Right to Protection-A Fundamental Responsibility-Please Read

[Six]

Vikram, with your permission I'd like to copy this (with full credit to you) and put it on my blog so others in America can read this powerful article. While our countries are unique some things cross all cultural and national bounds and this is definitely one. It benefits us all to know that no one fights these battles alone.
Well done. Very well done indeed.

[Vikram]

Six,

Please feel free to use it as you please. You are very right about not fighting the battle alone.Thank you for your support to our cause.

Best-
Vikram

[Six]

Thank you Vikram. Here's a link to the article.
http://thewarriorclass.blogspot.com/201 ... ticle.html

I decided not to try and condense your article for fear of context issues so I wrote an introduction and explanation and linked to the PDF of the full article. I hope you like it.

Thanks again Vikram.

Six

[Vikram]

Six, You are a kind and generous man.Thank you.

Best-
Vikram

-- Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:06 pm --

Six, You are a kind and generous man.Thank you.

Best-
Vikram

[airgun_novice]

Vikram, very well written. Actually puts forth the point across. Though I am one of the culprits who stays away from firearms fearing for the safety of two children (from themselves) and mine (from one wife ) - I agree with the points mentioned by you. It has become more of a social responsibility for patriotic Indians considering that India has been turned into a laboratory for testing the nefarious prowess by terrorists of all the hues. It was a rare occasion when I read through the "non-air" (gun/ pistol) thread and was happy I did so.

I agree that if there had been say 10 licensed firearm carrying citizens on CST railway station, the two terrorists would not have stood a chance. If the policemen there had been equipped with guns rather than sticks it would have been a different story. If there had been a few licensed gun carrying citizens in Taj Mahal Hotel or Nariman House vicinity or Trident Hotel, may be the terrorists would have got a fitting response. Assuming that those citizens would have guts to stand the ground and use their guns.

But then again - they were terrorists - highly trained and motivated monsters - shortest exposure to a violent response could have elicited a greater act of violence from the terrorists. After all, they were armed with explosives and grenades which could have been used in entirety. Even after the armed policemen were brought into action at Taj Mahal, the battle with 8-10 terrorist dragged on for about 72 hours. Thus an armed citizenry (here I am equating armed Indian policeman with armed Indian citizen due to relatively less violent risk faced by either in day to day life) is in effect no reply to well-armed terrorists. Like it or not, we had a few armed policemen who were too too scared and reluctant to engage the terrorists. An armed citizen might have been not far different in that scenario.

However, an armed citizen is a good option to protect him/her -self from low-level miscreants,operating in 2s or 3s, when there's no Khaki Uniform around and when (s)he is enjoying moonlight walks or relaxing in balmy breeze by the sea. Or even while travelling by road in the interior parts at night. Here the assumption is that the miscreants do *not* overwhelm the decent Citizen by sheer numbers and weapons.

Consider this (realistic) example -
A car travelling from Mumbai into Saputara (or Silvassa, Dadra & Nagar Haveli) after dark usually would have one family (say, man-wife-two kids) and even if licensed would typically have one handgun. It would be attacked and stopped by at least 25-50 highway robbers (all residents of hamlets en route) wielding axes, bow-arrows, sickles etc. Do you suppose that single handgun would deter these robbers ? If no - then the man ends up actually gifting a gun with ammo to the inventory of iron weapons along with the money and ornaments. Now what if they were armed with "kattas" so freely and cheaply floating around ? Only out of sheer stupidity would that licensed citizen use his firearm !

In August of 1992, I visited (for the first time) the Wal-Mart on Lucas St. in Beaumont, TX. Towards the back were shelves lined with bullet boxes, Remington and likes. All you had to do was pick them up and take them out to check-out like Tomato Sauce Cans. A 6-chamber revolver sold for <$55, which you could easily get from across the counter. I noticed that many of the boxes were ripped and a few bullets were missing from a few of them. I worked out the cost and each bullet came to < 20 cents. I remarked to my friend that if someone were to just obtain a gun and shoot someone for a quarter (25 cents), he would still be in profit - even if he had purchased the bullets!!! Unfortunately, my words turned prophetic - a few weeks later (in Atlanta, Georgia, I think) a black man shot an Indian in a parking lot when he refused to give him a dollar or even a quarter. (A beer bottle came for roughly 50-60 cents those days.) As the Indian fell down, the shooter remarked to the victim's shocked wife "Sorry sis, he didn't give me even a quarter".

An important fact is - the armed US Citizenry did not prevent the 9-11 attack nor was it involved in the US response that followed in any way. The armed citizenry of the US, very gallantly and patriotically, fluttered their MADE-IN-CHINA star-sprangled banner everyplace they could and shot at MADE-IN-CHINA CUTOUTS of Osama Bin Laden on their ranges. That's all the armed citizenry did - or could do. If the US is free from any terrorist attack since then, it's only because of strongly calibrated response by its Government in Afghanistan without caring two hoots for international opinion. So much so for their Second Amendment. Nor has SA reduced US crime statistics in any way. As much honest and hard-working the American Society primarily is -it's surprisingly also belligerent and myopic. SA along with the American set of values has produced a lot more "Fighters" than "Warriors" and a society on the edge.

