https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Astrological-Scientists-of-LCI-32009.asp
Democratic Indian (n/a) 16 February 2011
![Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.]](/img/avatars/my_avatars/84227.jpg)
Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer) 20 February 2011
I am a scientist and I am unable to agree that astrology is a science. Real science dawned on humanity only as late as the 15th century and that too in
Science has a methodology based on the common sense of an intelligent person. From the beginning of time everyone knew that everything will fall down and greater the height, the more forceful will be fall. Still it required a Newton to say that falls are due to gravitational force of the earth and a force accelerates i. e continuously increases velocity with time.
Pseudo-sciences like astrology, homoeopathy and all religions are based on the divinity and/or infallibility of one or more persons, who alone have the power to know things and whatever they said were true irrespective of place and time, in other words, literally gospel truth.
Islam is based on what Mohammad said 1400 years ago and no one can question that at any time or place. Astrology and Hindu religion itself are based on what the Rishis were supposed to have said and no one can ask how or why or even modify them on a scientific basis or even based on just experience. I am not saying more because here the topic is not astrology.
Much has been said for and against the repeal of the Arms Act in
What about an amendment to our Constitution similar to the 22nd amendment to U. S. Constitution, but with a much wider scope?
Will Democratic Indian or someone else give an opinion?
Democratic Indian (n/a) 22 February 2011
Dear Democratic India, Basically I am agreed with you. Now we should start discssion on the administration of making the people "ARMED" and risk factors. We are sincerely thinking into the matter to include it in DRF's agenda. So, please put up here the darft you have in your mind. Better, we should start a separate thread mentioning the link here. OK.. I am going to start a thread "Restore the Rights of peoples to have Arm for Self Defence". You please lead there and clarify the points.
Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer) 23 February 2011
RKBA is guaranteed under Article 19 and 21, how many Indians, or even advocates on this forum know this know this fact?
RKBA neither is guaranteed under Art.19 nor under Art.21. Article 19 gives right to assemble without arms. I could see no other article in the Constitution which guarantees RKBA. If at all we want RKBA, an amendment similar to the second amendment in
Again why dwell only on RKBA? As Democratic Indian admits, there are other things also to be done. Has anyone to say anything to my suggestion that the tenure in power or position of our politicians should be limited like the 22nd amendment to the
Democratic Indian (n/a) 23 February 2011
Dear Samudreji,
National Association of Gun Rights India is going to make a presentation to the Parliamentary Home Committe on 24.2.2011 at 4 PM tabout he unconstitutional amendment being proposed by the Home Minister(Reference: https://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12232#p127284). Please feel free to start the thread but please but do not mention that RKBA needs to be "Restored" as it would create an incorrect impression. RKBA is already guaranteed by our Constitution, but this Right has been cleverly subverted. If you read my reply below for MPS Ramani it will become very clear that RKBA is guranteed by our Constitution.
As far as fears of "risks" are concerned, this idea is coming because of our social conditioning of hundreds of years under slavery. Greatest risk will be to the criminals and the corrupt. In US it is said there are 96 firearms per 100 people, if it is not causing any problem to democracy, how can there be any problem in India.
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."- George Orwell
"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you ... it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."- Dalai Lama
Dear Ramaniji,
Constitution is interpreted as a harmonious, contiguous and logical whole, we cannot pick and choose the meaning of sub clauses differently within the same clause as per our convenience. Sub Clauses under Articles 19(1) are talking of rights of citizens and Clauses 19(2) to 19(6) are talking about powers of the State to create reasonable restrictions on the respective rights.
Wherever in the Article 19(1) of the Constitution is talking of two fundamental rights, it is joining them with the word "and" or excluding one from the other with the word "or".
I am illustrating with help copy of Article 19(1) below:
19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.—(1) All citizens shall have the right—
(a) to freedom of speech and expression; (It is referring to the Right to Freedom of Speech and The Right to Freedom of Expression)
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (It is referring to the Right to Assemble Peaceably and without the Right to Keep and Bear Arms)
(c) to form associations or unions; (It is referring to the Right to form Associations or the Right to form Unions)
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; 1[and] (It is referring to the Right to Reside in any part of the territory of India and the Right to settle in any part of the territory of India)
2* * * * *
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. (It is referring to the Right to practise any Profession or the Right to carry any occupation, trade or the Right to business)
If Article 19(1)b would have been referring to only one right namely the Right to Assemble Peaceably and not acknowledging the presence of another right the Right to Keep and Bear Arms under Article 19 & 21 then "and" in Article 19(1)b is unnecessary. "to assemble peaceably without arms;" would have been adequate to convey the intended meaning. Even the words "to assemble peaceably" would have adequately served the purpose if RKBA was not acknowledged by the Constitution! The addition of words "and" and also "without arms" do not serve any help to the State for the purpose of restricting or regulating the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)b, since it is only the Article 19(3) that is helping the State for imposing restrictions or regulations.
