Indians For Guns

The REAL Reason for Gun Ownership

by The Company of Freeman

Some nuggets of wisdom from the above article -

If law-abiding private citizens were disarmed, they claim, criminals and crazies would be unable to kill and maim. That's an obvious lie - criminals, by definition, disobey laws, and madmen can kill with knives, cars or champagne bottles as easily and as senselessly as they can with guns. The not-so-secret agenda of the State and its apologists is clear: disarm peaceful citizens to render them powerless. Turn law-abiding Americans into criminals with the stroke of a legislative pen. Anyone who refuses to surrender his or her weapons would become an Enemy of the State, much the same as any armed citizen is right now in the Soviet Union, or Communist China, or Fascist El Salvador, or Monarchist Great Britain. Gun confiscation is non-partisan - it is always and forever aimed at anyone disliked by the current gang in power.

Add India to the list of shame mentioned above...

When any law against guns is passed, how is it backed up? How will the State remove banned weapons from private hands? How will agents of the State disarm the citizenry? Why, by the use of guns, of course! This contradiction has never bothered statists. Why are handguns and assault rifles evil and wicked in the hands of private citizens yet perfectly fine in the hands of employees of the State? If this is truly "government by the people" why do we see the servants disarming their masters by force? What do they fear from us, if theirs is a legitimate, benevolent government? If the State does not seek to control us, why does it want us disarmed?

The usual answer - stripped of equivocation - is that "mere citizens" are half-witted children, incapable of safely handling "dangerous" commodities such as weapons or explosives or medicines or information. And only when some half-witted children pass a civil service exam or are elected by other halfwits to work for the wise and benevolent State do they magically become smart and honest and trustworthy enough to carry weapons and decide whom shall be "allowed" to possess guns and what sort of design, shape, or weight such weapons shall be.

AND

Let's face it - police respond faster to calls from Beverly Hills than they do to calls from Watts. And the rich can afford armed guards, to boot! When so-called Saturday Night Specials are banned, does it affect those who can spend hundreds on a fine pistol? No. Does it prevent criminals from stealing whatever weapon they want or buying it on the black market? No. The only people harmed by a "cheap handgun" ban are the honest poor who have hardly enough money to feed their children, let alone defend them from inner-city marauders.

Any form of gun control disarms those least able to defend themselves. And what good is a 15 day waiting period to someone who is threatened by an armed criminal coming by tonight? When one perceives a threat, one should be able to acquire protection immediately.

For the rest, check out the link above...

Cheers!
Abhijeet

It really pi**es me off when people - Americans in particular - refer to the UK as `monarchist` and imply that the country is less `democratic`due to having an unelected Head of State. They ought to check the facts and stop displaying their ignorance before shooting their mouths off. The fact is that the British monarch has virtually no executive powers......and those they do have are largely ceremonial. The British elect a Government from which the cabinet is selected - unlike the USA where a President is elected as Head of State with full executive powers and who selects his own UNELECTED cabinet. The same people then like to compound their ignorance by stating that the UK has no written constitution - another error as the UKs constitution IS written.......and established in thousands ( millions ? ) of Parlimentary Acts and case/common law. What we don`t have is a short document labelled `The` Constitution.
A countries firearms laws have little to do with their system of government - excepting the fact that the most `liberal` of governments are often those most inclined to limit firearms ownership - and a lot to do with governments who want to control their citizenship and `protect` them under the excuse that they - the governments - know best what is good for their citizens.
Another error is the common American belief that firearms ownership protects the citizenship from each other - an absolute fallacy as the incidence of murder by firearms in the USA is far, far higher in the USA ( measured by any standard )than that of Western Europe.
Many murders are pre-meditated and, as such, will occur whether firearms are available or not however the rate of incidental murder - those which occur in the course of criminal activity or as the result of arguments etc - are far higher where there is easy access to firearms. The act of shooting someone is mentally divorced by remoteness in the minds of many people. In other words it is easier for many to shoot another person than it is to stab them or to bludgeon them to death with a club for example. This fact accounts for some of the reason that the murder rate generally is far higher in the USA than in Western Europe.
The cause of firearms ownerhip does not benefit from the use of fallacious or spurious argument. The fact is that people should be allowed the ownership of firearms just as they are allowed the ownership of automobiles or gas cookers or paraffin lamps. All can be dangerous but all should be allowed as a basic freedom. If that freedom is abused however then the law should punish those who transgress most severely.