Please do not get me wrong - I do not wish to undermine your efforts or those of IFG/ NAGRI to get the right to bear arms as a Fundamental Right. However, when we wish to put forth the argument then we have to make sure that it's water-tight as the anti-gun lobbyists would use precisely the loose knit to shear open and shred it to pieces. The Big B can twit all he wants about how comfy he was with a loaded gun under his pillow. But the truth is he still has at least 10 armed security and police personnel guarding his doors - and yet an empty beer bottle or two were thrown at his house, thanks to the stupid public comments made by his wife. No arms - under the pillow or outside the door - discouraged that event!

Weapons if any, must be made a Fundamental right akin to privileges given to Sikhs, Gurkhas or Coorgs purely based on cultural and religious and indigenous way of life of India as an Inclusive Identity and Entity.

The weapon is important to inculcate and inject the strong Kshatriya ("Warrior" - not "Fighter") ethics within the Indian psyche, apart from encouraging physical fitness. Indians since Ashok's time have conveniently misinterpreted Ahimsa (non-violence) with secular cowardice allowing any and all the invaders a cake-walk. Indians who resort to Ahimsa as a cover for their cowardice also end up worshiping mace and discus carrying Vishnu or the Trident and Bow wielding Shiv or beg for favors before the .8-armed Mother Goddess with weapons in 6 of her arms and head of the enemy in the 7th and the 8th arm/ palm *therefore* raised in confident and serene blessing. How do we forget that even the meditating Hanuman has his mace by his side ? Or that the family photo of Shri Ram has both Him and Laxman carry their bows and quivers ? Funny how we Indians forget that it were the weapons that finally won the day for our Gods and Goddesses and for our Kings and Queens. It's only from well-trained and well-cultured Weapon wielding Citizenry that better policemen and armed forces can emerge who can then *effectively* take on the evils faced by Indian society within and from outside. It is precisely for such reasons that go into building up the Nation that right to bear arms must be advocated.

Just my 2 cents worth of thoughts.

[subhashghole]

I would like to report an incident where an armed escort when asked told me that he would throw his 303 rifle and run for life if dacoits/naxalites attack!I told him to pass on the rifle to me as I have been trained to use the rifle in my NCC training and use it effectively.

[airgun_novice]

@subhashghole - You have precisely the type of Kshatra-Tej I was referring to and the Indian Citizen Vikram (I think) hopes to see. I hope you are a beacon of inspiration to all the IFG and fellow citizens should such an incident present itself. Kindly accept my admiration and respects.

[goodboy_mentor]

But then again - they were terrorists - highly trained and motivated monsters

No matter how "highly trained and motivated", all it takes to put down an attacker is one well placed shot. There have been incidents where "highly trained and motivated" human bombs were put out of action before they could do the damage. Unfortunately non of the victims had that choice to exercise their fundamental rights .

shortest exposure to a violent response could have elicited a greater act of violence from the terrorists.

They had not come with any mercy in their minds. They did their "best" as per their strategy. In any case a gun in the hands of victim firing bullets at the attacker, would have been much better than just "trembling hands" serving a glass of water to his killer or a mother instead of firing a gun to save her son, just watching "helplessly" in "horror".
"I could see my son offer Kasab a glass of water with trembling hands. The terrorist gulped it down and coolly shot at my son who slumped to the ground as I watched helplessly in horror," she said clutching Thakur's photo.
Ref: http://www.siasat.com/english/news/my-s ... 611-victim

After all, they were armed with explosives and grenades which could have been used in entirety.

They did their "best" as per their strategy. Unarmed citizens in any way did not contribute anything to "minimize" the loss of life.

Even after the armed policemen were brought into action at Taj Mahal, the battle with 8-10 terrorist dragged on for about 72 hours.

The firefight dragged on for 72 hours because everything went as per their strategy. They were able to take up proper defensive positions(greatly helped by the unarmed citizenry) in order to prolong the firefight and create "sensation" in media. This does not mean that armed citizenry would not have been able to end the matters earlier.

It would be attacked and stopped by at least 25-50 highway robbers (all residents of hamlets en route) wielding axes, bow-arrows, sickles etc. Do you suppose that single handgun would deter these robbers ?

Of course it will certainly work if you have sufficient ammunition. Believe me, if you are able to kill their "leaders" who are leading them, all those following them will not like to be like their "leaders". Moreover why carry only one handgun, carry more.

