Gandhi, on Gun Control:

[juancarlos]

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
- Mahatma Gandhi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", M. K. Gandhi, page 372

http://www.mahatma.org.in/books/showbook.jsp?id=384&link=bg&book=bg0001&lang=en

[slackmaster]

1. Must have been a racist

n/t

[MrBenchley]

2. Jeepers....

He's talking about collective arms in defense of India....not arming every lout individually...

"I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner : 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle class render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.' The Commissioner referred to this and said that he appreciated my presence in the conference in spite of the differences between us. "

And this was before his philopsophy had been formed....as the title "MY EXPERIMENTS WITH TRUTH" indicate...

"The only virtue I want to claim is truth and non-violence. I lay no claim to superhuman powers. I want none. I wear the same corruptible flesh that the weakest of my fellow beings wears, and am therefore as liable to err as any. My services have many limitations, but God has upto now blessed them in spite of the imperfections. "

http://www.mahatma.org.in/quotes/quotes.jsp?link=qt

Nice try, though.....and not a bit desperate or pathetic in any way.

[juancarlos]

4. Surprise! Bench is wrong again!

'If the middle class render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.'

Obviously, the individual is banned, therefore he is talking about individuals. Try again.

[hijinks]

6. Can anyone find the text of the Arms Act? n/t

n/t

[MrBenchley]

10. Not even close to true

but thanks for the REALLY big laugh....

[hijinks]

16. Should be easy to prove...

... just post the text of the law that banned the indian government from possessing arms.

Oh wait. The indian 'government' at the time was the british.

try again.

[juancarlos]

22. I can't wait...

to read a Bench reply to that! It'll be priceless...another for my book of quotes.

[hijinks]

79. I gave up...

... on bench posting anything other then 'what a pant load' the first time I debated him.

[MrBenchley]

24. Then don't let me stop you.....

In the meantime I'll just sit here and laugh about the RKBA crowd trying to peddle the Mahatma as the Bo Gritz of India....

Man, could you guys get ANY lamer?

[juancarlos]

30. are you admitting, Bench,

that you have no reasonable response to post 16?

[MrBenchley]

33. No, I'm saying that

the thread is ludicrous to start with.....but thanks for giving me a BIG BIG laugh.

So let's see hijinks prove it.

Could you guys GET any lamer?

[juancarlos]

44. Still not going to reply to his statement?

I find it sad you are unable to do so.

[MrBenchley]

48. I DID reply to his statement

Jinksy said it would be easy to prove...so I invited him to do so. I doubt he can.

I find it hillarious that you guys are trying to peddle this ludicrous crap....you must REALLY be desperate to try and pretend Gandhi was Charlton Heston in a loincloth.

[juancarlos]

49. No you didn't

He was tellig you to prove your assertions in post 2

[MrBenchley]

52. Did that in post 2

by actually providing the rest of Gandhi's quote...

Tell me. did you REALLY think anybody would be dumb enough to think Gandhi was pro-gun?

[juancarlos]

57. The rest of the quote

seems to indicate that he considered it a personal right.

[MrBenchley]

59. Not even close to true

But it is hilarious of you to pretend so.

[juancarlos]

60. Once again,

'If the middle class render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.'

proves my point, you lose, face it, you are wrong, again.

"What a pantload"

[MrBenchley]

63. Gandhi as Charlton Heston in a loincloth

Doesn't get much more dopey than that..

[juancarlos]

65. When do I get a real reply?

Are you able to argue rationally?

[MrBenchley]

66. You get all the reply you deserve

Now go peddle this preposterous fantasy about Gandhi to someone dumb enough to buy it.

[CO Liberal]

67. "... someone dumb enough to buy it"

I'm sure he'll find someone at the next gun show.

:-)

[juancarlos]

69. I find it sad

That you are unable to debate what the man said. Do you deny that he said it?

