Indians For Guns

The VIPs or Protected Persons can get weapons of Surrendered Terrorists. What are the views of our members on this topic?

What is the source of your information ?Unlike Paksitan , the VIPs in India are yet to be allowed to keep AK-47 and MP-5 for their personal protection.

I don't think assault rifles or submachine guns are allotted to VIPs but I know some people in J&K who have handguns which were confiscated from terrorists. And they come really cheap.

sumbriavikramaditya wrote:The VIPs or Protected Persons can get weapons of Surrendered Terrorists. What are the views of our members on this topic?

May I ask, why you are so keen to acquire "weapons of surrendered terrorists" when similar weapons are also manufactured by the glorious Indian Ordnance Factories? All you need is appropriate arms license for that type of weapon and related paperwork(whether you will be able to get these or not is another and additional topic of discussion).

I recall that at the height of the Punjab insurgency (in the 1980's), many people there were issued fully automatic firearms for self-protection. In fact there was an article in India Today (sometime in the late 1980's/ early 1990's) which profiled some of these citizens. I recall reading about one Sikh gentleman who's farmhouse had been targetted by the insurgents many times. He had been issued a (fully automatic) 9mm carbine, and had trained his little boy to reload the magazines while he himself fired at the attackers.

Unless I am mistaken, SLR's and/ or SMLE's are/ were being similarly issued to Salwa Judum in Maoist affected areas.

The important thing to be noted is that the ownership of these firearms were not/ are not transferred to these private citizens, but in fact remains with the government and that the government can (and does) take back the firearms when the insurgency type situation is over.

Apparently private citizens can be trusted with fully automatic firearms when it suits the needs of the government, but at other times they cannot be trusted even with the most rudimentary handguns/ shotguns for their/ their own's family's self-protection.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

Yes, its true Mr. Abhijeet. Same is the case in J&K. During the height of insurgency, civilians were issued AK rifles, SLRs, Lee Enfields and even INSAS rifles. AKs were mostly confiscated. INSAS rifles were issued in areas along the Line of Control and International Border where terrorists cross over to India. And I have seen Chinese Type 54 7.62x25mm pistols in possession of some VIPs. And yes, These rifles were property of State or Union Governments but I don't know about handguns.

Moral of the story? Since trust is foundation of every relationship, if any government does not trust the citizens with guns, do not ever trust the government. Only some "useful idiots" can trust such a government and it's propaganda.

The security of the State is supreme. When there is threat from terrorists, the State can arm some selected citizens , so that they can put up effective resistence n times of need.This does not mean that the Citizens should be authorised to possess automatic weapons.Mr. Abhijeet , who is an expert on the subject may like to confirm that there are certain restrictions regarding possession of certain types of firearms even un the USA.I am subject to correction, USA has banned import of Baby Colt and similar weapons a few years ago. Is it true ?

indiaone wrote:The security of the State is supreme.

This is not the topic of discussion. But anyways, the State or it's legitimacy is not above human rights. And the human rights include the right of self defense and right to keep and bear arms. Under no circumstance the State can violate human rights. If the State says that the human rights need to be violated or ignored for survival of the State, then the State is illegitimate and just surviving on an elaborate deception and fraud.

indiaone wrote:When there is threat from terrorists, the State can arm some selected citizens , so that they can put up effective resistence n times of need.

Every citizen is collectively a part of the State and have equal rights. Equality before law is paramount. Why only "some selected citizens" have rights? Are all other citizens a suspect? Is the State representing the interest and rights of only "some selected citizens"?

indiaone wrote:This does not mean that the Citizens should be authorised to possess automatic weapons.

When the State is in trouble, then it can trust me even with automatic weapons, but when not in trouble it does not trust me even with a shot gun or pistol. This is psychopathic selfish behavior. Then why I should also not equally behave in such a psychopathic selfish behavior? Then why should I fight and die for such an untrustworthy State that does not trust me? These are the questions every thinking citizen needs to ask himself.

indiaone wrote:Mr. Abhijeet , who is an expert on the subject may like to confirm that there are certain restrictions regarding possession of certain types of firearms even un the USA.

If my understanding about US laws is correct, at the federal level, a law abiding citizen does not require any kind of license for firearms. For NFA firearms only, you have to register them and pay tax. More can be read here viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2779&p=229835#p229802 and subsequent posts in that thread.

indiaone wrote:I am subject to correction, USA has banned import of Baby Colt and similar weapons a few years ago. Is it true ?

Import is totally different from possession or local manufacture.

