प्रजा अधीन राजा समूह | Right to Recall Group

अधिकार जैसे कि आम जन द्वारा भ्रष्ट को बदलने/सज़ा देने के अधिकार पर चर्चा करने के लिए मंच
It is currently Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:14 am

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours

फोरम के नियम ; Forum rules

ये फोरम केवल कमेन्ट करने के लिए है ; यहाँ आप नया थ्रेड शुरू नहीं कर सकते | कृपया कमेन्ट करने से पहले फोरम के सारे नियम यहाँ पढ़ें - viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1098

This is a comment only forum. You cannot start a new thread here. Please read the rules of the forum before posting - viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1098

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
SR. No. Author Message
 Post subject: Weaponisation-Quotes
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:19 am 

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
Because Bhagat Singhs come from commons, and if commons are gunless, very few of them will manage to become Bhagat Singhs

1)Everyone who takes gun will also train himself, and if he shoots anyone by mistake, he will be liable for that crime or accident. That does not make a case for your demand that "elitemen should have guns and no common should have gun".
And if you oppose elitemen having guns, did you demand expulsion of IPS who have given gun license to elitemen in your area or all over India for that matter? NO. Did you ask your MP to cancel the license provision in the Arms Act which allows IPS to let elitemen have guns? NO. Many postors here mentioned that elitemen should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves from criminals. Di you oppose then? NO. Pls add some action to back your beliefs.
Quote- “I asked you how do you plan to enforce it.”

Punishments are the ONLY way to enforce it. When people who wrongly use guns land in prison and lose their wealth, everyone will spend some time and money to learn gun use in a proper way.
Govt can surely come up with a procedure where anyone applying for a gun would be mandated to undergo 1 month training of handling weapons and every 2-3 years one has to get the weapon Re-licensed. After all how does a common civilian keep him(her)self safe from the violence that is gripping our society.
In my education related proposals, there is a mention of proposed COMPULSORY weapon use course and weapon information course. The weapon use course starts in 12th and weapon information course will start in 5th class and go till 11th class, where students will all information about fighter planes, tanks, missiles, nukes etc with color pictures. Giving information on weapons is BEST way to stimulate interest in Physics, Maths etc. The course will taught to adults as well. Once we citizens get procedures to expel/replace District Education Officer, all necessary training/information courses regarding weapons will automatically come, as there is great demand for training/information in commons.

Basically, I dont see training as big issue, can "compulsory training requirement" can be added later, does not need to be on day one. If we put this on day one, then gun training schools will raise the fees by ten times and IPS will charge Rs 1cr of bribes to start gun training school. Once we have have enough gun training schools, we can think of "compulsory training requirement". There is no point in making "compulsory training" a requirement given that we dont have so few training school.

Someone wrote:
.... What is required in place before any "give guns to the masses" scheme is an enforced training and re-certification program. ...

You oppose giving guns to civilians whether they are trained or not. So why do you bother about asking training?

Moment we commons get guns, we will start practicing at firing range. And many retired soldiers etc will become teachers and offer training for charge or for free or mix. Free market is quite efficient at small and local levels.

And there are 3 situations

1. No civilian have guns
2. All civilians have guns, and training increase as guns go
3. All civilians have guns and they all have training as well

(2) is better than (1) in any case. IOW, training is good, but it is suicide to create gunlessness just because there aren't enough training schools. A trained citizen with gun is better than untrained citizen with gun, which is better than citizen with no gun. Keeping commons gunless is giving open invitation to Kasabs to create more 26/11 and more Akshardham shootouts. But if Kasabs know that every common has gun, he will realize that he will be dead within 10 minutes before he can kill even 20 people. So there is no glory and no result. So they may confine to covert bombing but will not resort to 26/11.

2) Modi performs Shastra Puja on Dashera-
http://deshgujarat.com/2009/09/28/modi- ... -dussehra/

http://vodpod.com/watch/2250847-gujarat ... astra-puja


As per Hinduism, bearing guns is our fundamental duty.
3)Someone wrote:
In other thread : Hitler could have moved in and grabbed all of that money. I wonder why he respected swiss neutrality?
Because everyone in Swiss had guns, and was as trained as soldier. And terrain favored guerrilla and local more than regular army. The swiss would have hidden on the mountain top, and fires from top. The German tanks would be of no use in those mountains. So Adolf's generals told him too many German soldiers will die. And so Adolf "postponed" the decision to attack Swiss. 20% of employed population was part of formal or informal Military. Such thing can be attained in a small time frame ONLY if "everyone" is trained to use guns.
In the law I have proposed, as per the 1931 Congress Resolution drafted by Gandhiji and signed by Nehru, Patel et al, citizens will have FUNDAMENTAL right to bear weapons, which will be upto say shotguns. And if you think that a person is NOT eligible for bearing weapons, you can approach Jury, cite the reasons why he should not be given license (such as lack of training or whatever) and he will be banned from bearing weapons. But unless you have proof that he is incapable of bearing/using weapons, your demand to deny him the fundamental right is bogus.
And as per me, all the proposals except RTI2-EN, go via the the route of RTI2-EN. RTI2-EN is the only proposal which takes "activist route". After RTI2-EN, only citizens will matter, no one else. So I plan to bring shotgun rights using YESes of commons and not YESes of corrupt MPs.
And I do not oppose training. In fact, one my proposals is to make weapon education COMPULSORY in 12th class or at age of 18 for drop outs. I am only against you malacious scheme of yours in denying gun rights by using training as pretext. If you were pro-training, you would have demanded expulsion of leaders like MMS, Modi, Mayawati, Deshmukh etc who have refused to increase the number of private gun training schools. But on the contrary, you support such anti-training leaders and oppose people who want to increase guns and gun-training both in commons. This shows that you are anti-training and using training only as a pretext to deny guns.