[CO Liberal]

70. And I Find It Sad....

...that you're unable to see how inappropriate this entire thread you started is.

[juancarlos]

74. Inappropriate?

That cracks me up. Gandhi was against tyranny. A governmental monopoly on firearms aids the cause of tyranny. Just ask Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Communist China, Slobodan Milosovic, apartheid South Africa, Libya, Cuba, and others.

[MrBenchley]

72. I find it pathetic

and hilarious that the RKBA crowd has got THIS desperate in public...

[MrBenchley]

71. LOL!

[juancarlos]

68. Sorry you're unable

to respond in a polite, reasoned, rational, civil, lucid, manner.

[MrBenchley]

73. Not me

I'm laughing my ass off at this whole thread.....

Charlton Heston gets a spinning wheel and shows his loony knot of followers how to spin their own guns.....

[juancarlos]

75. I love it!

Bench implicitly admits that he can't respond in a lucid, rational, etc. manner!

[MrBenchley]

77. To you?

Who could? More to the point, who would bother?

[juancarlos]

116. a rational person.

nt

[Character Assassin]

118. You are asking the impossible of the unable

But still, blood might come from a stone any day now.

[hijinks]

80. you see, young gun nut

ghandi was talking about the middle class's COLLECTIVE right to own guns.

How does a class of people (NOT a government mind you) have a collective right to own guns you ask? umm. I don't know.

[Mountainman]

3. Who is it that wants to deprive a whole nation of arms here?

I would think that it would be a republican administration since the current one wants to be a dictatorship and since the republicans are working hard at stealing the next Presidential election to remain in power and since the Republicans control the White House, Congress and the Supreme court. It is the current administration that promotes the Patriot Act that has taken away rights that we have always took for granted. It is the current administration that wants to set itself up as an imperial power in the world. It is the current administration that preaches preemptive war on whom ever it sees as a potential enemy. It is the current powers that be who have everything to lose and nothing to gain should the people want to rise up against the government.

If I were afraid of the government taking away my gun rights I would fear the current administration just as Gandhi may have feared the imperial powers in his country.

[juancarlos]

5. Your answer: Diane Feinstein

She's the once who wants to deprive arms.

[Mountainman]

7. Please explain further

You don't give much information when you post.

Can you give me some references to her thinking on gun control. I don't think that there is a politition here in CA that wants to take away anyone's gun.

Please help me to understand what you are saying.

By the way, I am a gun owner and do not believe in gun laws since they do not produce the desired effect of limiting gun violence. Gun laws are "feel good" laws. We pass them and feel good that we did something about the problem but the problem is not diminished.

I believe in the phrase that if you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns. Criminals will not obey gun laws only the decent law abiding citizen will obey gun laws and they are not the problem.

[juancarlos]

9. Sen Feinstein said...

*not exact quote* "If I could get the votes, I'd say turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. America". I'll see if I can find it, but it was on, I believe a CBS TV show.

[Mountainman]

11. Well I never heard that. I hope you are not correct.

[juancarlos]

17. December 5, 1995

During an interview on the show "60 Minutes"...Diane Feinstein said...

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

[Mountainman]

19. Is she talking about all guns or

asault rifles or saturday night specials?

[demsrule4life]

20. All guns

[juancarlos]

21. From what I gather...

she wants to ban all handguns. She also seems to want to ban all other guns too.

[Mountainman]

23. Well I will call her number and see what she says

[Fescue4u]

98. No not all..

She wants to keep her own !

[jody]

14. Suggest you go to the following site

Handgun Free America

[DoNotRefill]

51. Oh NO!!!! Another Blacklist!!!!

Oh, wait...that's a group which SUPPORTS banning all guns....never mind...

[Township75]

13. Now if only Democratic Presidential Contenders would think like you...

we may not lose so many elections.

The problem is that instead of fighting to protect our rights, many on the stage are fighting to take away more rights and/or adding more regulations than even Bush wants to do.

