to rob those sections of their home rule, language and religion. Grand Duke Sergius, whose tyranny knew no bounds, and who, even after he had been relieved of his post of governor of Moscow, boasted openly that he would pursue his brutal policy in an unofficial capacity. General Min. whose regiment of the Seminovsky Guards recently protested against his brutality in a "round robin" and who, only a few days before his death, proposed to set fire to a building in which were assembled a number of students, with the express purpose of burning them alive. A number of lesser tyrants, with the details of whose lives I am not familiar, are mentioned, all of whom, it is safe to say, fully deserved the fate which overtook them.

Killing of the People.

   While perusing that list of names I thought of the more than 30,000 human souls who have languished and are still languishing in the most loathsome dungeons on earth, toiling without hope in the mines of Siberia; of prisons crowded to suffocation; of the 150 school houses in the western provinces which have been turned into jails during the last few years to supply the demand; of the thousands of thinkers, students and liberals who have been shot and hanged and slaughtered in masses without pity; of the widows and orphans who are left without food and without hope; of the children brained on walls and curbstones and spitted on Cossack bayonets; of the delicate females violated and lacerated by the knout.

   And by what authority and under whose orders and sanction are these horrors perpetrated? They have all been done under the authority, the command and the suggestion of the men whose names are contained in your list, and other men like them. These men possess absolute power in their jurisdiction, which power has been committed to them by the God on Earth. as he calls himself, or by the czar.

   Let It be said and known once and for all that with respect to so-called political crimes there is no law in Russia to limit and restrain the governor, the chief of police and the subordinates acting under their orders. How this will has been manifested the bloody work of these miscreants well show.

   Let us suppose. if such a thing were possible, that a governor of any of the United States had the power to put people to hard labor In chains, to have men killed and women stripped and flogged at the whipping post at his own good will and pleasure, independent of all law, and that he exercised that right. Let us suppose further that this governor could not be removed from office, how long do you suppose such a being would be permitted to live by an intelligent and Christian people? Should they be branded as assassins and murderers for cutting him off? Would they be anarchists anywhere outside of Russia. The common law of England and the written law of the United States declare the right of the people to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from such injuries.

   The American people know little of the conditions in Russia, and what they think they know Is largely erroneous. The principal cause of this Ignorance lies in the misleading news that we get from Russia by the telegraph and the comments of the papers on these dispatches, which comments assume the dispatches to be reliable. Now the censors allow nothing to go over the wires that has not their approval; hence nothing which would be distasteful to the autocracy. They not only prevent the circulation of the truth, but they order the publication and spread of what is known by them to be false.

Aims of the Revolutionists.

   Now, let it be understood that the anarchists and murderers are to be found among the minions of autocracy and that those who direct the revolutionary movement are neither madcaps nor dreamers, but are simply seeking relief from despotism in the only way possible to secure It. The moujik is as fit for liberty as any citizen in Washington. I mean liberty to enjoy the fruits of his labor, freedom from arbitrary arrest, banishment, torture and shame. The right to immunity from official blackmail and molestation is as precious to the subject of the czar as to the citizen of the United States. To secure these rights for a people ground to the earth by Asiatic despotism is the aim of the revolutionists in Russia.

   There Is no need to seek for causes which have led up to the present reign of terror. For centuries the rulers of Russia have been waging wars for the lust of territory and for the glory of autocracy. They have sown the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind. The useless war with Japan, stirred up for the enrichment of the imperial family and their henchmen, has open ed the eyes of a long-suffering people to the iniquity of the autocracy, and as a result the whole country is running with blood.

   Russian bureaucracy thoroughly deserves the fate which is overtaking it, for it is waging relentless war upon its own people. Before we shed tears over the sudden removal of despotic officers of the czar by the hand of the revolution let us look fairly and squarely at the appalling conditions which prevail throughout that unhappy country, brought about by the inefficiency, indifference and brutality of the ruling classes.

