Why we are being victimized

[Mr.Shome]

Dear Friends,

This continuous trend of anti-gun legislations is the fault of the majority of the Indians with an under-exposed ,slavish, and extremely myopic (read, toad in the well) kind of world view. For the majority, a gun is a stigma (associated with silly violent movies).

They are more ingrained with communal issues such as Ram Temple and Citizenship Amendment Bill. They are least interested in Gun Rights, and are foolish enough to believe that the Government is doing an awesome job by depriving spirited people off licenses.

On a lighter note, if the Britons could colonize us and others (despite being in a minority), can't we do the same?

Regards,

PShome

[miroflex]

You are absolutely right, Mr Shome. A misplaced horror of weapons, which existed in the minds of the public, has been exacerbated by the media stereotypes of gun-toting dacoits and rapacious landlords riding into villages and cowing down and terrorizing the innocent populace. Common-sense suggests that the villains could have been driven off or accounted for by a few armed villagers.

[Mr.Shome]

Dear Sir,

Sorry for such a delayed reply to your awesome response. Common sense seems to be a priceless treasure nowadays, perhaps, more so amongst the high number of naive and gullible people of our country. Reminds of a biographical-kind of account, 'The Last White Hunter'. It's a book on Late Donald Anderson (son of the famous hunter, Late Kenneth Anderson). I kind of find parallels with Donald's gradual deterioration in life and the way things are going overall nowadays.

Disclaimer for everyone: I have no commercial interest in promoting the book, only interested in sharing thoughts with possibly like-minded people here

Best regards,

PShome

[kumar1234]

Indians with guns will question the wrong doings of politicians and police and the injustice delivered by the system. To continue keeping them in abject slavery to the system they should be unarmed and cower at the authority of the system. Indians are not just made to be victims but also made to love it and see it as benevolence and largess from the govt.

If Indians do not get armed liberally sooner or later some other country will attack us and colonize us. Protecting your self and family and defending home should not be left in the hands of few and too those who work for salary without much skin in the game. (Ex: Palghar sadhu lynchings)

[Woods]

Dear Friends,

.........

They are more ingrained with communal issues such as Ram Temple and Citizenship Amendment Bill. ........


Regards,

PShome

Rama Temple issue has been decided by a competent Court and as a property dispute. CAA is never a communal issue .

If during the course of discussion about plight of RKBA in India , we allow ourselves to raise political issues here then we must allow free discussion on those matters . It may not be liking to all of us or may not be related to the scope of this forum in any case .

[Mr.Shome]

Dear Friends,

.........

They are more ingrained with communal issues such as Ram Temple and Citizenship Amendment Bill. ........


Regards,

PShome

Rama Temple issue has been decided by a competent Court and as a property dispute. CAA is never a communal issue .

If during the course of discussion about plight of RKBA in India , we allow ourselves to raise political issues here then we must allow free discussion on those matters . It may not be liking to all of us or may not be related to the scope of this forum in any case .

Dear Friends,

.........

They are more ingrained with communal issues such as Ram Temple and Citizenship Amendment Bill. ........


Regards,

PShome

Rama Temple issue has been decided by a competent Court and as a property dispute. CAA is never a communal issue .

If during the course of discussion about plight of RKBA in India , we allow ourselves to raise political issues here then we must allow free discussion on those matters . It may not be liking to all of us or may not be related to the scope of this forum in any case .

I wrote this ages ago and the lines you specifically chose to pick up are a small part of that sore topic, 'weapon rights in India'. I neither have the leisure, nor the inclination to bring communal or political rubbish in this forum, as long as such topics are not beyond the scope of this forum. I referred to these two burning issues of that particular time, not to raise a debate, but only to point out that most people tend to get sucked into prevailing political issues, instead of weapon rights. I hope, I've made myself clear.

Since I don't want to debate about maters beyond this forum's scope, I won't comment upon whether CAA is a communal or non-communal issue and the many judgements passed by our highly 'competent' courts.

[ritamrudra]

Seeing this thread, I just remembered an article that came out in 'The Quint', in April, 2022, after the Brooklyn shooting incident, about what the Indian Americans think about the second amendment. It is ironic that they also mirror the thoughts of the majority of Indians.

Thanks,
Ritam

[timmy]

. . . about what the Indian Americans think about the second amendment.

What these people interviewed in "The Quint" article think is interesting, but I don't think that it's correct to say that the article and video present "what the Indian Americans think about the second amendment."

Rather, it would be more proper to note that the article and video present "what SOME Indian Americans think about the Second Amendment."

For us to know what Indian Americans think about the Second Amendment, a comprehensive statistical analysis would need to be conducted nation-wide, beginning with identifying how a suitable sample of the necessary size would be collected, no small feat in itself. Apart from such an effort, one needs to recognize that trying to present a view of how Indian Americans feel about the Second Amendment can only involve uninformed opinion not based on facts and data. Such a pronouncement can only be based on whatever one wants to say.