Dean is the only one even close to where the field out to be. Instead, many are trying to play every side of the gun issue, or just trying to be like Bushier than Bush and call for more gun control. Bush is no friend to gun owners, and Dean knows that...maybe that is why he is going to be or nominee :)

[jody]

8. Gandhi succeeded with passive resistance, would he have supported

armed resistance if he had not succeeded?

[juancarlos]

12. I don't know...

what Mr. Gandhi would have personally done, but it appears that he thought the people should have the choice.

[jody]

15. I vaguely recall reading a passage suggesting Gandhi would have

supported armed resistance if necessary, but I don't remember the source. :shrug:

[Mountainman]

18. This is a quote from Gandhi.

It is in the movie and I assume he said it.

"When I dispare I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they can seem invincible but in the end they always fall. Think of it, always!"

I don't think Gandhi would have given up on non violence.

[Mairead]

126. Gandhi-ji 'chose' passive resistance because he had nothing else

to work with. Saul Alinsky felt quite confident from things Gandhi-ji wrote (including the quote given above) that he would have used armed force if he could have.

It's worth noting Eric Blair's (the real name of 'George Orwell') assessment: the only reason Gandhi-ji's passive resistance worked at all is because it was England on the receiving end. Had it been the Nazis, Gandhi-ji and his disciples would simply have been Nacht-und-Nebeled one night and the independence movement would have been stillborn. Only England had the ingrained cultural tradition of fair play that made passive resistance effective.

[MrBenchley]

25. By the way, how did Gandhi die?

What happened to him, do you suppose?

[CO Liberal]

26. I'm Sure He Though Gun Control Was A Good Idea......

...once he was shot.

Shame on you using someone who was killed by a gun to try to advance your pro-gun agenda. What next - quotes from Dr. King, RFK, and John Lennon?

[RoeBear]

27. Why is it wrong to put forward someone who was shot...

...and supports the view of gun rights? Would it be wrong to turn that around and say unless you've been shot you can't be anti-gun?

[Spoonman]

28. Time out for the hypocrites

"Shame on you using someone who was killed by a gun to try to advance your pro-gun agenda. What next - quotes from Dr. King, RFK, and John Lennon?"

The anti-gun crowd here has a damn near monopoly on this tactic!!
How dare anyone for condemning something they themselves have done ten times more!!!

[MrBenchley]

46. Gee spoon....

"The anti-gun crowd here has a damn near monopoly on this tactic"
Nobody's stopping you from quoting people who have shot others who are in favor of gun rights.....

We'll all wait right here, giggling, while you try and find somebody who's been shot who says "if only the guy who tried to kill me had had an assault rifle he could have killed and not just wounded me." Lotsa luck.

[Spoonman]

54. Gee MrBenchly no problem

If only I had been armed when I was robbed and subsequently shot after handing over everything as asked, I might have been able to have shot the prick who stole my Rolex, wallet and truck.
Having been shot (twice now - Honduras 1988 and Houston 1990) I feel it better qualifies me than yourself, and well within your guidelines, to make this statement!

Here's another one, and I will be speaking for my wife....
Had I not shot the man, there's no telling what he might have done to me or the kids. Thank god my husband taught me to shoot this thing.
Statement to police 7 Aug 1996 after shooting a man who was coming through our sliding glass door while I was away on business.

"Lotsa luck" What a stinking pantload of shit!

[juancarlos]

117. another non response from Bench.

to spoon's post

[MrBenchley]

119. Why bother....

Consider the source.

[juancarlos]

29. Oh, CO LIB...

Do you think that more laws would have prevented the criminals from killing them? Do you dispute that MKGandhi said the above? Thanks for playing.

[CO Liberal]

32. It's Not a Game With Me - I'm Dead Serious

Your tactic was, in my opinion, lower than low.

[Superfly]

34. WTF???

You and others here post, ad naseum, stories of tragedy in which guns are used to promote your anti-gun agenda.