   There are upward of fifty million people in Russia today on the verge of starvation. Coarse black bread has become a luxury in spite of the fact that Russia is one of the greatest grain-producing countries in the world. Even the Volga district, which a few years ago was the corn store of Russia, has been reduced to such dire poverty by the ruthless hand of autocracy that there are large villages in which the entire population lies half famished in their huts. In some villages the inhabitants train themselves to do with as little food as possible by falling into a kind of winter sleep, whereby the waste of their bodies is arrested and a saving in food and fuel is effected. This condition of decay is general in the agricultural provinces of central and eastern Russia.

   It is difficult to adequately describe the wretched conditions which greet the eye everywhere In central Russia. Enormous distances without passable roads, dilapidated country palaces, side by side, with innumerable thatched huts, a rich soil which often does not return even the seed grain; prehistoric plows and other agricultural implements which kill off the few remaining horses and cows; churches which do not improve morals; schools in which reading and writing is not taught; spiritual famine increased by physical hunger, and an all-pervading feeling of hostility, of terror and death.

How the Peasants Live.

   Let us take a walk through a village of central Russia and observe how the vast majority of the peasants live and what is their material and moral condition. From a fourth to a third of the population live in low and narrow huts, covered with straw. These huts stretch along the village street; a vegetable garden at the back on the opposite side of the street, beyond the never-cleaned refuse heaps, a farm building, if there Is one. No tree, no shrub to be seen far and wide. The village has thousands--2,000 or more inhabitants. A shop or two supply the peasant with what he does not make for himself. No doctor, no drug store, only a few old women quacks. A smith, a shoemaker and the vodka monopoly store.

   Now let us take a look at the hovel in which the peasant lives. In this wretched shack we find, a hard earth floor and no ceiling overhead. Sometimes there is one small glass window, but usually a hole cut In the wall and covered with glazed paper or cloth. The walls are roughly plastered, without an ornament of any kind except an ikon on a niche in one corner of the room. The word "ikon" means "image" and the image may be either of the Savior, of the virgin or one of the saints. There are no beds, chairs, or tables. Two boards put on barrels make the table at which the family feed. The chimneyless brick stove is the principal fixture and is the center and citadel of the peasant's cabin around which everything may be said to revolve; it keeps the family warm and serves the purpose of a bed for the entire family. It is heated in the old Tartar fashion, by whom it was first introduced. The stove is filled with wood and lighted, and a blinding volume of smoke fills the hut. The door stands open, regardless of the cold, and the inmates stretch themselves on the floor to avoid swallowing too much of the smoke. When the wood is burned to ashes the door is closed and the shack is excessively hot. Black soot covers everything. An unbearable stench pervades the room. Dirt is everywhere, for soap is an unknown luxury. Splinters of rich pine wood stuck in the wall serve the purpose of lamps or candles.

   The diet of this family consists of black bread, soup and potatoes twice a day. The bread Is baked every two weeks in enormous loaves weighing fifteen or twenty pounds and shaped like conical sweet potato hills, with a circular base of about a foot and a half. After the bread is baked and put away it gets very hard and has to be cut with an ax. The potatoes, when the family Is fortunate to have any, are dumped loose onto the table, as they would be thrown to hogs. A great earthenware pot filled with soup stands in the middle of the table, and all the family eat of it with their wooden spoons. The soup consists of cabbage or beets boiled in water mixed with hemp grease. Into which mixture is immersed chunks of coarse, black bread of rye and barley mixed. The grain is ground at home in a hand mill. Twice a year there is meat or fowl, at Christmas and Easter.

   It happens not infrequently that there is neither cabbage nor potatoes; then the family subsists on the bread soaked in hot water. When the bread fails there Is starvation and death from famine, a condition which fifty millions of peasants are now facing.

   The hut I have been describing consists of one room only, With the average dimensions of sixteen by eighteen feet. Here, along with the average family of seven persons, may be found calves, pigs and fowls. Here they eat and sleep; here children are born and reared, and here they die.

   The dress of the peasant and his family is made of a coarse, heavy fabric of tow or cotton. The man wears his shirt outside of his breeches, an old Chinese custom imported into Russia by the Tartars. In the winter a sheepskin coat, with the wool on the inside, is worn. The shoes are made of flexible, tough ash bark covering the sole and sides, but not the top of the foot. The foot and ankles and lower legs are overlaid with rags, and the "shoe" and rags are secured to the foot with more rags.

