Why we are being victimized

[mundaire]

Well said @ Timmy!

[Ambi]

Ambi, pardon me, but your argument here mirrors that of opponents to gun rights for the public.

timmy ji, not at all. I'm all for our youngsters, learning to shoot and handle guns safely. Get combat training. participate in shooting events regularly. For a strong India,indians need to develop a healthy gun culture.
Coming to gun rights; the 'Rights', given in indian Constitution, except, of course Minority Rights, aren't absolute, but regulated by laws (may be different in US). One doesn't need a licence to exercise free speech and to practice religion in India, but unless done so with due care, one will land up in jail. So RKBA, even if ENSHRINED in indian constitution will still be regulated by Arms Act 1959.
I've no objection to my neighbour having a Gun, but I want the assurance, that he isn't a felon, the gun isn't automatic, he is of sound mind, he is trained in handling guns and has a safe place to store them. This assurance is what the Gun Licence issued to him by the government gives me.

The problem with with all of these fine-sounding adjectives is that they are not "reasonable", nor do they represent "common sense."

But Timmy sir, these adjectives do represent the basic and necessary characteristics of a society. They don't need statistical evidence. Just hold a poll among IFGians.

I wonder whether, at those critical moments, it would have seemed common sense to a young couple traveling on a bus at night for their protection to be regulated by the government? Would it have seemed reasonable to a pair of country girls stepping out one evening to apply for a license before they could protect themselves?

I submit that if the situation is so bad ( thankfully not so in most of India) that it isn't safe for a young couple to travel by bus at night , or a pair of country girls to step out in the evening without guns, then they shouldn't do so. Discretion is better part of valour. " He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day"

[timmy]

Ambi, pardon me, but your argument here mirrors that of opponents to gun rights for the public.

timmy ji, not at all. I'm all for our youngsters, learning to shoot and handle guns safely. Get combat training. participate in shooting events regularly. For a strong India,indians need to develop a healthy gun culture.

But Ambi Sir, My statement did not question what you believed. As this site is founded and run to support RKBA in India, and since you have joined it and have participated here, why should I call your beliefs into question on this matter?

I only stated that your points were the same ones that opponents of guns rights use in their arguments against gun rights.

Coming to gun rights; the 'Rights', given in indian Constitution, except, of course Minority Rights, aren't absolute, but regulated by laws (may be different in US). One doesn't need a licence to exercise free speech and to practice religion in India, but unless done so with due care, one will land up in jail.

Of course there are legal restrictions on all rights. Since you mention free speech: It is commonly noted that, although we enjoy free speech, we are liable to prosecution if we falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

Ambi Sir, you are drawing a false parallel here: Firstly, you say that one doesn't need a license to exercise free speech in India, but if free speech is abused, the abuser will be prosecuted. But regarding gun rights a person must first obtain a license to exercise the right in the first place. If you are going to parallel gun rights with free speech now, it could only be with gun rights that are exercised, and only when these rights are abused is there prosecution.

This issue is commonly addressed by due process: You have the right to buy and own a house, unless you don't pay your taxes. Your house cannot be taken away from you on a whim of the government. Legal proceedings must be brought against you and you must be convicted and sentenced according to the due process of the law before your house is taken away from you, in the same way it would be taken from any other person who didn't pay taxes.

This freedom operates the same way for other rights. Due process must be followed before you can be deprived of your rights, or sent to jail for a crime you are accused of committing.

So RKBA, even if ENSHRINED in indian constitution will still be regulated by Arms Act 1959.

This statement represents an assumption, not a fact. How can you say that, if RKBA is passed, the Arms Act of 1959 would not be replaced with something else, or amended? It has already been amended in practice by subsequent Arms Acts.

You have either missed or ignored my point about Gandhi and the British offer of "half-freedom": The gun rights you speak of are half rights, which are addressed by laws, but only by stretching the term can they be thought of as being "regulated." Surely, you have seen enough of the posts on this forum to know how this so-called "regulation" works in practice.

I've no objection to my neighbour having a Gun, but I want the assurance, that he isn't a felon, the gun isn't automatic, he is of sound mind, he is trained in handling guns and has a safe place to store them. This assurance is what the Gun Licence issued to him by the government gives me.

I wonder whether, at those critical moments, it would have seemed common sense to a young couple traveling on a bus at night for their protection to be regulated by the government? Would it have seemed reasonable to a pair of country girls stepping out one evening to apply for a license before they could protect themselves?

I submit that if the situation is so bad ( thankfully not so in most of India) that it isn't safe for a young couple to travel by bus at night , or a pair of country girls to step out in the evening without guns, then they shouldn't do so. Discretion is better part of valour. " He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day"

This is truly an astonishing set of statements by you, Ambi.

Firstly, you say "I want the assurance, that he isn't a felon, the gun isn't automatic, he is of sound mind, he is trained in handling guns and has a safe place to store them."

Why don't the young couple on the bus at night or the two girls stepping out in the evening get the same guarantee in your book? Why can't they get the assurance that their neighbor isn't a rapist, or a murderer, or that their neighbor isn't a sexual deviant, and that they have been trained not to do evil to their fellow man?

You want iron-clad guarantees that others are forced to obey the law in a way that guarantees your full security, but you do not accord the same guarantee to others. Instead, you assert that, when it comes to their rights, they shouldn't exercise the freedom to go out to a movie and ride a bus home, or go out in the evening. They should be smart and not exercise their rights, but hide away at home like people under siege, and everyone should be satisfied with this arrangement.

Do you not see the huge disparity between what you demand from society and what you're willing to grant others?

I am aghast!

Secondly, will you truly assert that "This assurance is what the Gun Licence issued to him by the government gives me"? Everyone now holding a license holds their license according to the law? And this is so for all holding these licenses in India now? Would you feel safe living next to any and every license holder?

Your reasoning simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny on these matters.

Finally,

The problem with with all of these fine-sounding adjectives is that they are not "reasonable", nor do they represent "common sense."

But Timmy sir, these adjectives do represent the basic and necessary characteristics of a society. They don't need statistical evidence. Just hold a poll among IFGians.

So, you are arguing that IFG should be run by polls?

It should be evident that this site is not a debate society or a free-wheeling place of discussion for whatever fancy one might care to post.

IFG was founded and exists to promote RKBA in India -- the right for every law abiding citizen to purchase, own, and use firearms as they deem necessary. This should have been obvious to anyone who has joined IFG and begun participating on these forums. There are folks who may disagree in detail or completely with the stated goal of IFG, but do you think that it is too much to ask, that folks with such views respect the stated purpose of these boards?

I don't think that respect for IFG's purpose and views is too much to ask from every member here, but as far as polls are concerned, you can only present a hypothetical one in defense of your views. I point to the participation, the number of members, and the history of these boards in support of mine.