What's good for the goose is not good for the gander, eh, CO?

[CO Liberal]

35. There's a Big Difference Here

Show me anywhere that I've used the words of a shooting victim to advance an agenda.

More pro-gun apples and oranges.

[Superfly]

36. I'm going to have to call Bullshit here.

You are using dead and/or injured people, the victim's of gun violence, to do you talking for you.

Ghandi believed in non-violent protest until the day he died, does that mean we cannot use his words to promote a similar point of view.

The difference, here, is Ghandi is ON RECORD as having espoused an armed population, and using his words to promote a similar point of view is not only correct, but logically valid.

B

[CO Liberal]

37. I See Your Bullshit and Raise You One

This Ghandi crap keeps coming up from time to time on this board. Did Wayne LaPierre tell you pro-gunners to use this argument?

[Superfly]

38. Nice one, put words in my mouth.

Getting a little desparate, there, CO.

1st of all, did Ghandi say or not say the things quoted in this thread. If so, do they promote a pro0gun or anti-gun point of view?

2nd of all, please do not attempt to pass a "guilt by association: off on me. Regardless of my feelings for Lapierre, I support the original intent of this thread, that Ghandi was a pro-gun/self defense activist.

B

[CO Liberal]

41. It's Still In Poor Taste, IMHO

And since so many pro-gunners use the ploy from time to time, I have to assume that it's part of the stnadard NRA-GOA-LaPierre-Nugent pro-gun propaganda package.

[Superfly]

42. Likewise...

"and since so many anti-gunners....blah, blah, blah, blah."

Same shit different day.

[Spoonman]

40. Oh please,

It was you that started the whole "guns in the news" thread to parade victims around like trophies for your agenda.
If you fail to see that, that's your own problem, not anyone elses.
So feel free to use all quotes you want from David Berkowitz, Dylan Klebold, Charles Joseph Whitman, John Allen Muhammad, John Lee Malvo, etc..

[juancarlos]

45. You call it "Gandhi crap"

Are you saying that Mr. Gandhi was full of it?

[CO Liberal]

47. Not At All

I'm saying that you and all the other pro-gunners that use the memory of Mohatma Ghandi (one of the leading advocates of non-violence) to advance your god-damned pro-gun agenda are full of it.

Kapish?

[Superfly]

53. Now, we get to the root of the problem

"your god-damned pro-gun agenda are full of it"

You seem to have some emotional problem with the RKBA. Finally, after all this time, we see that you really have no facts to back your agenda, just your hatred of those pro-gunners with their "god-damned pro gun agenda."

Maybe you should put that aside and try from an objective point of view? Hmmmmm?

And, what the hell is "Kapish?"

Do you mean "Capice?"

[CO Liberal]

55. No...I Mean "Kapish"

It's a Yiddish word, meaning "Can you get this through your thick skull?"

:-)

[Superfly]

58. And I'm fond of "Baciami il culo"

It's an Italian word for...oh, nevermind.

:evilgrin:

[Spoonman]

62. Hmmm....

Yea Right.....
Try Again!!!!!


http://www.koshernosh.com/dictiona.htm

http://www.yiddishdictionaryonline.com/

[Mairead]

127. It's an Italian dialect word, not Yiddish!

It's New York Italian, and comes from 'capisci'

[MrBenchley]

56. Yup, gun nuts are full of it.....

"Finally, after all this time, we see that you really have no facts to back your agenda"
Beyond the facts that Gandhi was killed with a handgun AND espoused non-violence...despite the gun nut lies to the contrary....

[Spoonman]

61. By the way

The hand gun was illegal to posses in India under the laws in place at the time. A lot of good gun control laws did to prevent it huh?

[MrBenchley]

64. Gee, how could that be?

Don't tell me that Gandhi and his disciples put in gun control laws when they took India from the British....

Why, that would mean this whole thread was a dishonest piece of shit....as everyone with a working braincell knew already.

