Indians For Guns

Received in email today.
[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

am c***ping in my nickers

This lady is now in India working with CAFI.Please look up the agenda of IANSA and you will find that what the MHA's new arms policy is in line with their objectives.

India won it's independence in 1947.64 years later the Hon'ble Home Minister wants Indian govt. to be answerable to IANSA and thus lose some of it's sovereignty.You may ask how.This is how.

1.IANSA and it's allies contend that the sale of arms to developing countries is a hindrance to their achieving their Millennium Development Goals and seeks to stop all such sales.India would be one of these countries.The countries security requirements would be secondary.They wish to have a say in all such arms sales to developing countries.Or in other words a right to veto any such sale.

2.IANSA and it's affiliates wish to stop sale of arms to countries that have a poor human rights record.India figure pretty low in this in the reports prepared by Amnesty International.

3.They wish to stop sale of all such munitions that are not 'smart'.In other words that can not distinguish between combatants and non combatants.This would cover almost the entire current inventory of the Indian army,navy and air force.

4.They wish to have a global registry of arms that shall be linked to an international registry of arms,I am sure supervised by them. Hence the MHA's desire for a national data base.

5.They declare that arms in the hands of individuals are a direct violation of human rights.Any country that allows this is therefore in violation of this.There can be no reason to own arms including self defence.If a woman is being raped the perpetrator can only be killed if there is a threat to the life of the victim.In other words,if the intention of the rapist is solely rape,then he can not be killed to stop the rape.

6.If arms are to be owned then they should be allowed to be owned only after giving the reason for them.Look up the MHA directive on issuing a license.

Well said,Winnie.

This lady is now in India working with CAFI.Please look up the agenda of IANSA and you will find that what the MHA's new arms policy is in line with their objectives.

They have roped in not only MHA but also Department of Disarmament & International Security Affairs (D&ISA), Ministry of External Affairs. Both these departments are working in tandem and the result of this is the MHA "Policy". The sinister Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and creation of database is discussed at http://www.cafi-online.org/report/India ... ck_ATT.pdf

Now probably IANSA wants to start "licensing" in USA and then slowly and gradually strangulate the human right of RKBA like it has been done in India with help of licensing. WTP has understood the policy of IANSA very correctly. These organizations do one step at a time so that people are not able to figure out their ultimate sinister game and the problem they are going to face in the end.

Greetings fellow IFGians.

With all due respect, I don't completely disagree with the lady in the videos (irrespective of whatever her hidden agenda or long term goals may be).

I've seen and heard of US citizens owning firearms meant specifically for military use such as automatic rifles etc. Why would anyone need an M16 or types for self defense? Moreover, What's wrong with a limit on number of firearms a person can own? Why would anyone need 10 rifles for self defense?

The above points are actually questions in my mind, I apologize for my ignorance if I sound illogical, but I guess these are genuine questions.

Regards,
Aman Thind

May I ask why is your avatar showing 2 AK 47s and cartridges on right hand side? What do AK 47s and cartridges signify? The moment you are able to get the correct answers to my questions, you will also be able get the answers to your questions.

Why would anyone need an M16 or types for self defense?

Wrong question, it not a question of "need" but a matter of right. Please remove the word "need" from your question. RKBA is a basic human right as well as a fundamental right. Whenever and wherever this right has been violated under any colour or pretext, it signified the advent of tyranny. Moreover why does law enforcement machinery of State need M16 or types for self defense? Are these kind of weapons given to them to conduct mass murders? The role of citizen as law enforcement machinery in individual capacity is no different from the role of law enforcement machinery of State.

What's wrong with a limit on number of firearms a person can own?

It is wrong since RKBA is a matter of right and not a question of "need". Limit on number of firearms is just an excuse to begin disarming people. If I can be trusted with 1 firearm then why not more? The main aim behind these limits is to first create limits and then shrink the limits gradually until the limit is equal to zero.

Why would anyone need 10 rifles for self defense?

Again wrong question, it not a question of need but a matter of right. Please remove the word "need" from your question.

Hi goodboy_mentor,

I have that image as an avatar because I like it.

So, to all my questions, you just had one answer, "Its a basic human right". This is good for argument, but doesn't make much sense. On one hand everyone here on the forum argues about gun ownership for "Self Defense" (which totally makes sense) and then you say that its not about the need (which is self defense OR sports), its about the "right".

For a normal, law abiding citizen, gun ownership will always be for self defense, or at the max sporting. Anyone who wants to keep machine guns at home, just because they think it's their right or lets say "just because they can afford it", want it for leisure, or maybe show off in my opinion.

Please enlighten.

Regards,
Aman Thind

I have that image as an avatar became I like it.

My question is not about your like or dislike about your avatar. My question is about the meaning, the significance behind showing AK 47s. If you are not able to understand the meaning then forget about the question I asked.

Sport, hunting, self defense become minor reasons when we see RKBA as human right. Please try to understand the principles behind RKBA. When principles are compromised then there is slide in downward direction only.

"Self Defense" (which totally makes sense)

What is self defense? Is it not a right? Or is it a "need"? Let us see how much "sense" does self defense, sport, hunting etc. makes in the eyes of anti gun bigots.

Question: I need guns for sport?