Let us understand the fact that Article 19(10(b) is providing a guarantee to the citizens on the Right to Assemble Peaceably with a condition that the said guarantee from the infringement by the State on the Right to Assemble Peaceably is without the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It means the burden to justify the Right to Assemble Peaceably with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would lie on the citizen. An example of such rights is The Punjab Village and Small Towns Patrol Act, 1918. Under this act, in order to do patrolling, citizens exercise 2 fundamental rights, right to assemble(peaceably as well as violently if situation compels) and the right to arms. If challenged by violent unlawful elements, the peaceful assembly with arms may transform into a violent assembly in order to safeguard their right to life. If the force of unlawful elements is greater than citizens, then the armed assembly of citizens may dissemble violently to safeguard their right to life. And such an assembly may also dissemble with arms peaceably if they are successful in overcoming the force of unlawful elements. But for exercise of such rights the Constitution is not taking the burden on itself to justify such rights on behalf of the citizens, neither is the Constitution getting offended. Instead the State is taking this burden to justify such rights of citizens, on itself on behalf of citizens under The Punjab Village and Small Towns Patrol Act, 1918.
The point that becomes abundantly clear is that under no circumstances does it become necessary for the Constitution to make exclusion within a fundamental right being guaranteed under Article 19(1)b, unless such an exclusion being made in the Article 19(1)b, itself is also a guaranteed fundamental right under Part III, because of the fact that there is already a separate provision in the form of Article 19(3) to impose restrictions on those rights which do not constitute a guarantee on the fundamental rights within the scope and meaning of Article 19(1)b, and also on those rights which do not constitute a guarantee on the fundamental rights within the scope and meaning of rights guaranteed under part Part III of the Constitution.
It becomes abundantly clear from proerly reading Article 19(1)(b) that the need for placing a condition within a fundamental right being guaranteed, i.e. the excluding of one right, while guaranteeing another right in Article 19(1)b becomes unnecessary if the right being excluded does not exist as a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III!
If the Constitution is properly understood, then there is not much room left for any confusion. If we read the comment of Maulana Hasrat Mohani (United Provinces) in Constituent Assembly Debates at https://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1625&start=0#p8477 he says "If he wavers or raises any objectionas I know he is capable of doing, as Dr. Ambedkar's legalabilities are established, and if he wishes, he can turn night into day and day into night" Indeed Dr. BR Ambedkar has turned night into day and day into night with his pen while writing this Constitution. Due to volatile conditions of 1947 framers of the Constitution, probably did not want to highlight RKBA clearly with explicit enumeration as in American Constitution, instead it has been acknowledged in Constitution clearly but very cleverly.
A detailed discussion about this topic augmented with various points is available at https://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11595&start=15#p117785
"Again why dwell on RKBA?" Because this is the basic human right. It defines the relation between the State and citizens.
Let us not forget that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is, in order of importance, the first human right. It is Indian people's First Freedom, the one right that protects all of the other rights. All through our freedom struggle, our leaders were fighting for this human right and was promised to the nation to include its guarantee in "any constitution". Among freedoms of the speech and expression, of the assembly, of forming associations, of movement, of residence, of practice of any profession, of the religion, of the equality, it is the first among the equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows all others to exist at all.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is among one of the most important human, natural and fundamental rights because its infringement can lead to infringement of various other fundamental rights as explained below:
(a) If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not being enjoyed, the Right to Self Defense under Article 21 also gets very severely affected.
(b) If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not being enjoyed, the rights under Article 19(1)d also get very severely affected. Example: If for any reason like you have to take family members especially children or ladies to hospital for emergency at night or you have to travel at night with children and ladies, life of all people including yourself will be at the mercy of criminal elements since Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not getting enjoyed. Hence you are also being forced to avoid enjoying your rights under Article 19(1)d.
(c) If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not getting enjoyed, the rights under Article 19(1)a are also getting affected, you are not able to openly speak or express your opinions against various types of dangerous persons since you will not be able to defend yourself or your near and dear ones if they decide to take the law in their own hands. Killing of defenseless RTI activists is an example.