   The peasant raises grain and vegetables and hemp. The most of this he sells, starving himself and family. The two great drawbacks to profitable agriculture are the primitive methods employed and the great lack of live stock, which has resulted from a wanton destruction of the pasture lands by the government policy of cutting off the timber for revenue. The lack of live stock means the lack of manure and the exhaustion of the soil. With Asiatic greed and imbecility, the government puts a tax on all foreign fertilizers.

Never Out of Debt.

   The moujik feels rich when he has a few roubles In his pocket. He never gets out of debt to the government, nor is he ever able to accumulate. His whole crop Is usually mortgaged from the beginning, and he is in every sense, except in name, a slave, chained to the soil for the benefit of autocracy. His holding is too small to support him, and if It were larger he could not cultivate it with his cumbersome and antiquated utensils.

   On top of all this comes his taxes to the state: and, worse than this, the taxes which he has to pay to the priest in the way of gifts and labor. The priest makes his regular rounds to take up these collections, and woe be to the poor peasant who does not respond to the demand. It is not surprising that the peasant drowns his sorrow in vodka whenever he has the copecks to buy it with; and it Is chiefly from the revenue on this liquor that the noble Russian aristocracy live in splendor and luxury.

   The foregoing sketch is not an overdrawn picture of the condition of the average Russian peasant, and there are fifty millions of human beings in this state in the heart of Russia. Now, who is to blame for this extreme poverty and degradation[?] Primarily the czar, directly and indirectly those servants of the czar who execute what they call his will, but which may be, and often is, their own pleasure. This appalling condition is the result of the idiotic ideas of the rulers, who insist that the people must be governed from above and not from below; who crush every show of independence in the individual; who watch the subject distrustfully. and hedge him in by a hundred by-laws, and who inspire fear and hatred by their arrogance and despotism.

   Meanwhile, the bureaucracy, seeing its approaching doom, seeks to save itself from destruction by engendering and fostering religious and caste hatred in the minds of the masses. Race has been stirred against race, Religion against religion, and there is neither mercy nor decency in the Slaughter. In nearly every province of Russia there are organized bands of assassins, maintained by the police authorities to stir up hatred and strife. The Letts against the Lithuanians, the Finns against the Germans. the Armenians against the Mussulmans, the Russians against the Georgians, and all against the Jews. So chaos reigns supreme, and blood soddens the streets and highways of Russia from the Baltic to Olonetz and from Novala Zemlia to the Caspian sea. But the people are now getting together, and are turning with one accord to rend the men who have hounded them on and who have despoiled them.

- The Evening Star, Washington, D.C., Saturday, September 08, 1906. No. 16.785. Pg. 6.

   Sound a little familiar? If it wasn't for our right to keep and bear arms, we would already be in a similar state as that detailed above. Which is precisely the state that our petty wannabe tyrant hired servants desire us to be in. And we all know what came in to fill the gap left by the Russian Revolution: COMMUNISM.

   Would strongly suggest that all American citizens that desire true freedom and liberty. Do the utmost to actively work at getting our system restored to what it was intended to be. Or, the above scenario can very easily be replayed here. Just as it has been played throughout the vast majority of the rest of the world. And we haven't much time in which to do it either. For anyone that is even half awake can readily see just how far we've gone down already.

WAKE UP AMERICA!

"the pusillanimous notion that freemen may not vindicate their rights by arms...."

   The passage in General Wade Hampton's speech at the Union square ratification meeting which the Times held up to reprobation, is the following:

   "We can have no relief unless this great Democratic party will come out, and pledge itself that we shall have a fair election--that the white people of the South shall vote; and I want you all to register an oath that, when they do vote, that these votes shall be counted, and if there is a majority of white votes, that, you will place Seymour and Blair in the White House, in spite of all the bayonets that shall be brought against them. I only want to see the election fair, and if they do that, even with the incubus of black rule, we can carry the Southern States."