Most everyone knows some Indian Americans, but even the slightest examination of the subject will show that one's acquaintances can hardly be termed a statistically significant sample, and is thus insufficient grounds to use for establishing "what Indian Americans think."

There are, in fact, a number of Indian Americans who participate on this board who are strongly in favor of the Second Amendment, and an Indian American is a chief spokesman from the NRA who speaks strongly and eloquently in favor of Second Amendment rights.

But -- does this indicate what all Indian Americans think about the Second Amendment? Of course not.

It would be interesting and perhaps useful to know the answer to what Indian Americans think about the Second Amendment, but such knowledge and even what these folks in America think would have little direct bearing on what happens in India.

I have discussed Second Amendment issues with Indian Americans personally, and the opinions of folks I know vary, just like the opinions about RKBA from every other demographic.

One must also recognize that Indian Americans are not a representative sample of folks in India. They represent a group who were willing and able to leave India and come to America. There are many aspects to this; at least as many as the individuals who have made such a choice would be a possible estimate.

One incident I can relate to you is a friend of mine, who is an extremely intelligent individual (one of the most intelligent people I've ever met) who is now doctor conducting scientific research. His wife is an influential lawyer in environmental circles. Both of them attended a protest related to shootings and gun violence in their city not so long ago.

However, I well remember the day when I showed him my RFI 2A, especially when I pointed out the Ashoka stamped on the butt socket. This made a deep impression on him and it was clear that, not only would he have liked to have fired that weapon, he's also have liked to own it!

So you see, even in just one individual, multiple feelings and thoughts exist. How this affects the situation in India is not clear, but I would think that it's probably not a primary concern.

Even "The Quint's" presentation is nothing more than what it is: listening to a handful of people give an opinion, and nothing more.

[Mr.Shome]

Dear Timmy Sir,

Looks like some ignorant Indian-origin folks in the US are still averse to guns, while shamefully some people of the same community perhaps go all out for guns, thinking that keeping a gun is heroic. I humbly feel that both of these categories are stupid (for lack of a better word).

[Mr.Shome]

What I mean is that folks fortunate enough to keep a gun should be well versed and responsible about it's requirement (I mean, unlike poaching, wedding gunfire, or flaunting as a status symbol).

The reaction to my earlier post stirred some fond old memories.

Regards

[ritamrudra]

. . . about what the Indian Americans think about the second amendment.

What these people interviewed in "The Quint" article think is interesting, but I don't think that it's correct to say that the article and video present "what the Indian Americans think about the second amendment."

Rather, it would be more proper to note that the article and video present "what SOME Indian Americans think about the Second Amendment."

For us to know what Indian Americans think about the Second Amendment, a comprehensive statistical analysis would need to be conducted nation-wide, beginning with identifying how a suitable sample of the necessary size would be collected, no small feat in itself. Apart from such an effort, one needs to recognize that trying to present a view of how Indian Americans feel about the Second Amendment can only involve uninformed opinion not based on facts and data. Such a pronouncement can only be based on whatever one wants to say.

Most everyone knows some Indian Americans, but even the slightest examination of the subject will show that one's acquaintances can hardly be termed a statistically significant sample, and is thus insufficient grounds to use for establishing "what Indian Americans think."

There are, in fact, a number of Indian Americans who participate on this board who are strongly in favor of the Second Amendment, and an Indian American is a chief spokesman from the NRA who speaks strongly and eloquently in favor of Second Amendment rights.

But -- does this indicate what all Indian Americans think about the Second Amendment? Of course not.

It would be interesting and perhaps useful to know the answer to what Indian Americans think about the Second Amendment, but such knowledge and even what these folks in America think would have little direct bearing on what happens in India.

I have discussed Second Amendment issues with Indian Americans personally, and the opinions of folks I know vary, just like the opinions about RKBA from every other demographic.

One must also recognize that Indian Americans are not a representative sample of folks in India. They represent a group who were willing and able to leave India and come to America. There are many aspects to this; at least as many as the individuals who have made such a choice would be a possible estimate.

One incident I can relate to you is a friend of mine, who is an extremely intelligent individual (one of the most intelligent people I've ever met) who is now doctor conducting scientific research. His wife is an influential lawyer in environmental circles. Both of them attended a protest related to shootings and gun violence in their city not so long ago.

However, I well remember the day when I showed him my RFI 2A, especially when I pointed out the Ashoka stamped on the butt socket. This made a deep impression on him and it was clear that, not only would he have liked to have fired that weapon, he's also have liked to own it!

So you see, even in just one individual, multiple feelings and thoughts exist. How this affects the situation in India is not clear, but I would think that it's probably not a primary concern.

Even "The Quint's" presentation is nothing more than what it is: listening to a handful of people give an opinion, and nothing more.

@timmy,

What you said is absolutely true. The sample size of the study of the Indian Americans are not available to us, and I am sure that many Indian Americans cherish the power given to American masses by the Second Amendment. All that came to my Mind is the basic way the present Indian masses think about firearms and its ownership.