"Sorry sis, he didn't give me even a quarter"

This is also happening in India. The difference is that it is happening with help of knives, razors, hammers, stones, bricks, bats, iron rods and other "illegal" weapons. It is of no consolation to the victims of crime whether they are being assaulted with firearms, sharp edged weapons, blunt edged weapons or any other kind of weapons and also whether these weapons have a "legal" or "illegal" status assigned to them. What matters to them is whether they are able to defend themselves or not. A person was killed by an enraged man by hitting his victim's head with a brick: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 199088.cms Are the antis going to go further in their pursuit of ridiculousness and demand that the bricks be declared as unlawful and dangerous?

That's all the armed citizenry did - or could do.

Lot depends on the culture of "citizenry", how much they are willing fight. Armed citizenry could drive out the Soviets from Afghanistan. USA is still struggling for past 8 years with rag tag groups of armed citizenry in Afghanistan. Armed citizenry had driven out the USA from Vietnam. Armed citizenry is creating enough trouble for USA in Iraq. The list is endless.

The importance of armed citizenry is so great that great amount of efforts were made by the colonial rulers to systematically disarm the nation. Each Act systematically being replaced by another one of greater severity under the guise of "public safety". East India Company, in order to strengthen its position promulgated Arms and Ammunition and Military Stores Act 18 of 1841 which came into force on August 30, 1841 and that prohibited the export of arms and ammunition out of the territories belonging to the East India Company and enacted certain prohibitions as regards the storing of ammunition. This Act was repealed by another Act 13 of 1852.

After the uprising against the British rule in 1857, the Government felt that a more stringent law was required for preventing insurrections and maintaining order and so a new Act was passed, Act 28 of 1857. This Act was a comprehensive one dealing with many matters not dealt with in previous legislation, and contained elaborate provisions as regards the manufacture, import, sale, possession and use of arms and ammunition. This Act empowered the Governor-General to order general search for arms and ammunition in any district. In exercise of the power conferred by this Act, the Governor-General issued a notification on December 21, 1858, ordering a general search and seizure of arms in in the territories north of the Jumuna and Ganga then known as North Western Provinces. The reason for this was that it was this territory that was the main seat of the disturbances of 1857.

Act 28 of 1857 was a temporary Act which was to be in force for a period of two years and after some extensions it finally lapsed on October 1, 1860. On that date a new Act, Arms and Ammunition Act 31 of 1860 came into force. This statute contained in addition to what was enacted in Act 28 of 1857, certain new provisions, like the following:-

"'Clause 1. It shall be lawful for the Governor-General of India in Council or for the Executive Government of any Presidency or for any Lieutenant Governor, or with the sanction of the Governor General in Council for the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of any Province, District or place subject to their administration respectively, whenever it shall appear necessary for the public safety, to order that any Province, District, or place shall be disarmed.

Clause 2. In every such Province, District, or place as well as in any Province, District, or place in which an order for a general search for arms has been issued and is still in operation under Act XXVIII of 1857, it shall not be lawful for any person to have in his possession any arms of the description mentioned in s. 6 of this Act, or any percussion caps, sulphur, gunpowder or other ammunition without a licence."

This Act was repealed, in 1878 and the Indian Arms Act (XI of 1878) which was even more draconian, than the previous acts was enacted. What we have today as Arms Act 1959 is a repainted version, its various sections based on the same theme of the repealed Indian Arms Act 1878.

Nor has SA reduced US crime statistics in any way.

The main question is how many citizens and States truly follow the 2nd Amendment?

"Since 1991, 23 states have adopted “shall issue” laws, replacing laws that prohibited carrying or that issued carry permits on a very restrictive basis; many other federal, state, and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive; and the number of privately-owned guns has risen by about 90 million. There are more RTC states, gun owners, people carrying firearms for protection, and privately owned firearms than ever before. In the same time frame, through 2008, the nation’s murder rate has decreased 46 percent to a 43-year low, and the total violent crime rate has decreased 41 percent to a 35-year low. Preliminary data reported by the FBI indicate that rates fell further in the first half of 2009." Ref: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/201 ... -to-carry/

Where on earth the gun control has been able to reduce crime? In reality it has always been advocated by criminals, mafia and the corrupt people who benefit from it, as it creates a safe environment for them. These people bribe and purchase the media to brainwash people.

1) England has one of the toughest gun control law in the world, it has one of the highest violent crime rate in Europe.

2) Australia introduced gun control, the violent crime graph spiraled upwards.

2) Almost 95% of violent crime happens in those states of America that have the toughest gun control laws.

