Indians For Guns

should n't the nri working in australia be allowed to carry firearms for their safety ...or the australian laws are tougher than indians ones .. what do the members have to say on this?

Gun control originally had its roots in racist and/or colonial ideology. I think you can understand the rest, why gun control was introduced in Australia. You may also refer: http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 00#p106369

the only act of self defence is the not required indians(nri's) better come back to our motherland.

Actually, Gillard has announced a new subsidy- in reciprocal agreement with Mayawati in UP
TAnfoglio -Custom Eric07 in 45 ACP
EPIRB
PEPPER SPRAY
GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD
per NRI family

Gun control was tightened.I believe. after an incident in Tasmania in 1990's where an ostensibly deranged gunman went on a shooting spree:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 297487.stm

Gun control was tightened.I believe. after an incident in Tasmania in 1990's where an ostensibly deranged gunman went on a shooting spree

This is just an excuse on the surface, the real motives are always deep and hidden. They are always on lookout for excuses and raise hue and cry to fool the gullible people. All through the history, gun control was used by colonial/racist regimes under the cover of some purported good.

this racial issue seems to me of one sided. why is it that when the white attacks a non white is deemed racist? what about (i am not hijacking the tread) when Asians attack white? would that be classified as racist? or Asians against Asians just because they happen to look different? heck man we have racial attack in Delhi it self against fellow citizen.

here is a link to an attack, what i find very suprasieng that this attack is not called racial attack. very strange.
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/c ... :39:57:877

Teacher tells of his ordeal after violent gang attack


23 July 2010

THE teacher who was the victim of a 'horrific and evil' attack in the East End has spoken of his ordeal.

Gary Smith, 37, who teaches religious studies at Central Foundation School for Girls, was attacked by a gang of Asian youths who wore black bandanas as he walked to work at 8.20am on Monday July 12.

Initially, officers treated his attack as a robbery but have since upgraded the investigation to attempted murder because of the extent of Gary's injuries.

Mr Smith said: "They were all armed with knives. I tried to defend myself and run away but they all jumped me and that's the last thing I remember. I'm not sure how many times they stabbed me - I've got several wounds on my head, and bruises all over my face and body.

"I wouldn't want anybody else to suffer what I went through. I survived but somebody else might not."

Mr Smith, who also runs a martial arts club, said he did not know of any reason why the gang attacked him.

Police have sent forensic evidence away for examination, as well as carry out fresh interviews to try and determine the cause of the attack.

Information can be passed to Tower Hamlets CID on 0208 217 6650 or Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111.

This is definitely racist no doubt, but as you know the vote-bank politics is not only limited to India. It is also prevalent in all countries in one form or other. Politicians will keep silent or oppose if it means to protect their vote-bank. Antis will keep silent because knives were used instead of guns. What I am trying to say is, the origin of gun control began with colonial/racist regimes under the cover of some purported good. In America it was used to keep the black slaves disarmed. In England it started around 1920s when people from their colonial territories started to settle in England in large numbers, etc. And it is still continuing under some excuse or pretext.

Few things that come to my mind.

The gun laws in Australia apply to all residents equally.Special gun ownership/rights cannot be given. Just how prevalent are these so called race attacks? I am not saying that there aren't any. Self-protection is a right.But, it needs to be extended to all equally.Not just to NRIs because there have been a few attacks.

goodboy_mentor wrote:This is just an excuse on the surface, the real motives are always deep and hidden. They are always on lookout for excuses and raise hue and cry to fool the gullible people. All through the history, gun control was used by colonial/racist regimes under the cover of some purported good.

GBM, while you are right in the historical sense, that view does not hold much weight in the developed world,especially in Northern America,EU,Australia,New Zealand etc. Rule of Law is something that is taken very seriously and it is the bedrock of these societies.Individual excesses or transgressions- I am not denying their existence.But, the systems themselves are highly egalitarian and rights are extended equally to all people. If you mean that they are inherently racist/colonial in their agenda/outlook because of the gun control measures,you cannot be farther from truth.

The Handgun ban in UK does not exclude the white population.It includes all.

Racism cannot be wished away and it will be highly inaccurate to suggest that it is not there.But, it cannot be imagined to be the motive behind every action of these societies and racism is,as Naga Rifle has so aptly put, not exclusive to the white man. It is in all societies of every pigmentation.

JMHO,and my rant not directed at anyone.

Best-
Vikram

Without knowing the full details about any attack, to call it racial would be highly prejudicial. We can't always go by what the Indian media is reporting. They just give one side of the story. Always have the open mind to listen to the other side also.

Regards

IIRC gun control hit the UK in the early 1900's based on the then Govt's perceived threat of potential labour unrest. This was quite worrisome for them as the Tsarist Russian govt. had recently been kicked out and the commies had taken over!

As to the racist underpinning of gun control in various countries, few can deny that the gun-control legislation in USA started out with the objective of keeping guns out of the hands of African Americans. Even in India, the British era Arms Act prevented natives from owning guns, while exempting Europeans from it's ambit.

And now... our own elected government seeks to disempower the masses while protecting the interests of the elite.

The bottom line, really is those in power DO NOT wish to see the masses armed as they have no interest in allowing them to enjoy their rights are free men/ women. In fact these vested interests would do anything to prevent the masses from attaining any real rights at all.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

mundaire wrote:IIRC gun control hit the UK in the early 1900's based on the then Govt's perceived threat of potential labour unrest. This was quite worrisome for them as the Tsarist Russian govt. had recently been kicked out and the commies had taken over!

Interesting, because I thought gun control and firearm licensing was started in the UK in the late 1940s after the shooting of a UK police officer in his office.

So whats the definition of racist attack per the author of this thread? is it only colour? can targetted attacks on people from NE region,who are living in Delhi, also be labelled 'racist'?
There have been many (reported) molestation and rape cases on White female tourists in Rajasthan,Goa, Orissa etc. Would GoI be prudent in supplying a prophylactic/antibiotic kit to all female tourists of child bearing age? or would a Glock be made mandatory with the visa?

hamiclar01 wrote:Interesting, because I thought gun control and firearm licensing was started in the UK in the late 1940s after the shooting of a UK police officer in his office.

I was talking about the 1920 Firearms Act, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... ed_Kingdom

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/g ... ed-outcome

etc.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

eljefe wrote:would a Glock be made mandatory with the visa?

Not a bad idea!!!

Regards

The behaviour of some of of the Indians in Australia is not something to be proud of,though this in no way justifies any sort of violence.