[juancarlos]

76. Who knows exactly...

What he would have done, he was killed a few months after independence. I'm still checking, but I don't believe that he held any government office, either.

[MrBenchley]

78. You keep on telling yourself that

and we'll keep on laughing our asses off.

Funny, these folks aren't joining the NRA.

http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/

[juancarlos]

43. Once again,

do you dispute the fact that he said/wrote it? If you do not dispute it, then for what rational reason should it suppressed?

[jody]

31. One author's view of "Nonviolence According To Gandhi"

What Is Nonviolence According To Gandhi?

QUOTE
Gandhi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward's way: to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second option was to stand and fight by force of arms. Gandhi said this was better than acceptance or running away.

But the third way, he said, was best of all and required the most courage: to stand and fight solely by nonviolent means.
UNQUOTE

I believe most gun-grabbers choose the "first option" and those who support RKBA choose the "second option".

I've never met a person who had the courage to choose the "third way" although I've read their obituaries.

[Mountainman]

39. I think that if you look at history the beneficiaries are not the fighters

People who fight for freedoms ususally fight for those coming after them.

[el_gato]

50. let the government control everything!

those in power will take care of you
it's only for your best interest
just step in the truck here
we're gonna take you to a nice little compound
you'll have your very own cot

[leanings]

81. Man, what a perfectly demonstrative thread

Of how sorry it is down here. None of the pro-control folks have even attempted to put forth a coherent argument that Gandhi is quoted out of context, or means something other than what's implied, or did not consider armed resistance to government tyranny a legitimate option. All that they display is a weak parody of shock and indignation and a refusal to discuss the topic at hand. If there's ever been a thread which more succintly portrays the pro-control folks as being ruled by emotion and prejudice instead of reason and experience, I've yet to see it.

Before I logged in, I saw Mr. B was full of laughs again, although as usual entirely lacking an effective, coherent or even recognizable argument. I don't see how he's so merry; the Democratic Party has largely abandoned gun control as an issue. The NRA will dictate gun policy in the United States for the forseeable future. The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country, primarily due to it's 3.5 million members who are motivated, educated on the issue and willing to spend money. Pro-control orgs, and there's really only one voice out there, are dependent on grants from foundations and don't have much in the way of name recognition. If the pro-control folks have even a shred of intellectual honesty they must be at least somewhat disheartend at the misrepresentations and scare tactics these groups use. There simply isn't much vigorous grass roots support for control. The AW ban is going to sunset next year. Liability is dead in the water, and legislation against it is going to pass. CCW is a fact in most states, and hasn't proven the disaster it was predicted to. Gun control as an issue is becoming irrelevant in this country.

[MrBenchley]

86. Sorry down here is right..

What is sorry is the patheticc RKBA ccrowd seriously trryinng to pass off Gandhi as Charlton Hestoon in a loincloth. Nobody with a working brain cell could possibly buy that.

"I saw Mr. B was full of laughs again, although as usual entirely lacking an effective, coherent or even recognizable argument."
Yeah, we can tell from the screams of rage.

"I don't see how he's so merry; the Democratic Party has largely abandoned gun control as an issue."
Gee, perhaps its because I recognioze what a piece of crap that statement is.

"The NRA will dictate gun policy in the United States for the forseeable future."
Sieg heil!

[CO Liberal]

96. A Correction

The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country, primarily due to it's 3.5 million members who are motivated, educated on the issue and willing to spend money.

Actually, many pro-gunners out there are paranoid, ignorant of everything except what the Nuts Ruining America tells them, and brainwashed into throwing money their way.

[Fescue4u]

97. Paranoid of what?

Crime?

If crime is so nonexistant, then the whole guns = crime argument is a lie, and hence the basis for gun control is, well baseless.

On the other hand is crime is rampant, then why on Earth would you want to make us defenseless?

Please choose carefully.