"The State that protects the nation and its people with arms, only there the people can talk about arms" - Gita
And the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the Bill of Rights(on which the basic structure and doctrine of the Part III of our Constitution is based) says:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The basic structure and doctrine conveyed by both the quote from the Gita and the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is essentially the same, which is also reflected in the Part III of our Constitution.
"Both the oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." - Aristotle
"Only an armed people can be truly free. Only an unarmed people can ever be enslaved."- Aristotle
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."-Benjamin Franklin
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer) 25 February 2011
Mr. Democratic Indian dwells on two points in his lengthy reply to me:
(1) We should have the right to bear arms.
(2) Our Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.
The first point has already been discussed by him at length earlier and a reiteration is not necessary.
Regarding the second, if it is a Constitutional right, one has only to walk into the shop of an arms dealer and purchase a weapon.
If the dealer asks one to bring a licence, one can apply to the licensing authority for a licence.
If the licensing authority refuses a licence without assigning any reason or assigning reason under the Arms Act, one can go to the Supreme Court and file a petition saying that one is denied one’s right under the Constitution and the Arms Act was ultra vires the Constitution.
Has anyone done this with or without success during the last 61 years? If not, Democratic Indian can try now. There is no use of arguing and arguing in this Forum.
I am sure that the Supreme Court will not give an order favourable to Democratic Indian.
The Constitutional right has to be as explicit as the Second Amendment and no derived conclusions will be allowed.
Democratic Indian (n/a) 25 February 2011
Dear Mr. Ramani,
It is said that little knowledge is dangerous, probably this happening.
"We should have the right to bear arms."
It is really amazing, from where have you come to the conclusion that I am saying we "should" have RKBA, when I am already saying it is guaranteed by our Constitution? Probably you have not noted my reply when I said "but please but do not mention that RKBA needs to be "Restored" as it would create an incorrect impression."
"Regarding the second, if it is a Constitutional right, one has only to walk into the shop of an arms dealer and purchase a weapon."
From where have you come to the conclusion that if RKBA is Constitutionally guaranteed as fundamental right, it means one has only to walk into the shop of an arms dealer and purchase a weapon and State cannot regulate a fundamental right. Please note Arms Act 1959 is a law to regulate the fundamental right of RKBA.
One of the objective of Arms Act 1959 says:
"(c) to co-ordinate the rights of the citizen with the necessity of maintaining law and order and avoiding fifth-column activities in the country;"
Can you please tell me what are the rights Arms Act 1959 is trying to co-ordinate as per the above objective? Surely it is not trying to co-ordinate freedom of Speech with freedom of Expression. It is co-ordinating nothing but the fundamental rights of Self defense and RKBA.
Please be aware the ONLY legal role of State in issueing an arms license is to find if there are any criminal records against you.
"one can go to the Supreme Court and file a petition saying that one is denied one’s right under the Constitution and the Arms Act was ultra vires the Constitution."
Can you please elaborate logically how you find the entire Arms Act to be ultra vires, I am able to find only a few sections in the Arms Act ultra vires. Saying entire Arms Act is ultra vires and saying particular sections in Arms Act are ultra vires are totally two different things.
"Has anyone done this with or without success during the last 61 years?"
It was done, but not done properly. Please read the Judgment of Hon'ble Markande Katju who is now in Supreme Court. The judgment is available at https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1434833/
Till now nobody brought to notice of Courts that Article 19 is guaranteeing RKBA. As people are becoming aware, surely they will bring it to the notice of courts and surely we are going to hear good judgments from Courts. Various High Courts have already pronouced getting an arms license is a citizen's right. Even some advocates are aware of the the fact that Articles 19 and 21 are guaranteeing RKBA, you may refer the reply of Adv. Gulshan Tanwar at https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/It-is-said-Constitution-is-fountain-of-all-powers-121096.asp
"The Constitutional right has to be as explicit as the Second Amendment and no derived conclusions will be allowed."
First of all there is a difference between Constitutional right and Fundamental right. Unfortunately you are confusing the two. Right to vote is a Constitutional right, it is not a Fundamental right. RKBA is a fundamental right, not a Constitutional right. That said now let me make it clear, for any fundamental right to have been guaranteed by the Constitution, it does not have to be explicitly enumerated. Are Right of Self Defense, Right to Privacy, Right to Information, Freedom of Press etc. explicitly elaborated? Whereas Article 19(1)(b) is already explicitly refereing to RKBA is a fact, otherwise question of referring to RKBA in Aricle 19(1)(b) does not arise if Constitution does not acknowledge RKBA.
Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer) 26 February 2011
Dear Mr. Democratic Indian
What I was saying was that you are obsessed with RKBA and do not care to look at other things mentioned by me.
Our Constitution does not explicitly say that RKBA is a fundamental right, nor does it say anything against RKBA either.
You have quoted Justice Markanday Katju. Of course, we, citizens of
Some years back in a case of ONGC vs Surat Co-operative Society the Supreme Court ruled that water was a mineral. The judgment was because the latter objected to a water pipe line through its premises belonging to the former. ONGC justified its right claiming that ONGC Act stipulates right to lay pipelines for minerals. The Judges opened a dictionary and looked for the meaning of the word “mineral” and found that it was an inorganic substance. As water was an inorganic substance they allowed ONGC to lay the pipeline. As a scientist I was amused. Going by the same argument ONGC cannot lay an oil pipeline as oil was an organic substance. Technically surface waters are not minerals, but oil is a mineral. So much is for Supreme Court judgments.
In the particular case which came before Justice Katju a person had applied for a revolver licence under the Arms Act, 1959. The authorities refused without assigning any reason.
The aggrieved party contested the refusal in his appeal. But the respondent did not file any affidavit nor did their counsel appear before the court. The judgment was ex-parte.
Neither the Constitutional validity of the authority’s refusal nor that of the Arms Act was under question. However Justice Katju was the first to introduce the Arms Bill in Parliament, which later became the Arms Act. So he decided to give a lecture on the subject.
The Arms Act, 1959 is an enabling act and not a declining act. That was why in one of my earlier presentations I had mentioned “If one wants one can purchase arms in
But actually under the Arms Act in the above case a licence could not have been given. The appellant wanted a licence for a revolver. The Arms Act says weapons of less than 22” length cannot be granted licence. Thus one cannot get licence for a revolver. In fact this section should be amended to include small weapons like revolver also. Who will go about carrying a long gun?
Democratic Indian (n/a) 27 February 2011
Dear Mr. Ramani,
"What I was saying was that you are obsessed with RKBA and do not care to look at other things mentioned by me."
I am not "obsessed" with RKBA. Laws of nature are obessed with RKBA. It is a basic human right and fundamental right, on which various other human and fundamental rights depend. If you read my previous posts I have clearly explained how other fundamental rights get affected if RKBA is affected. RKBA defines the relationship of citizens with the State. Prisoners, slaves and defeated people do not have RKBA. Defeated armies do not have RKBA, they surrender and give up RKBA before the victorious. ONLY free people have RKBA. Are you saying we are not free people? During British Raj, RKBA was so severely restricted that only Europeans and Anglo Indians where "exempt" from Arms Act 1878 and only those who convinced them about their "loyality" to the British Crown were given Arms License. Using your logic the British were needlessly obsessed with RKBA. Every tyrant in this world has suppressed RKBA in name of "law and order" from the day civilization began.
I did care to look at what you have said about 22nd Amendment, why have you reached 22nd Amendment without covering 2nd Amendment? You are trying to reach 22nd floor of building without reaching the 2nd floor. Were framers of US Constitution fools for having enacted 2nd Amendment? Some people regularly cry that Indian Constitution has been Amendended over a hundred times in period of 60 years by politicians just like changing one's underwear daily, whereas American Constitituion has been Amendended only around 24 times in over 200 years. Where lies the magic? It is the 2nd Amendment. You may believe it, you may not beleive it. The fact remains only armed people are respected by those in power, others are NOT. The beauty of 2nd Amendment is that it does not need to be used by people excpet when the Constitution is being abused, like the way Indian Constitution has been abused. Tell me, who in power will dare to abuse an armed people? Who in power cares about unarmed people? You can do whatever you want with the unarmed people, amending a Constituton a hundred times is a very minor thing!
You can have someting like 22nd Amendment in Indian Constitution, what real difference will it make? Instead of one person abusing power continously, others will get a chance to abuse power after 5 years. The abuse of power will stay, only the people will change. This is the ONLY difference it will make. Moreover which party would like to support your idea? Will a dynastic party like such an idea?
"Our Constitution does not explicitly say that RKBA is a fundamental right, nor does it say anything against RKBA either."