For information of all those who were too young or not born in the 1970s- The Supreme Court decided that the Security of the State is subordinate to the human rights and fundamental rights of the Citizen. This was said while disposing off the case challanging the State of Emergency imposed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi.

indiaone wrote:For information of all those who were too young or not born in the 1970s- The Supreme Court decided that the Security of the State is subordinate to the human rights and fundamental rights of the Citizen. This was said while disposing off the case challanging the State of Emergency imposed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi.

This is something interesting but actual situation appears to be just the opposite. If you could please give some more details of the judgment. Practically speaking custodial or extra judicial murder, rape, torture by police appears rampart. There are plenty of reports in the media from human rights organizations slamming the Indian State for it's pathetic track record. Recently there was a report that concluded that India is one of the most deadliest place on earth for human rights activists. Following is just the tip of the iceberg -

1. https://www.indiansforguns.com/viewtopi ... 10#p251650

2. 12-year-old boy dies in UP, police torture alleged source https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 900399.cms

3. School boys allege torture in police custody source http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/t ... 242215.ece

4.

Punjab Human Rights Committee team concludes that policepersons including the Incharge of Thermal Police Station are guilty of illegal detention and third degree torture leading to severe spinal injury and paralysis of right leg of Romesh, a migrant poor young boy. The role of Civil Surgeon and the doctors attending on Romesh is most condemnable as their connivance with the police brutality is as clear as a crystal because of their negligence in delaying the medico-legal report and making the PGI discharge slip as the basis of their diagnosis, ignoring the MRI report done on the very first day of the injury. The nexus between the police and the health officials is so strong that the orders of the Deputy Commissioners were brushed aside.

Source http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Police/2004/ ... orture.htm

And if you happen to be labeled a "terrorist" or "anti national" for political reasons, then you can pretty much forget you have any rights at all.

Sorry goodboy-mentor.There is a serious typographical error by me. The Supreme Court ruling said that fundamental rights and human rights are subordinate to the measures that the Government takes to ensure the security of the State.Before the case came up, Justice A.N.Ray was made Chief Justice of India , superseeding several senior judges.The supperseded judges resigned I will let you know the case referance in a few days.In other words the SC declared that the Security of the State is supreme.Thedamage was partly undone after the end of State of Emergency.The defeat of Mrs Indira Gandhi and the Congress Party in 1977 was the people's reply to this attack on our democratic system.

indiaone wrote:Sorry goodboy-mentor.There is a serious typographical error by me.

Not an issue, it sometimes does happen. Probably something like Freudian slip of tongue. Did you intend to refer to the infamous Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. S.S. Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521 case? In that case Late Justice Hans Raj Khanna had given a dissenting view, in which four judges, except him, agreed with the governmental view that even fundamental rights/ human rights like the right to life and liberty stood suspended during the period of Emergency. It was a grossly erroneous view by majority of the judges.

For his courageous, dissenting and correct view, despite being the senior most judge, he was superseded for the post of Chief Justice of Supreme Court. This is one of the ways how governments in this country can easily arm twist the judges from the backdoor, to subvert law and justice. He then resigned. Recently the 9 judge Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in Justice K S Puttaswamy (retd.), Vs. Union Of India, overruled that majority view and endorsed the view of Late Retd. Justice Hans Raj Khanna. You may like to read the post represented by the following link viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25494&p=251374#p251374 It discusses exactly this matter.

Yes. I wa referring to this sad story . Hope it does not get repeated in future.
Jai Hind

indiaone wrote:Hope it does not get repeated in future.

Unfortunately this was neither the first or the last incident. This particular case came into the media limelight because of emergency. Probably a lot more are happening in the lower judiciary. For example recently an audio clip was released to media by an independent MLA, in which bribe appeared to have been paid to High Court judge so that petition for quashing an alleged politically motivated criminal case be dismissed.

Ludhiana MLA Simrajit Bains had released a 17-minute recording in which Chaudhary purportedly tells Goel that Rs 35 lakh had been paid to a judge to ensure that Khaira’s review petition in the high court, seeking the charges against him be quashed, was dismissed.

Source http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab ... 07263.html

Those who can understand Hindi language may listen to that taped conversation in this YouTube video below -


There are tons of cases that can be mentioned where the judiciary has miserably failed to deliver justice, for example yesterday had posted a case where a criminal case remains pending for 24 years despite the pleas of the litigant to speed up the matter. It was posted here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25583#p252100

Though not the topic of this discussion, do not know why I have a feeling that due to gross cumulative injustices, the system has failed to deliver in the last 70 years and in the next 5 or 10 years this country will be engulfed in a civil war like situation or very unstable to be governed. And probably go the U.S.S.R. way. If one analyzes the external geo political, internal socio political and socio economic conditions, an explosive mix is present. It only needs a spark.