[leanings]

100. Well, I know a lot of NRA members personally

And I, of course, disagree with your characterization. I'm sure there ARE many who meet your description. I'm equally sure that the pro-control lobby has spent a lot of money and time misrepresenting various issues and "brainwashing" those who support control. I think we've seen time and time again pro-gun folks on this board pointing out factual and technical misconceptions pro-control folks have that they didn't get on their own, but through relatively meaningless and provocative terms like "Saturday Night Special" and "Cop Killer Bullets" invented by the pro-control folks in the hopes of appealing to their emotions rather than their reason. If that doesn't qualify as "brainwashing" on a scale at least equal to if not exceeding that practiced by the NRA, I'm not sure what the definition would be.

[CO Liberal]

103. I Know Some NRA Members Who Are CAring and Thoughtful People

I also know others who can't be trusted with sharp objects.

[jody]

101. CO, it is neither paranoid nor ignorant for pro-gunners to oppose

people like those on the list "Support for Banning Handguns" published by Handgun Free America.

Ignorance is demonstrated by any gun-control advocate who claims that the gun-control group does not want to ban guns. Gun owners know that's not true and that's why Democratic leaders are trying to distance themselves from the gun-grabber image that has cost us so much support among independent voters.

[CO Liberal]

102. Your Implication That Everyone Who Favors Gun Control ....

...actually favors confiscation is flat-out wrong.

[jody]

104. I have no proof that 100% of the gun control group wants to ban all guns

but I have given proof before that an influential subset, subset A, of the group wants to ban all guns and in this thread that another subset, subset B, wants to ban all handguns.

The remaining part of the gun control group, subset C, can accept the label as supporting a ban on all guns or handguns, or state for the record how they will reduce crime without banning guns.

I have no idea what per cent subset C is of the gun-control population nor how they will control guns without banning guns. Do you?

[CO Liberal]

105. I Don't Know

But it's unfair to assume that everyone who favors gun control agrees completely with Diane Feinstein. She is entitled to her opinion, but that's as far as it goes.

[jody]

106. I agree but it's even more unfair for Feinstein to use national TV to

tout her "ban all guns" agenda and encourage the impression that she is the spokesperson for the entire Democratic Party.

If Feinstein and others like her did not exist, Karl Rove would have to create and finance a group like them to split the Democratics on a wedge issue and elect Repugs.

[CO Liberal]

107. Using That Logic......

...each and every Democrat must be gay because Rep. Barney Frank appears on TV from time to time.

Ya gotta use a smaller brush, Jody.

[jody]

108. Sorry, but I believe Frank has been extraordinarily circumspect

in making sure that his views on gay rights are his views. I support him and believe he has been very effective in the quiet way he has handled a most difficult and stressful personal issue.

In contrast, Feinstein has gone out of her way to divide Democrats on RKBA.

[CO Liberal]

109. Only Those Who Want to Be Divided

The plain and simple truth is that not everyone will agree with your position, Jody, no matter how well-reasoned and logical you feel it is. And demonizing people like Diane Feinstein and Sarah Brady does not advance your position.

[jody]

111. Again we disagree, apparently you support Diane Feinstein and her

agenda. I didn't know that.

Once a die hard Republican, always a Republican even though they might wear false colors. Sarah Brady deserves a Republican medal for her loyal support in electing AWOL and other Repugs.

Please explain how stating the facts about people like Feinstein is "demonizing" where demonize is defined as:
1. To turn into or as if into a demon.
2. To possess by or as if by a demon.
3. To represent as evil or diabolic:

[CO Liberal]

112. You're Not "Explaining Facts"

You're slinging mud.

[jody]

113. But mud can be used to make bricks and then strong structures.

I had no idea you were such a diehard supporter of Feinstein's gun control agenda. Even the Democratic leadership is finally acknowledging that she is an albatross for candidates in many areas.