4) India has one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. MHA has given an executive order on 31.3.2010 to all states/union territories to not issue arms licenses to citizens except for MPs/MLAs and the government officials or those under "provable threat". Is India becoming any more safer? The overwhelming number of murders committed in this country are committed using means other than firearms, a fact that is supported by data published by the National Crime Records Bureau, for e.g. in the year 2007, 85.53% of all murders committed were using means and weapons other than firearms (blunt & sharp edged weapons etc.) It is of no consolation to the victims of crimes if they are assaulted or murdered using a firearm or by any other means. On the other hand firearms enable citizens to better defend themselves against criminal aggression, by helping neutralise the numerical and/ or physical advantage of the attacker. It is clear that strict gun control policies do nothing to curb violent crime, a point made even more evident by the statistics mentioned above, the need of the hour is not stricter gun laws, but better policing and enforcement of existing criminal laws combined with more armed law abiding civilians.

5) Please check the list of gun advocates, their stated motives and their real motives behind it, e.g. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin were one of the staunchest gun control supporters. Entire world knows their actual intent and how many innocent people they rounded up, aided by their "gun control" and killed them.

Moreover in India itself:

1) Coorgs in the Kodagu district of Karnataka can keep firearms without license, as they are exempt from provisions of Arms Act 1959. There is no higher crime going on in Kodagu district. On the contrary criminals avoid such places as they know how they will be "welcomed" in every house.

2) Before the independence, the states of Rajputana were exempt from Arms Act, there was no extra crime reported.

3) The Sikhs and the Gurkhas keep swords, khukris and various kinds of arms. They are not indulging in extra criminal behaviour.

Weapons if any, must be made a Fundamental right akin to privileges given to Sikhs, Gurkhas or Coorgs purely based on cultural and religious and indigenous way of life of India as an Inclusive Identity and Entity.

RKBA is not only a fundamental right, it is also a human and a natural right. Though not explicitly guaranteed like 2nd Amendment, it is indeed a part of our Constitution. The Fundamental rights of the citizens and the State are both equal before the Constitution. All the fundamental rights of the citizens and the State flow from the Part III of the Constitution. If Article 21 under Part III of the Constitution is not guaranteeing RKBA for the citizens, then it is also not guaranteeing RKBA for the State. I have tried to explain this in detail at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 75#p121575 and http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 15#p117785

[Anand]

Good reply goodboy_mentor! as usual you have systematically gone to the crux of the problem.
No one seems to be interested in curing the "disease" itself , but everyone seems more interested in treating the symptoms with their own brand of medicine .

The Government may want to keep the people disarmed for many reasons, one of which is to keep its populace dependent on itself and at its "mercy". This is neither good for a democratic State, nor does it give any importance or recognition to the most fundamental of Human Rights, the Right to live peacefully, and pursue happiness and in order to see no infringement on this right, the Right to Self Defense.

Taking away the ability to defend ones self by the Government citing such reasons as "security" or "peace" or "crime" have all been done by one country or another at some time in history. The one thing most people fail to recognize is that these rights mentioned above are God given rights (whether you believe in God or not is another matter). The Constitution merely and recognizes these rights and guarantees them.

It cannot in and of itself give the right to life or self defense. For example, if the constitution says that the right to life does not exist, it does not become illegal to live. This is because the Constitution itself has been framed with the idea that all humans are independent, thinking entities that are not just living like animals and have a sense of right and wrong and can reason. The principles of natural justice must prevail. However, the flaws in our system come to the fore and are abused by the powers that be.

Regards,
Anand

[airgun_novice]

Finely written good_mentor but yet hard to convince in entirety. Here I take the liberty of answering Anand as well as you without quoting contra-point-wise or interspersing.

As Anand says should "The principles of natural justice must prevail." - then the Society and the State are heading towards Anarchy. IT defeats the purpose of existence of Government. As a character in the TV series "Highlander" says - "McCleod - it's the Law which differentiates Humans from Animals". Other argument Anand puts is "For example, if the constitution says that the right to life does not exist, it does not become illegal to live." -> Now WHY ON THE EARTH WOULD ANY CONSTITUTION OF A CIVILIZED NATION SAY THAT ? So Anand's view seems to lack the sort of logic that would be needed to push RKBA across *constitutionally & legally*. Apart from that one can sense his enthusiasm and support for the cause which is nice and commendable. For that I congratulate him. But the Law needs a concrete logic to get something as "dangerous" (may be from perception of the Rulers) as RKBA into National Thought and Mainstream. Finally, "What is Natural Justice?". As per me, Nature finds "killing" OK & balanced for food or survival. Obviously a civilized human is not going to kill another for food. As in the example of highway robbery given by me - the licensed man in the car would evaluate his (and family's) chances of survival as good if and only if he did not use his licensed firearm.