   We find nothing in this to disapprove. We should deprecate the necessity of a resort to force, but we pour scorn upon the craven, the pusillanimous notion that freemen may not vindicate their rights by arms. Courage to resist oppression is the ultimate security for good government. This, at least, was the opinion of our brave forefathers when they took care to provide in the Constitution that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The right to bear arms implies the right, on a sufficient provocation, to use them. The only debatable question relates to the sufficiency of the provocation.

   If the Democratic party should fairly elect the next President....

- The Evening Telegraph, Philadelphia, Thursday, July 16, 1868. Vol. X--No. 13. Pg. 2.

   Ulysses S. Grant, (April 27, 1822 – July 23, 1885), was the 18th President of the United States....

   So then, how does one best eat crow; with a side order of hypocrisy? (I guess 'Obama' was the long awaited payback by the democrats for the Grant administration, eh?)

"sending of arms to the sufferers for their self-defence"

WOULD END MASSACRE.
__________
JEWS APPEAL FOR AID.
__________
Mass Meetings Held in Various
Churches Throughout Country.

   The slaughter of the Jews In Russia, which has stunned the whole civilized world, was yesterday the theme of several of the sermons in the churches of this city. Never perhaps in the centuries of Jewish persecution has the protest against the outrages been so general and so loud as that which is being voiced In the pulpits of many faiths against the present diabolical atrocities now being perpetrated In Russia.

   Tue Rev. Dr. Joseph Silverman. at Temple Emanu-El, preached on "The Russian Crisis and the Jewish Question." In which he declared that it was time that the United States, which has helped the Cubans and the Armenians, should also extend its beneficent influence toward obtaining the amelioration of the condition nt the Jews in Russia. The members of the congregation exhibited plainly the deep grief they felt over the suffering of their brethren in Russia.

   Dr. Silverman said that a great crisis Is Impending In Russia, and that the handwriting on the wall foretold the doom of the Czar. The throne, he said, which for many decades has been tottering. Is now on the verge of complete collapse, and that the Russian Church is equally culpable with the government for the massacre of the Jews, and that by its very silence alone it is particeps criminis.

   The Baptists joined yesterday in their manifestations of sympathy toward the Russian Jews and in the denunciation of their persecutors. An open meeting was held at the Baptist Church of the Epiphany, at 64th St. and Madison-ave., at which one of the speakers declared that he favored the sending of arms to the sufferers for their self-defence. The Rev. Madison C. Peters was in charge of the meeting, and the Rev. Stuart MacArthur was one of the speakers.

   Dr. Peters. In opening the meeting, said that Russia, the ghoul among the peoples, the barbarian among the nations. Is at her old tricks again ravaging and slaughtering the Jews in the cities of her keeping. No hand was lifted against these outrages, said Dr. Peters, and so long as the hand of authority is withheld, so long will the world hold Russia responsible for the Jew killing....

- New-York Tribune, New-York. Monday, November 13, 1905. Vol. LXV...No. 21,547. Pg. 14

"Illegal commands do not appear to carry any obligation to obedience."

The Polynesian.

Honolulu, Saturday, Nov. 18.

CIVIL OBEDIENCE.

   In connection with the subject of Political rights and obligations'--upon which we published an article in our last number--we cannot refrain from giving a few remarks on the extent and obligation to civil obedience.

   'The law of nature proposes few motives to obedience except those which are dictated by expediency. The object of instituting government being the good of the governed, any means of attaining that object is, in the view of natural reason, right. So that, if in any case a government does not effect its proper objects, it may not only be exchanged, but exchanged by any means which will tend on the whole to the public good. Resistence--arms-- civil war--every act is, in the view of natural reason, right if it is useful. But although good government is the right of the people, it is, nevertheless, not sufficient to release a subject from the obligation to obedience, that a government adopts some measures which he thinks are not conducive to the general good. A wise pagan would not limit his obedience to those measures in which a government acted expediently; because it is often better for the community that some acts of misgovernment should be borne, than that the general system of obedience should be violated. It is, as a general rule, more necessary to the welfare of a people that a government should be regularly obeyed, than that each of their measures should be good and right. In practice, therefore, even considerations of utility are sufficient, generally, to oblige us to submit to the civil power.