[CO Liberal]

114. I'm Not

But you seem to group every person who favors gun control in with her. That's just as unfair as equating all pro-gunners to Ted Nugent - some align themselves with Ted, but not all.

[jody]

115. I'm gald to join forces with you and reject Feinstein's position

on gun-control.

[CO Liberal]

122. Please Don't Misconstrue My Words

I am not rejecting her position - I just don't subscribe to it. And please stop mixing the two concepts - there is a BIG difference between controlling guns and banning them.

[jody]

123. "I am not rejecting her position - I just don't subscribe to it." If you

don't reject Feinstein's position, that sounds like spin to avoid saying you support her position.

Those who do not reject Feinstein's goal of banning all guns should not be surprised if we pro-RKBA types still believe you all want to ban guns. It is that uncertainty that makes most pro-RKBA types wary of any proposal to register handguns or long guns.

Your stated position makes me even more determined to oppose any law that requires registration of firearms. Registration would create a non-zero probability that a rogue government might use such data to confiscate firearms.

I hope others will also be more determined in their opposition to registration of firearms.

[CO Liberal]

124. Why Are You Mixing Concepts Here, Jody?

"Control", "confiscation", "banning", and "registration" are not synonymous.

[jody]

125. Because ban is one method of control, the ultimate in control.

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The
frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion
says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."

The gun-control crowd has to prove it's not a scorpion regarding gun bans.

[MrBenchley]

110. Gee, and yet Frank and the Democrats still get attacked

by the same people who are peddling this gun rights bullshit..

Wonder what Barney Frank's position on guns is, by the way? Oh, yeah, he's for gun control.

[LibLabUK]

82. This is a rant, I offer no apology.

Do any of you spouting this shit actually know the history of the Independence of India?

Do you know how many people died after Independence in 1948 in a civil war that tore the country apart?

Do any of you actually know the diverse political environment that was pre-Independence India?

Do any of you know the almost unsurmountable difficulty Ghandi faced trying to keep the disparate groups from KILLING EACH OTHER before the British pulled out?

As someone whose own grandfather was beaten senseless by a mob and then was forced to flee to Kenya with a lot of his countrymen because he chose to wear western clothes , I can tell you that you haven't got a clue. You have no idea what the situation was like in India, or for that matter anywhere in the Empire.

If any of you think that Ghandi's job would have been easier had he been a gun toting loon like you, then you're haven't just got your head shoved up your own arse, you have your shoulders and most of your torso stuck up there.

If the Indians had taken up arms, they would have been massacred, Amritsa would have looked like a fucking picnic. Look at the history of uprisings in the British Empire, they were put down and their leaders were made examples of.

Had Ghandi advocated arms, he would have done the Tyburn jig. Instead he went to tea at the Palace, became the father of a nation and respected worldwide including Britain.

You drag up these quotes, outside of any understanding of the historical context, without any sense of the conditions at the time and you expect to win arguments with them?

[leanings]

83. Would you care, then

to put the quote in it's proper context for us? Would you explain Gandhi's statements which apparently validate armed resistance as an acceptable path in some situations, if not the most desirable one or one appropriate to his circumstances?

[MrBenchley]

85. Seems like he did

And your inability to recognize it explains a big part of my merriment.

[Pert_UK]

95. I think his point was....

that merely quoting that statement without clearly explaining its relevance to the situation in the US today (e.g. even comparing "armed resistance to a known occupying force" vs "guns for anyone who wants one) is farsical and insulting.

I don't think he needs to explain the context himself - merely pointing out that absurdity of using it without a context is enough to make a very valid point.

P.

[jody]

84. I believe a number of DU participants are very familiar with the history

you cite. I also fail to see how being the grandchild of someone forced to flee to Kenya from an unspecified country qualifies you as an expert on India.

Perhaps your perspective is colored by the location of your own head.

[LibLabUK]

87. Hehehe..

""I believe a number of DU participants are very familiar with the history you cite."