It's sad when terrorist shot someone who had just served him water. But that illustrious son or similar sons did not think about mixing poisonous chemicals/ drugs or alcohol in food/ drink served to those Taj terrorists from time to time. If he chickened out on that thought - I would bet he would freeze out on shooting Kasab with a gun in his pocket too. Did he or any other server try to smuggle in a broken glass bottle or a kitchen knife - surely Taj would have slicers and choppers freely available ? What of glass bottles and flute glasses so readily available in a hotel like Taj ? Now add to this list of easy-to-get weaponry a licensed 6-chamber revolver or a semi-automatic pistol. Only good as a prop - and that mother would still cry that Kasab blew away her son after he served water and that he was shot though he did not try to kill Kasab. If that son and other sons like him had the will to fight they would have had opportunities to use that will against the terrorists.

The point I wanted to make while referring to US Second Amendment etc. earlier was to try to avoid linking Anglo psyche with Indian. The Europeans wiped two continents of Americas almost totally and enslaved them along with Asia and Africa. All justified in name of God. Can Indian psyche accept this logic ? The US SA goes hand in hand with Fundamental Right to Property which Indira Gandhi abolished from India long back. The American citizen needs a gun to protect his fundamental right to property which also includes wife and kids. When Indian Citizen has no Fundamental Right to Property itself what does he advocate the right to bear arms for ? Against the rulers - INDIAN GOVT in modern situation ?

The British Rulers enacted rule to prevent Indians from using the arms against them - the Rulers. That simile also can not be chosen to pursue this case as it can, shall and will be be seen as an Act of War against Republic of India. I agree with the fact that "rulers" fro various countries have enforced arms control to subjugate Citizenry. But those Governments were eventually thrown off. Is that your intention with the GOI ?

Going back to the Taj scene - the terrorist did not blow away just about anyone who crossed their paths but herded them into rooms - may be the intention was to use them as hostages or kill them later en masse. But any violent response within would have them lob about grenades at the herded folks or fire AK-47s "at will" and killed them in greater numbers. The example of highway robbers was not just realistic - it was real. *Why one gun - why not more ?* Ordinary Citizens/ People like to live another day than die heroes. An individual's ability to fight back becomes greatly constrained when accompanied with non-combatant luggage like wife and kids. The man may shoot one or two before being bumped off or before seeing his wife or kids getting their heads chopped off. Police posse armed with sophisticated weaponry get slaughtered en mass by Naxals - can one man armed with what - a pistol or two - stand up in close quarter confrontation/ combat with 25-50 armed guys with car tires blasted by them in unknown hostile terrain ??? No way.

Check out this link for violent crimes statistics 1960-2009.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes, 1993-2009
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance ... taltab.cfm

Crimes committed with firearms, 1973-2007
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance ... imetab.cfm

Percentage seems to dip down - either because of some sort of legal "control" or may be US society has marginally improved or humanely evolved.

Like I said - I do not wish to undermine any set of efforts, just wish that the efforts ought to be well-directed and well-thought out. I wish y'a'll well to get the RKBA in place - just that I might myself wait a little bit more to get over my reluctance to apply for my firearms license should I choose to.

[airgun_novice]

I had refrained from putting this one in my earlier response lest it be misconstrued as purely argumentative. The more I re-read Vikram's and goodboy_mentor's posts trying to gain further understanding of their views, I feel it has to to presented to tear off the veil of ignorance and over-inflation of "Afghani Armed Citizenry Greatness".

Thanks to Rambo and US media for giving wide coverage to White Man's Burden great issue was made on the CNN that Afghans have never been defeated since Alexander's times !!! Let us set the records straight. The Afghans have been defeated time and again - in recent times of history by the Marathas and Sikhs. The only reason I could think of why the British did not "conquer" them is that the British simply were not interested in over-trenching their forces to the West of India and into Russian back-yard. For the same reason the British did not "conquer" Nepal but created a buffer state to keep an eye on the Sleeping Dragon (China was not a power then).

Description of Afghani Taliban as "Citizenry", especially when talking about a *civilized* world and human rights (that too fundamental) is a big cruel joke. The only reason they are still alive from the US Forces is not because US is unable to pin them down but because US wants to keep the cauldron boiling - to keep India, Russia-CIS and even PRC in check in this part of the world. Also as Prez Bush Jr. stated in Congress to the effect that He did not want to fire an 8-million dollar missile to shoot an 8-dollar worth of tent. US is a country that's invented and used everything from an A-Bomb through Napalm, Daisy-Cutters, Chemical and Biological weaponry on civilians (especially of other countries). It would not be a "big deal" for them to crush the Taliban if they really choose to. So the credit of rag-tag citizenry driving out the super-powers goes not to the rag-tags armed with AK-47s but to the Superpowers themselves. If it had not been for the Americans giving open material training and support to the Afghan Freedom Fighters (the same people they term today as Terrorists) there was no way USSR would have retreated or eventually fallen.

This political analysis would form a separate thread for detailed views and discussion. So I stop here. Mods - excuse me if I have over-stepped.