   'When we turn from the law of nature to Christianity, we find, as we are wont, that the moral cord is tightened, and that not every means of opposing governments is permitted to us. The consideration of what modes of opposition Christianity allows, and what it forbids, is of great interest and importance.

   '"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Who soever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. He is the minister of God to thee for good a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore, ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Upon this often cited and often canvassed passage, three things are to be observed:
   '1. That it asserts the great duty of civil obedience, because government is an institution sanctioned by the Deity.
   '2. That it asserts this duty under the supposition that the governor is a minister of God for good.
   '3. That it gives but little other information respecting the extent of the duty of obedience.
   'I. The obligation to obedience is not founded, therefore, simply upon expediency, but upon the more satisfactory and certain ground, the expressed will of God. And here the superiority of this motive over that of the fear of the magistrate's power, is manifest. We are to be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience' sake--not only out of fear of man, but out of fidelity to God. This motive, where it operates, is likely, to produce more consistent and conentious obedience than that of expediency or fear.
   'II. The duty is inculcated under the supposition that the governor is a minister for good. It is upon this supposition that the apostle proceeds: "for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil;" which is tantamount to saying, that if they be not a terror to evil works but to good, the duty of obedience is altered. "The power that is of God" says an intelligent and Christian writer," leaves neither ruler subject to the liberty of his own will, but limits both to the will of God; so that the magistrate has no power to command evil to be done because he is a magistrate, and the subject hath no liberty to do evil because a magistrate doth command it." When, therefore, the Christian teacher says, " Let every soul be subject to the higher powers," he proposes not an absolute but a conditional rule conditional upon the nature of the actions which the higher powers require. The expression "There is no power but of God," does not invalidate this conclusion, because the Apostles themselves did not yield unconditional obedience to the powers that were. Similar observations apply to the parallel passage in 1st Peter: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors as unto those that are sent by him, for the punishment of evil-doers and for the praise of them that do well." The supposition of the just exercise of power is still kept in view.
  'III. The precepts give little other information than this respecting the extent of the duty of obedience. "Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God," is like the direction, to "be subject," a conditional proposition. What precise meaning was here attached to the word "resisteth," cannot perhaps be known; but there is reason to think that the meaning was not designed to be precise--that the proposition was general. " Magistrates are not to be resisted," without defining, or attempting to define, the limits of civil obedience.

   'Upon the whole, this often agitated portion of the Christian Scriptures does not appear to me to convey much information respecting the duties of civil obedience; and although it explicitly asserts the general duty of obedience to the magistrate, it does not inform as how far that duty extends, nor what are its limits.

   'Concluding, then, that specific rules respecting the extent of civil obedience are not to be found in scripture, we are brought to the position, that we must ascertain this extent by the general duties which Christianity imposes upon mankind, and by the general principles of political truth.

   'Referring, then, to political truth, it is to be remembered that governors are established, not for their own advantage, but for the people's. If they so far disregard this object of their establishment, as greatly to sacrifice the public welfare, the people (and consequently individuals) may rightly consider whether a change of governors is not dictated by utility; and if it is, they may rightly endeavor to effect such a change by recommending it to the public, and by transferring their obedience to those who, there is reason to believe, will better execute the offices for which government is instituted. I perceive no thing unchristian in this. A man who lived in 1683, and was convinced that it was for the general good that William should be placed on the throne instead of James, was at liberty to promote, by all Christian means, the accession of William, and consequently to withdraw his own, and recommend others to withdraw their obedience from James. The support of the Bill of Exclusion in Charles the Second's reign, was nearly allied to a withdrawal of civil obedience. The Christian of that day who was persuaded that the bill would tend to the public welfare, was right in supporting it, and he would have been equally right in continuing his support if Charles had suddenly died, and his brother had suddenly stepped into the throne. If I had lived in America fifty years ago, and bad thought the disobedience of the colonies wrong, and that the whole empire would be injured by their separation from England, I should have thought myself at liberty to urge these considerations on other men, and otherwise to exert myself (always within the limits of Christian conduct) to support the British cause. I might indeed, have thought that there was so much violence and wickedness on both 'sides, that the Christian could take part with neither: but this an accidental connection, and in no degree affects the principle itself. But, when the colonies were actually separated from Britain, and it was manifestly the general will to be independent, I should have readily transferred my obedience to the United States, convinced that the new government was preferred by the people; that therefore, it was the rightful government; and being such, that it was my Christian duty to obey it.