i agree grumpy.
in fact isn't uk one of the oldest democracies?
there was a very intresting documentary on late night BBC (in march or apr 2005).
it was obviously by the anti gun lobby, investigating the high incidence of gun crime in the us.
they first supplied various answers and then tested out each and every one of them.

first of all, easy access to fire arms. a reporter (american) went to canada and went straight to a store and brought ammo, no questions asked. he stated buying guns was very easy in canada but there was sp little crime that people didnt lock their doors.( which he demonstrated by opening the doors to many random houses.)

Second, a history of violence, , 'taming' of the wild west. they then showed images of british 'lathi charging' unarmed indian masses, images of japanese soldiers beheading chinese, mass graves and pics og nazi cocnentration camps then compared stats of gun crime between uk, japan, germany and us. u know the reasults.

several factors were considered but when compared to other countries with similar circumstances, the reasults were not conclusive.

it ended with the reporter going to Cherlton Heston (then president of nra) and asking him the same question and asking him to apologise for the killings of school kids. (not the 2007 one but the other ?arkansas one.) and Heston terminating the interview by storming out.

The foregoing sounds like Bowling for Colombine by Michael Moore. I'd assume everything Moore says is deceit unless i know otherwise.

he stated buying guns was very easy in canada but there was sp little crime that people didnt lock their doors.( which he demonstrated by opening the doors to many random houses.)

Whatever statistics you believe about crime in Canada, i wouldn't say there's little enough crime to not lock one's door. Anyhow, Mike Wilson tested this in his own documentary and found many locked doors on Canadian homes, for what it's worth.

Second, a history of violence, , 'taming' of the wild west. they then showed images of british 'lathi charging' unarmed indian masses, images of japanese soldiers beheading chinese, mass graves and pics og nazi cocnentration camps then compared stats of gun crime between uk, japan, germany and us. u know the reasults.

Early in this pseudo-documentary, Moore compares the number of murders of a few first-world countries, and the US had the greatest number by far. What he doesn't say is that the US has the biggest population of all countries mentioned. I wonder why he didn't reckon this per capita.

it ended with the reporter going to Cherlton Heston (then president of nra) and asking him the same question and asking him to apologise for the killings of school kids. (not the 2007 one but the other ?arkansas one.) and Heston terminating the interview by storming out.

He did not storm out. He finally caught on that he'd been deceived, patted Moore on the shoulder and left. Anyhow, Heston wasn't asked to apologize for any killing, but for having a rally after one of them. Moore neglects to say that it was not a gun-related rally, but a get-out-and-vote rally, and that it was many months after the murder to boot.

yes it was for the rally. so am i right in my assumption that the anti gun lobby was behind it?

p.s. the one im referring to starts with the man going to bank to open an account as they have an offer of free new rifle to new customers.
i missed the starting credits/ title etc.

Yup, that's the one. I wouldn't say the anti-gun lobby was involved; Moore is a gun-hater or a gun-rights-hater, but he doesn't share the spotlight.

coward.
anyway, it was nice to meet u. please post an introduction in the introduction section telling us a bit about yourself.
im sure the other members would be delighted to have you on board.
im a doctor based in the uk passionate about hunting/shooting and looking to meet like minded people around the world.
cheers

Moore has been cherry picking stats. This was proven by CNN Dr Gupta on his health care documentary.

Best

Again the same question - they don't see reality. Control on firearms in no way ceases their availability.

If imports are banned, licences difficult, what is the result ? Every tom dick and harry in India carries country made firearms.

SO is this policy working ? No it is not.

Such illegal firearms have been in India since the 1900s ever since the act came into force.