[Vikram]

Firstly, thank you for trying to generate a debate and taking time to type out such elaborate responses.
Secondly, if only you exerted some effort in the direction of understanding what the others were trying to say. Or you could just ask.Reason I say this is, if you get your concepts correctly,it saves a lot of thinking and typing on all sides.

airgun_novice wrote:

"What is Natural Justice?". As per me, Nature finds "killing" OK & balanced for food or survival. Obviously a civilized human is not going to kill another for food. As in the example of highway robbery given by me - the licensed man in the car would evaluate his (and family's) chances of survival as good if and only if he did not use his licensed firearm.

Principles of Natural Justice- It is not about eating each other, literally or metaphorically. Many of our fundamental rights have their roots in the principles of natural justice that evolved with the human race and deemed integral to civilised life. Right to life, property, freedom etc. The modern constitution you see today is a codification of these rights that imparts them legitimacy and clarity and hence enforceability. Rights do not exist because of a constitution. A modern democratic constitution exists to ensure the protection of certain basic rights that cannot be done away with. A right to defend one self and his property is one such basic right. The right to bear a firearm is integral to this right to self-protection

But the Law needs a concrete logic to get something as "dangerous" (may be from perception of the Rulers) as RKBA into National Thought and Mainstream.

Please explain. Do you mean what dangers do we face? Do you really like us to catalogue the list of violent crimes that can befall us randomly without any effort from our side? A rape,a robbery,a carjack attempt,kidnap……….

It's sad when terrorist shot someone who had just served him water. But that illustrious son or similar sons did not think about mixing poisonous chemicals/ drugs or alcohol in food/ drink served to those Taj terrorists from time to time. If he chickened out on that thought - I would bet he would freeze out on shooting Kasab with a gun in his pocket too. Did he or any other server try to smuggle in a broken glass bottle or a kitchen knife - surely Taj would have slicers and choppers freely available ? What of glass bottles and flute glasses so readily available in a hotel like Taj ? Now add to this list of easy-to-get weaponry a licensed 6-chamber revolver or a semi-automatic pistol. Only good as a prop - and that mother would still cry that Kasab blew away her son after he served water and that he was shot though he did not try to kill Kasab. If that son and other sons like him had the will to fight they would have had opportunities to use that will against the terrorists.

Here I wonder if you are not having a bubble at our expense. Are you being serious about poisoning, broken bottles and champagne flutes? Any weapon is useless if one is unwilling or unskilled in using it.Period. However, at a larger level, preventing willing citizenry from acquiring licensed firearms for self-defence and be proficient in their use is a highly contributing factor. How do you think a few members in the above posts found the courage and proficiency to use them? Because, they had access and training.

The point I wanted to make while referring to US Second Amendment etc. earlier was to try to avoid linking Anglo psyche with Indian. The Europeans wiped two continents of Americas almost totally and enslaved them along with Asia and Africa. All justified in name of God. Can Indian psyche accept this logic ? The US SA goes hand in hand with Fundamental Right to Property which Indira Gandhi abolished from India long back. The American citizen needs a gun to protect his fundamental right to property which also includes wife and kids. When Indian Citizen has no Fundamental Right to Property itself what does he advocate the right to bear arms for ? Against the rulers - INDIAN GOVT in modern situation ?

Ignoring your philosophical differences with the “Anglo-Psyche”, care to tell us how it is relevant to the topic of self –protection, family and property? It’s not just the American citizen who needs a firearm to protect his family and property. Every citizen of every country has the same need in a time of danger. Also, family is not a part of property. In India, the Right to Property may not be a fundamental right.But, it still is a legal right and the Indian Constitution and the Arms Act enable the Indian citizen to defend it violently, with a firearm, if needs be.

The British Rulers enacted rule to prevent Indians from using the arms against them - the Rulers. That simile also can not be chosen to pursue this case as it can, shall and will be be seen as an Act of War against Republic of India. I agree with the fact that "rulers" fro various countries have enforced arms control to subjugate Citizenry. But those Governments were eventually thrown off. Is that your intention with the GOI ?

Are you asking or are you suggesting ? The Indian constitution does provide a way of removing governments that ignore the needs of the citizens. It’s called elections and public opinion. It’s called Popular Sovereignty.Perfectly constitutional and civilised.

Going back to the Taj scene - the terrorist did not blow away just about anyone who crossed their paths but herded them into rooms - may be the intention was to use them as hostages or kill them later en masse. But any violent response within would have them lob about grenades at the herded folks or fire AK-47s "at will" and killed them in greater numbers. The example of highway robbers was not just realistic - it was real. *Why one gun - why not more ?* Ordinary Citizens/ People like to live another day than die heroes. An individual's ability to fight back becomes greatly constrained when accompanied with non-combatant luggage like wife and kids. The man may shoot one or two before being bumped off or before seeing his wife or kids getting their heads chopped off. Police posse armed with sophisticated weaponry get slaughtered en mass by Naxals - can one man armed with what - a pistol or two - stand up in close quarter confrontation/ combat with 25-50 armed guys with car tires blasted by them in unknown hostile terrain ??? No way.