   'Illegal commands do not appear to carry any obligation to obedience. Thus, when the Apostles had been " beaten openly and uncondemned being Romans," they did not regard the directions of magistracy to leave the prison, but asserted their right to legal justice, by making the magistrates "come themselves and fetch them out," When Charles I. made his demands of supplies upon his own illegal authority, I should have thought myself at liberty to refuse to pay them. This were not a disobedience to government. Government was broken. One of its constituent parts refused to impose the tax, and one imposed it. I might, indeed, have held myself in doubt whether Charles constituted the government or not. If the people had thought it best to choose him alone for their ruler, he constituted the government, and his demand would have been legal; for a law is but the voice of that governing power whom the people prefer. As it was, the people did not prefer such government: the demand was illegal, and might therefore be refused.'

   [Editorial Note: In other words, as Christians, we are NOT bound to obey evil. Rather, we are to confront it and denounce it for what it really is; evil. To Wit: "Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." And as Americans, our only duty is obedience to the "Supreme Law of the Land" - our Constitution. As well as to laws that are Constitutionally enacted. We are NOT bound to obey plainly unconstitutional dictates or edicts.]

___________________

   'Cowards, upon necessity, assume A fearful bravery; thinking by this face To fasten in men's minds that they have courage.'

   The above morsel from the noble old dramatist, conveys an exquisite idea of what we have all a thousand times witnessed. What he says of cowards in general, is true of both physical and moral cowards. Of the two kinds of cowardice, the physical is by far the most excusable. A man may not be always ready to rush upon a rapier's point, or face the cannon's mouth, to gain honor or glory, and is not therefore to be thought the less of.
   But moral cowardice is very distinct from this far less justifiable, inasmuch as it seems to betray a sense of guilt. The moral coward when hard pressed, will often 'assume a fearful bravery' in sheer desperation, while at the same time his courage may be discovered oozing out at bis finger's end.
A man who is possessed of an inward sense of rectitude and innocence needs no assistance from assumed indifference but will always be found ready fearlessly, yet modestly, to stand before the world upon his own merits, ready at any time to boldly face his foes. On the contrary, a moral coward will often make himself ridiculous by attempts to appear bold,--like a boy whistling in the dark in order to keep up his courage. For the Polynesian.

TREACHERY.

   History furnishes few instances in which a nation, kingdom, or city was ever overthrown but by defection of its own citizens. Sampson was delivered into the hands of the Philistines by the wife of his bosom. Israel's king fled a fugitive from his throne and kingdom, by the rebellion of his favorite son, Absalom.
   The Son of God, himself, was sold to the Romans, and to death, by one who ate and drank with him. How many noble generals and powerful armies, irresistible to their foes, have been utterly ruined by treachery within the camp Rome, in all her gigantic greatness, was over thrown by conspiracy and intrigue within her own walls. No thanks to the execrable Arnold that Washington and the entire American army was not a prey to their enemies. Who covets a traitor's fame?

- The Polynesian, Honolulu, Saturday, November 18, 1848. Vol. 5. No. 27. Pg. 2

Online Interview with Ed Brown....

This man needs our help. He is standing on foundation principles and is putting his money where his mouth is. We The People need to listen to what this man has to say. For, if you listen to him you'll readily discover discover that he is NOT some "lunatic". With each successive battle that the perverse in our government are allowed to win by attrition. The more difficult it will be for We The People to resume our Rightful Sovereign authority. There MUST be a stand made, or we will be left with NOTHING to stand for....
.

Click here to listen to phone interview.

.

Courtesy Kenneth Hensley, via commentary left on The War on Guns.