Which ones and where are their contributions to this thread?


"I also fail to see how being the grandchild of someone forced to flee to Kenya from an unspecified country qualifies you as an expert on India."

India, not "an unspecified country"... where else would I have been talking about?

I didn't claim to be an expert but I believe it makes me more qualified, having been educated by people who actually lived through the times, than you.

Are you going to offer any refutation of the comments I made regarding the history of Indian independence?

[jody]

88. Please answer my question how being a grandchild of someone who fled

from India qualifies you as an expert on India history? If so, then AWOL Bush is an expert on Nazi financial affairs.

[MrBenchley]

89. Sure you don't mean some "unspecified country", jody?

"AWOL Bush is an expert on Nazi financial affairs."
I'll bet there's quite bit of knowledge there in the Bush family archives at that. And the unelected drunk is the candidate of choice for the bigots and lunatics who make up the "gun rights" bunch.

The other white meat was keynote speaker at the National Rifle Association’s annual banquet in 2003, where he thanked the assembled wad of racists and loonies: "Were it not for your active involvement, it's safe to say my brother would not be president of the United States," Jebbo said. He got a standing ovation.

[LibLabUK]

90. Bwhahaha... you obviously have no real point to make

Does my not being an "expert" disqualify me from commenting?

Does my not being an "expert" disallow me from knowing more than you?



How does my not being an "expert" make any of my comments wrong, is a statement by a non-"expert" automatically of no importance or untrue?



Why don't you actually address any of the points I made, instead of playing this rather childish game?

[jody]

92. Your reply is what I expected. Have a nice day and I encourage you

to study more history about India. At least enough to understand several sides of a very complex topic.

[Pert_UK]

94. You make me proud to be British!

A beautiful, intelligent and well-spoken comment!

Bravo old bean!

All the best.

P.

[Pert_UK]

121. Incidentally, in case my comment was misconstrued....

I meant that the eloquent argument from a fellow countryman made me proud to be British, not that I was proud of the British behaviour in India.

Just for clarity.

P.

[Fescue4u]

99. Very good points

Most of us have no idea about the mess "over there".

Tell me though, why are you posting about guns "over here"?

Pot, please meet Mr kettle.

I'll spare you my rant ;)

[Pert_UK]

91. So what's your point?

Are you concluding that banning guns in the States would be the same as when the British removed guns from Indians? (who they'd effectively conquered and who were rebelling against them).

Are you concluding that Gandhi's words, about a very specific time, place and situation, apply equally to control of firearms in the US?

Are you concluding that Gandhi was unequivocally in favour of bearing weapons? (this seems starkly in contrast to his views on non-violent protest and life in general).

Or are you just trying to start a flame war?

I favour the latter - you've posted a remark out of context, made no comment on it yourself and waited for people to jump in............

IMHO of course.

P.

[MrBenchley]

93. I suspect the point was

that the RKBA crowd has gotten REALLY desperate.....

[jody]

120. Gandhi couldn't have prevented this "Orthodox Christian Holocaust"

In Memory Of The 50 Million Victims Of The Orthodox Christian Holocaust
QUOTE
The 75th anniversary of the Christian Holocaust was memorialized on 9 September 1997, the date in 1922 of the destruction of the city of Smyrna. This memorial honors the memory of over 3.5 million Christians who were murdered by Turkish persecutions from 1894-1923. Not only was this the memorial of the Holocaust of Smyrna (now Izmir) and the martyrdom of Smyrna's Metropolitan Chrysostomos, but also of the 3.5 million Christians who perished during the first Holocaust of this century. But the events of 1922 are not an isolated incident. The atrocities committed by Turkish forces against a civilian population began before WW1 and have never ended. This event seeks to expose the continuum of a Turkish campaign of persecution, deportation, and murder designed to rid Asia of its Christian populace.
UNQUOTE

I agree with Cromwell "Put your trust in God; but mind to keep your powder dry!"