Answer: You do not need to keep guns in your home. Shooting clubs will provide you guns. Go there shoot and come back unarmed to your house.

Question: I need guns for hunting?

Answer: You do not need to keep guns in your home. There are notified areas for hunting, when you enter those areas you will be provided with a gun. Go there shoot and come back unarmed to your house.

Question: I need guns for self defense?

Answer: Where is the need for self defense? Don't try to be smart, you are trying to fool us. Your intentions are bad, probably you are a danger to society. You live in a very secure house, in a very secure area. Police is also there in our country. Where is the need to own a guns unless you have really bad intentions? If you get any threat from anyone, go and make a complaint to police, they will provide you "police protection". Unless and until you have a real, sizable, credible, imminent, "provable" threat that "really" requires a gun forget about guns.

What crap!

How come most of the antis are women?

Her points and defense of disarmament/ ban are rather disjointed. They are just not validated. Here take on using semi autos for hunting is rather funny. Don't know whether I would read out the history or reason to use such firearms or just laugh at her for being so naive. Her explanation of UK banning pistol sports is ridiculous. How can a person take up a sport in an organised manner unless he partakes that activity on his own first? Moreover, her idea of 'sport' are the Olympics, period. Anything beyond that is not sport. Funny. Then how is one to graduate to the Olympics?

What really makes me wonder is why several governments actually get suckered into this tom foolery. What is their mind set?

You're just arguing. For the part regarding self defense, you don't have to be sarcastic, I know very well why we need guns for self defense.

Anyways, I would rest my point here, because there is no point in useless argument when you are not even trying to understand the other side.

Here's a part of NAGRI's mission statement; ".......goal of ensuring that every Indian citizen's right to own & carry arms to protect themselves is upheld". I fail to understand why would someone require a machine gun to protect themselves, I guess a hand gun, rifle or shotgun would do the job.

I'm afraid that when NAGRI members cannot convince an IFG member of their intentions and mission, how will they convince general public and the lawmakers. Wishing you good luck.

Thanks a lot for your 'valuable insights'.

Regards,
Aman Thind

aman,

Semi auto rifles and 'machine guns' have traditionally not been part of gun ownership in India. The lady is talking of owning and using them in other countries. The moot point here in the right to bear and keep arms for myriad reasons as well as historical/ practical factors and most importantly, the rights that are ours to enjoy under Articles 19 and 21 for our Constitution; but definitely not for spraying projectiles at some hapless animal, four legged or not.

Let us not forget that the government, the elected representatives and the police are all part of the citizenry our country. They too have the same rights as any common man. However, what does not seem reasonable is the idea that the same people curtail those rights of the others.

No sarcasm was or is intended. If someone is trying to explain a point with help of illustration, it does not mean sarcasm.

I fail to understand why would someone require a machine gun to protect themselves

I also fail to understand why Police is provided with AK 47s and the like for the purpose of self defense only. In the eyes of law the role of arms in hands of police is self defense only just like any other citizen!

I guess a hand gun, rifle or shotgun would do the job.

Police does not think like you when it is the question of their self defense only. They think that they need the best of the best, the AK 47s and the like. Anti gun bigots think just the reverse. They say forget about automatics and semi automatics, even forget about keeping any hand gun, rifle or shotgun. Where do we draw the line?

What really makes me wonder is why several governments actually get suckered into this tom foolery. What is their mind set?

In democracies it is because of the ignorance of the electorate and mindset of almost every ruler(either democratic or undemocratic)is to concentrate power in his hands. In dictatorships the answer is self explanatory.

thind_aman wrote:Here's a part of NAGRI's mission statement; ".......goal of ensuring that every Indian citizen's right to own & carry arms to protect themselves is upheld".

Every Indian citizens 'Right' and not 'Need' is what is being opined time and again by NAGRI, by NRA and everyone else who stands up for RKBA. Because the end goal is to ensure that RKBA is 'RIGHT' based and not 'NEED' based. The RIGHT itself is being infringed upon 'slowly' by ill thought out logic and assumptions tying the RIGHT to a series of 'bureaucratically defined' NEEDs. That is what we need to see and prevent.

thind_aman wrote:I fail to understand why would someone require a machine gun to protect themselves, I guess a hand gun, rifle or shotgun would do the job.

To each his own, I would say. Why does one person buy a 4 cylinder car and not a V6, and another one a V8. You me or anyone else cannot and should not comment on their choices as we are not in their shoes and can’t understand their requirements. How would we react if tomorrow we are told to stop using cars because ‘walking’ would also do the job. When at the same time, Government and Law Enforcement keep using vehicles, would you not consider that as an infringement of our rights ? Then why look at self defense and RKBA any differently, they are as fundamental a right as any other.

regards

OUP

@thind_aman trust me M16 is better than Ar15 (Semi auto) in case of self defense. Most guys that say FAs burn ammo a lot never heard about the selector switch and burst fire I think.
Again remember vehicles kill more people than guns each year, let's ban all the vehicles then. Why people needs fast food while they can stay alive eating bhat dal only?

BTW I'd like to give you a pieces of advice, never say that you support gun laws in front of a redneck, I assure you man you'll wake up 10 feet away from your body.
Here's something to make you s**t puppies
[youtube][/youtube]

God! I wish I was a redneck