Now it is getting interesting, I see a change in your opinion, earlier you were vehemently oppossing that RKBA is not guaranteed under our Constitution, now you are saying it does not saying anything against it.
All the laws flow from Constitution, it also means that Arms Act 1959 is flowing from the Constitution. Can you please tell me which rights flowing from the Constitution are the Objectives of Arms Act 1959 are trying to co-ordinate? Please enlighten the forumn.
I would prefer not to comment about Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is our institution which we should respect.
"The Arms Act, 1959 is an enabling act and not a declining act"
As I have already mentioned all the laws flow from the Constitution, and also you have correctly said Arms Act is an enabling act, it is to enable which right? RTI Act 2005 is to enable the fundamental right to information guaranteed under freedom of Speech and Expression., likewise Arms Act enables which fundamental right?
"The Arms Act says weapons of less than 22” length cannot be granted licence."
This is really interesting, from where have you found this information, please enlighten the forum by refering the relevant Sections of Arms Act 1959.
Ambika (NA) 27 February 2011
Dear Democratic Indian,
I must say that you rpostings are very very educative and eye opener. We never as students of politcal science heard about right to bearing arms. It was just ignored. I must confess that before reading your posts I never ever gave a thought to it .
I see a lot of sense in what you are talking about. But as a person whose main areas of interest is social exclusions and inequities, I just wonder if this right is actualised, how far women would be able to bear the arms? And due to social and cultural reasons they do not bear arms, what may be the consequences? I also feel that it is necessary that women know how to handle arms not only to make a power balance vis a vis state but also for her right to move about freely and without fear.
Would like to have your opinion on it. I read all these posts with great interest, because it is truly a new learning for me.
Abraham Joseph (Founder secretary) 27 February 2011
Dear Democratic Indian,
You say RKBA is in tune with natures laws ! If it was in tune with natures law, the net direction of human civilization would not have been on its preddominantly 'inclusive' note as it stand today ! From it past mostly combative nature, it gradually developed into more and more mutual toleration. From MAGNA CARTA treaty, where concepts of FREEDOM was heard first by mankind, it moved towards American Revolution, followed by French revolution with origination of more similar concepts like 'inalienable rights of man',equality and liberty. Slavery was abolished. Today, men and states are under civilizational compulsion to regard the other man and other states with dignity and respect.
Hence, mankind has already crossed its stage of citizens bearing weapons in the civilizational journey. It is good for our future generations not to undertake a reverse journey from here.
If nature's law is the old jungle time conflict of the strong with the less srtrong, or a test of strength between the equals to settle issues, civilization would not have moved from those past days, and reached on its presenst stage of well defined inclusiveness !
We understand that the 'rightist' ideolgy as depicted at our blog link : https://direneedofreinventingdemocracy.blogspot.com/ is the order of the day. But the journey of man is definitely upward on the path of more and more mutual acceptance and tolerance. Right to bear arms has no relevance at this stage of civilization, whether some inadvertent reference in the constitution has ever sounded like a permission to do so !
Democratic Indian (n/a) 28 February 2011
Dear Ambika,
Thank you for understanding the facts.
"We never as students of politcal science heard about right to bearing arms. It was just ignored. I must confess that before reading your posts I never ever gave a thought to it . "
It is not your fault because "The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything, except what is worth knowing" - Oscar Wilde
"I just wonder if this right is actualised, how far women would be able to bear the arms?"
Women in India have been exercising RKBA since day one of civilization. But this right was cleverly taken away from people by castism(racism), wherein only people of few castes could keep arms. Thus resulted in finishing of martial traditions among most of the people. There are endless examples in history of India where women have been exercising this right. Few of them are Razia Sultan, Ahilya Bai, Rani Jhansi and little known Sada Kaur. Sada Kaur was the mother in law of Ranjit Singh, she led the army fully armed on horseback and drove out Afghans and captured Lahore. Even in present day there are plenty of women who go out armed with revolvers. I personally know of a girl married to an Army officer, who instead of being given dowry, was presented a revolver by her father. The real culprit is the government who has artificially ensured the prices of legal firearms beyond the reach of common people. Because of this attitude of Government, it is common knowledge that people are forced to keep illegal arms to safegauard themselves. I attach one judgment of High Court along this post.
Moreover in India itself:
1) Coorgs in Karnataka district can keep firearms without license, as they are exempt from provisions of Arms Act . There is no higher crime going on in Coorg district. On the contrary criminals avoid such places as they know how they will be "welcomed" in every house.