You know, I am not able to gauge your motive with this graphic imagery here. Are you suggesting that because it would be futile, one should not have a weapon of self-defence? Is that what you are saying? If it comes to a firefight, it is for the individual to decide whether to fight or not. It is a right. If I want to defend myself, my family and my property, I do not want an armchair strategist to tell me that since I cannot win the battle, I need not have a weapon and there is safety in surrendering to the offender. I asking for my right to choose and exercise that choice. If it comes to death at any cost, I want to die fighting. Not groveling.

Percentage seems to dip down - either because of some sort of legal "control" or may be US society has marginally improved or humanely evolved.

If you like detailed responses please come up with your analysis of the information there instead of snide comments. Please remember that we refrain from talking ill of other societies here.

just that I might myself wait a little bit more to get over my reluctance to apply for my firearms license should I choose to.

It is your right to choose to apply or not. I sincerely hope that you will not face a situation wherein you wish you did.And I also hope that should you choose to apply,the GOI may not allow you to have one because you are not a VIP,do not have an imminent threat from a known source or simply because you don't need one.Remember, IFG and NAGRI are the ones that are fighting for that right to decide whether a law abiding citizen needs a firearm or not.

Best-
Vikram

[airgun_novice]

Vikram - Appreciate your zeal on the forum and the advice in PM.

I have not resorted to "snide remarks" - but when things get in black and white with every shade of grey in between, one simply can not bury the head in sand. I have given links (of US Govt sites) in support of the points quoted if you had only taken a look at the previous post and followed the data. I did not refer to or talk ill about other societies till US - Second Amendment was brought into picture - again not by me. I only spoke about what that society is - I have spent almost 11 years in the US and that too in various parts like TX, AZ, CA, NY, NJ. I have practically traveled through 30+ of the 48 continental states and interacted with and observed the US society. I have had my share of attacks, muggings and (unlike most Indians) fight-backs in self-defense. I have experienced 9-11 first hand with my pregnant wife. Only shared my personal experiences and not any heresay.

I know all about elections, democracy etc. - and also history - that is why I choose to *differentiate* between British and India rulers wrt India. Check my mails - again. I am not suggesting - I am *questioning* - that too only after following your line of argument and similes offered. I did not bring into argument all of those Hitler, Stalin etc. and for that matter, examples of other foreign countries, including Afghanistan. I do not aspire to be arm-chair strategist or tactician. I only want us all to be aware of all the angles of possibility and reality. One-sided advocacy will hold no merit in eyes of Citizenry or Law.

Check out the independent thread on Car-Jacking and look at what opinion the IFG members have to give - in short, "give the keys and walk away - alive". I have not quoted anything different. Selective media links with pathos-laden stories do not do anyone any good. Carrying a pistol in pocket is only good as far as there is a zeal and the will (with or without training) to use it - against the terrorist. I have always supported military and military-oriented training for civilians; so don't get me wrong here. Check out my earlier response - I have advocated an independently indigenous line of argument to get RKBA in place.

If you have Fundamental Right to Property guaranteed by your Constitution then you automatically have the RIGHT TO DEFEND IT - when you don't, well, the Right to Defend Property does not exist. You can guard your property in India - not defend it making it life or death scenario. That is why you can dissuade a pickpocket not kill him, even if he is caught red-handed. That is why property disputes drag on for decades in India. There is nothing political about it - just logical. It existed within the Indian Constitution before Mrs. G abolished it. This is history. Let me quote an example of two societies if you would let me - In the US a man can shoot a trespasser on his property - in India one simply can not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamenta ... s_in_India

Like I said over and over, I am not against RKBA - check out all my mails. The reason I have put forth contra-points is simply to plug in holes in the original lines of argument which I found flawed. Though India has inherited the British Franchise of Legal System (as Americans) - the way each country (or society) interprets Penal or Civil Code or Precedents from England differs. So SA can not be quoted as Gospel wrt India nor can NRA lines of argument be brought in "copy-pasted" for Indian perspective. As a society - the Americans are more honest and hard-working than us - I have acknowledged this fact. Anything contrary would be a lie. But in terms of stability and maturity, Indians win hands on. This is where the *difference* in Social Psyche comes into picture. Incidentally, all the examples (US, UK, Australia) quoted against my point were "Anglo" -> as in British Origin - society. I did not bring this particular society into debate the first time.

If you open the can of worms, you will have worms crawling all over the place. Don't blame the reporter.