I also have a strange feeling, I may be wrong, that most Indians that are aware of the actual power that a firearm possesses, and the empowerment that it provides to its holder, mostly enroll or try to get enrolled into the armed forces or police forces and the like in India. They do not remain common civilians.

[Ambi]

What 'Right' exactly does the 'R' in RKBA refers to?
1. Right to buy and Right to use guns like buying and using a fridge? Or
2. Right to buy only and Right to use guns with licence, like a car? Or
3. Right to buy and Right to use both with licence?
The obvious choice is of course 3,and it is also the basis of Arms Act 1959 with its various ammendments.

Licence can be refused only in the following circumstances, as per the Act, and no other, as per various HC judgements.
1) If the licence is in respect of the
prohibited arms and ammunition under section 3, 4 or 5 of the Act, 1959, or
2) If such licence is
required by a person whom the licencing authority has reason to believe that he is prohibited by this
Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring or having in his possession or
carrying any arms or ammunition, or
3) If He is of unsound mind, or
4) If he is found, for
any reason, unfit for a licence UNDER THE ACT, or
5) If the licensing authority deems it necessary to refuse
to grant such licence for the security of public peace or for public safety.

So if the above objections aren't present, just apply for a NPB gun licence in the proper format, attach the required documents, have a safe storage place for the weapon and receive licence in due course.
One can strengthen one's case through 1) self-verification by police 2) psychological evaluation and 3) training in gun handling and attaching these certificates with the application. there'll then be no ground for not granting the licence. It will also strengthen one's case in HC if it comes to that.
It is time to abandon RKBA and concentrate on fighting the whimsical decisions of the gun-licencing authority.

[ritamrudra]

It is time to abandon RKBA and concentrate on fighting the whimsical decisions of the gun-licencing authority.

In this context, as a person from the legal fraternity, I would like to point something out.

Ambi, if we gun enthusiasts can fight and establish the RIGHT, either through legislation or through juducial decisions from the Supreme Court, the nature of the right shall be more fundamental and all encompassing. In that case the power of the licensing authority will be automatically reduced to a great extent and the question of refusals by the licensing authority may be more easily challenged legally, much like the change brought about by the Second Amendment by the US.

Bear in mind that the majority opinion of society in India is against guns, and most of the licences are refused on the grounds mentioned in point No.4 and 5 that you have mentioned above, and the decision of the licensing authority can rarely be overturned.

So, if we abandon RKBA, nothing will change permanently. In the long term it is the only way to ensure sustained liberalisation of gun laws and to ensure that it remains that way.

Thanks and regards,
Ritam

[Ambi]

ritamrudra ji,

From business insider.com

Only three countries in the world currently have a constitutional right to own a gun: the US, Mexico, and Guatemala.
Six other countries used to have a constitutional right to bear arms, but they've since repealed those laws.

Let's be practical. In the light of above, it would be unrealistic to expect Government to amend the constitution to include RKBA as a fundamental right. Better lobby for practical things like amending the Arms Act for increase in number of guns one can own, removal of quota on bullets,elimination of discretionary powers of licensing authority etc. Let's not chase after rainbow of RKBA.

[timmy]

What 'Right' exactly does the 'R' in RKBA refers to?
1. Right to buy and Right to use guns like buying and using a fridge? Or
2. Right to buy only and Right to use guns with licence, like a car? Or
3. Right to buy and Right to use both with licence?
The obvious choice is of course 3,and it is also the basis of Arms Act 1959 with its various ammendments.

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

You say, "It is the obvious choice." Other arguments are "reasonable gun control" and "common sense measures." Those who stand for gun rights are called to make "reasonable compromises."

The problem with with all of these fine-sounding adjectives is that they are not reasonable, nor do they represent "common sense." Those terms are not productive to use in a discussion of this importance, because first of all, they are only opinions, and not facts supported by data. More perniciously, they are a very subtle means of coercion, since they imply that everyone who doesn't agree lacks these characteristics.

Oddly enough, though, as Bertrand Russell says, "Common sense, however it tries, cannot avoid being surprised from time to time."

So, is it common sense that we should have a license to use the right of free speech? Is it reasonable that the government should regulate our right to practice the religion we believe and follow, or the books and newspapers we read, or the sites we browse on the internet? There is a near neighbor who does such things.

Gandhi recognized that the "half-freedom" offered by the British in the 30s was really no freedom at all, and reasonable people with common sense only had to look back to General Dyer and Jallianwala Bagh to recognize that this was true.

But as far as the danger of guns and their potential, I would cite the fact that Hitler tried using guns (of which there were plenty in Germany in the early 20s) to overthrow the state and take control. He wound up in prison and, reconsidering his methods, used free speech to overthrow the German State and unleash a Holocaust and a terrible war.

Stalin, Hitler's henchman, collaborator, and enemy recognized this fact when he asked,

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"

So, as we look about what is happening around us today, let us ask, is it reasonable and an exhibition of common sense for us to allow the government to be the fair, impartial, and final guarantor of our safety, and to regulate the means thereof?

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?

Is it obvious, and is it common sense to suppose that the home manufacture of kattas can be curtailed and guarantee our safety?