2) Before independence, the states of Rajputana were exempt from Arms Act, there was no extra crime reported.
3) Sikhs and Gurkhas keep swords, khukris and various kinds of arms. They are not indulging in extra criminal behaviour.
Dear Mr. Joseph,
A half truth is a whole lie. ~ Yiddish Prover
“When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.” - Thomas Paine
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” – Thomas Jefferson
Your ideas harping on "civilization" seem to be based on fantasy land. The reality about about civilization is quite different on ground. You conveniently ignored the fact that Self defense is the first law of nature. Are you saying self defense has to be done by bare hands? Are you contemplating a world where only the strong will rule?
Moreover your theory is in line with the theory of the British Imperialists who by Arms Act 1878 ensured that only Europeans and Anglo Indians are by default "fit" to keep arms. Gun control is nothing but a cleverly masked theory propounded by racist/castist elements all around the world, who want only the ruling elite to be armed.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." - Adolf Hitler
I consider my life and those of my near and dear ones worthy of defending, if you choose not to value your life worth defending, it is your personal matter. You have no right to take away my right. At the very least please do not mislead people. Being equipped and prepared to resist or prevent violence is not an indication of being naturally predisposed to violence. Most of the law abiding citizens are peace loving everyday common people who like nothing more than leading a happy life with their loved ones and friends in a free society. It is only when everything else fails to prevent a violent crime from being committed, do I advocate resisting it with justifiable violence. A firearm simply is the best suited tool in such a situation. When reason and reasoning fail, meek submission must not be the option is all I am saying.
Just as you are free to choose to remain defenceless out of YOUR OWN FREE choice, I too would like to be able to make the CHOICE of whether or nor to arm myself, not have someone else force his/ her/ their choices on me - that is called FREEDOM and without FREEDOM we are just like monkeys in the zoo!
“He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi
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. Whole world knows their actual intent and how many innocent people they rounded up, aided by their "gun control" and killed them. Also the following cannot be ignored:
1. Gun control by British in India after 1857 was to suppress any future popular civil uprising, thousands defenseless rounded up and killed e.g. Jallianwala Bagh massacre. More than a million people disarmed by Arms Act 1878 killed by criminals gangs armed with illegal weapons during partition of country in 1947. Thousands killed in State sponsered killings in Delhi in 1984 and Gujrat in 2003. So called "Gun Control" by Arms Act 1959 helps criminals attack thousands of defenseless men and women to be killed, injured, raped, kidnapped etc. every year in India. Criminals are having a merry time in India due to so called "Gun Control". Entire democracy has been for all practical purposes hijacked by criminal elements. Criminal/politicians are "winning" elections with help of so called "Gun Control" as their henchmen armed with all kinds of illegal weapons are able to terrorize the voters to either vote for them or refrain from voting.
2. 1911, Turkey established gun control, between 1915-17, 1.5 million Armenians rounded up and killed.
3. 1918, after Russian civil uprising of 1917(Russian Revolution) to prevent similar uprisings, Britain introduced gun control in it's colonies of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. It was also introduced in Britain, since many people residing in colonies also had their relatives, friends and sympathizers in Britain. Around the same time, in India the concept of "Prohibited Bore" and "Non Prohibited Bore" was introduced to further tighten the already existing draconian gun control.
4. 1929 USSR established gun control, between 1929-53 over 20 million political opponents rounded up and killed.
5. 1938 Germany established gun control, between 1939-45 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homos*xuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others rounded up and killed.
6. 1935 China established gun control, between 1948-52 over 20 million political opponents rounded up and killed.
7. 1956 Combodia established gun control, 1975-77 over 1 million rounded up and killed.
8. 1970 Uganda established gun control, till 1979 over 300,000 Christians rounded up and killed.
9. Thousands of unarmed people are being killed today by criminals backed Gaddaffi regime in Libya.
List can be endless about people getting killed because they are not able to excercise the God given fundamental right of self defense daily around the world because of Gun Control. Above facts are not from some dreamland but from the real world of our "civilization". So much for your theory of disarming people and celebrating in the name of civilization!!!
Julius Caesar banned the carry and concealment of daggers with in the city of Rome. He was STABBED to death on the steps of the very Senate where the law was passed by men brandishing concealed daggers! A false sense of security in name of civilization is a poor way of spending tax-payers money!
‘‘To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.’’— George Mason
‘‘...for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.’’— Alexander Hamilton
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