If you really want the efforts of NAGRI etc. to succeed wrt RKBA - then do not try to twist my arguments over or try to paint them in hues not originally intended. Try to make the pro-argument water-tight. Please do not cite examples that would sink when weighted and weighed. I do however appreciate your finer points and the efforts to make RKBA happen. I would (personally) however like to see well-reasoned line of argument that would stand the test in Court. You should learn to appreciate when someone plays the Devil's Advocate.

I have quoted the three communities from India itself and urged to make them fine examples as being part of Indian cultural ethos. Read again all what I have written - if any point is inconsistent I retract it here itself - with an apology. I hope you (and all your supporters) will take this exchange in right spirit and actually strengthen and consolidate your stand point on the Debate to use while putting forth the argument for RKBA in front of Indian Government Agencies.

To get you and pro-RKBA on the same page here and clear the air, I write simplistically -

Q1. Do I support RKBA ?
A1. Yes. I do, whole-heartedly.

Q2. Do I think the arguments and similes (examples) offered by you (on this thread) would win the day for pro-RKBA lobby/ NAGRI ?
A2. No. I do not.

Q3. Do I intend to apply for arms license now ?
A3. Not yet nor in near future.

Q4. Would I rush to apply for arms license should RKBA fall in place ?
A4. No. I would still wait for the opportune time.

Q5. Have I filled in the form for NAGRI ?
A5. Not yet. Only yesterday, in another thread I saw that I could, even though I am not licensed. Now I will.

Or may be I simply should not be writing on this thread if I can not be an "Yes Man" and stick only to air-pistols and air-rifles. If so, I apologize for the intrusion which happened by accident anyway. Good Luck to you and like-minded in your efforts.

[Anand]

Hi airgun_novice,

Other argument Anand puts is "For example, if the constitution says that the right to life does not exist, it does not become illegal to live." -> Now WHY ON THE EARTH WOULD ANY CONSTITUTION OF A CIVILIZED NATION SAY THAT ? So Anand's view seems to lack the sort of logic that would be needed to push RKBA across *constitutionally & legally*.

You did read the part that said "For example" right? Now you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this was stated in order to make the point clear and explicit. Second if you read the second part of the statement, which is:

This is because the Constitution itself has been framed with the idea that all humans are independent, thinking entities that are not just living like animals and have a sense of right and wrong and can reason.

your above question is already answered!

I do understand that critics of RKBA will usually look to find flaws in our statements and try to dilute the issue at hand as much as possible. I also understand that they will only pick and selectively choose what we have said and try and turn it against us. That is the nature of the game however unsavoury it may be.
If you are trying to pick flaws in our statements now, so that we may be better prepared to put forward our arguments, in order to promote the ideals of NAGRI, then I appreciate your effort in helping us pull up our socks.
Regards,
Anand

[Rajat]

Vikram, very well written. Actually puts forth the point across. Though I am one of the culprits who stays away from firearms fearing for the safety of two children (from themselves) and mine (from one wife ) - I agree with the points mentioned by you. It has become more of a social responsibility for patriotic Indians considering that India has been turned into a laboratory for testing the nefarious prowess by terrorists of all the hues. It was a rare occasion when I read through the "non-air" (gun/ pistol) thread and was happy I did so.

The weapon is important to inculcate and inject the strong Kshatriya ("Warrior" - not "Fighter") ethics within the Indian psyche, apart from encouraging physical fitness. Indians since Ashok's time have conveniently misinterpreted Ahimsa (non-violence) with secular cowardice allowing any and all the invaders a cake-walk. Indians who resort to Ahimsa as a cover for their cowardice also end up worshiping mace and discus carrying Vishnu or the Trident and Bow wielding Shiv or beg for favors before the .8-armed Mother Goddess with weapons in 6 of her arms and head of the enemy in the 7th and the 8th arm/ palm *therefore* raised in confident and serene blessing. How do we forget that even the meditating Hanuman has his mace by his side ? Or that the family photo of Shri Ram has both Him and Laxman carry their bows and quivers ? Funny how we Indians forget that it were the weapons that finally won the day for our Gods and Goddesses and for our Kings and Queens. It's only from well-trained and well-cultured Weapon wielding Citizenry that better policemen and armed forces can emerge who can then *effectively* take on the evils faced by Indian society within and from outside. It is precisely for such reasons that go into building up the Nation that right to bear arms must be advocated.

Just my 2 cents worth of thoughts.

Guys, I do not know much about what is going on here but overall he seems to be on the same side. We should not hold it against him if there is a general difference of opinion on some points as long as the goal is the same.

I do understand that critics of RKBA will usually look to find flaws in our statements and try to dilute the issue at hand as much as possible. I also understand that they will only pick and selectively choose what we have said and try and turn it against us. That is the nature of the game however unsavoury it may be.
If you are trying to pick flaws in our statements now, so that we may be better prepared to put forward our arguments, in order to promote the ideals of NAGRI, then I appreciate your effort in helping us pull up our socks.

Well said. Thanks for your efforts Novice.