Someone: ... You are perfectly OK with innocent passengers getting killed by equally innocent (and untrained) passengers who are firing away blindly at the Naxals but end up hitting people in their way. ...
If passengers had guns, yes, some 10-20 passengers could have died in friendly fire, but some 10-20 naxals would have also died. And in such cases, Naxals would not dare to strike again. So in long run, arming the passengers improves safety. Keeping them unarmed only makes them sheep before the wolves.
Someone wrote:
1. Why did slavery become taboo in the west after the industrial revolution? Did it occur because people suddenly became more humane OR it was no longer possible to use slave labor to operate complex machinery? You can force people to dig ditches, till fields, carry bricks or pick cotton- but operating machinery requires partially willing people.

Too many people guns by then in US as well as Europe and so slaves too would access to guns, and so slavery had become impossible to maintain. End of slavery came from the barrel of the gun.
The Govt=Nbjprie will do the job only when commons have guns. eg When did democracy start in UK and dark ages started ending? Only after too many commons were given weapons to fight against invading Arabs. When commons got too many weapons, the kings had to accept Coroner's Jury in 950 AD and later Trial Jury System in 1150 AD.

Even today in India, what stopped upper middle class of India from improving fate of Tribals in WB or rest of India? Nothing. But instead of improving their well being, the upper middle class unleashed a lie that poverty in tribals has decreased, everything is hunky dory, growth rate is 8% and so we should only focus on increasing IITM subsidies blah blah. Even now, if tribals had not fired gunshots, none would have bothered to listen to their complaints.

A: AFAIS you implying that common Indians are utterly irresponsible creatures?

B: Stop creating straw men. What I meant was the institutions that deliver justice when a gun owner does not live up to his responsibilities does not exist in India. For example, in US, you can get into quite a lot of trouble for simply firing your gun in the air in a residential neighbourhood. Contrast that with India where people get away with murder quite easily. I am sure you will agree with me on this point given your NBJPRE jehad. Why not first fix this infrastructure before arming everyone, because as far as I can see, this infrastructure is required to prevent more deaths.

So the corrupt Nbjprie dont create enough number of courts. And so you decide that commons should not bear guns. And if commons dont have guns, Nbjprie will beat and loot commons 100 times more. So for the fault of Nbjprie, you support a law banning gun, which would help Nbjprie !! Wah bhai wah kyaa logic hai. You made my day.

If the courts in India are shabby, did I or any common stopped you or any anti-gun person from fixing courts? NO. Did commons ever resist any means to improve courts? NO. So why should commons be denied from owning guns for the faults of Nbjprie.
A true anti-gun person should not live in safe cities but live in Lalgadh and show that life without gun is possible ALL over India.

5)Commons" have guns in US as well. How many shootings have they had?

Murder rate in India is 34 per million. That in US is 42 per million, and that in Switzerland is 7 per million. The murder rate in ALL gun owning citizenries except US is lower than India, and in most cases half of India. Besides, high murder rate in US is because drug control and the fact that many whites there want to re-enslave blacks. It is a civil war in slow motion. In countries which legalized drugs, ALL violent crimes have reduced. eg Netherland is shutting down high security prisons as they are falling short of serious violent criminals. So your argument that increasing guns will increase murder lacks correlation, forget causality.

And I have one more question to anti-gun people. The rich in India have guns or can get one by bribing police chief. So effectively the "no-gun" law applies only on poor only. So would you support a law that NO private citizen can have gun and only policemen, soldiers can have guns? Or you insist on exist laws which allows (corrupt) IPS to decide who should have guns?

 Post subject: Re: Weaponisation-Quotes
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:28 am 

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
6)I think the kodagu region in Karnataka is a place where people have the right to bear guns. The right is guaranteed under the law. But we do not hear anything about massacres etc in that region or am I missing something.



http://www.ourkarnataka.com/Articles/st ... luck09.htm


There is anarchy in West Bengal, as less than 200 km away from the Kolkata, the Maoists have virtually taken over the Lalgarh block in West Midnapore district. Their targets are the police and CPM supporters, both of whom have fled the area. And they have declared that their main target is Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya. The Maoists and their supporters are now ransacking every symbol of political and administrative authority in Lalgarh. The mood in Lalgarh was celebratory, almost as if a Puja was being held. The drums were beating a slow rhythm. And to the beat, as some danced and hundreds of others looked on, a demolition squad smashed the home of Anuj Pandey, CPM zonal secretary of Dharampur.

All this was done under the leadership of a man named Bikash who stood there with an AK 47 slung on his shoulder. Bikash is a member of the Maoist People's Liberation Guerilla Army. "The ground here is already ready and waiting for us. A child is about to be born and we are playing the role of the nurse who will deliver it," said Bikash. Bikash is one of 400 Maoists who apparently entered Lalgarh on June 6 for the current operation, according to police sources. Of the 400, at least 100 are armed with automatic weapons. This very group was responsible for the landmine blast on November 2 that narrowly missed the Chief Minister's convoy.

Arent guns banned in WB? Then how come Naxals have so many guns ? Can we just ask them to submit the guns so that peace can be restored. Why dont we send all anti-gun BRites and non-BRites there to appeal naxals to hand over the gun peacefully?

The mess is because

1. Commons are gunless : Even if every common had a handgun like pistol or even an ordinary rifle, the 400 Maoist with AK47 would be dead in few hours. And if every commons had gun, naxals would not have even dared to take this step.

2. People dont have expellable police chief : So police has become corrupt. So corrupt that honest people stopped joining IPS since 1990. So now we have IPS who are committed to collect bribes and NOTHING else. So lower police staff is dejected and has no motivation to fight. To that, add corrupt Ministers who have money for IIMs, IITs, highways etc but cant give AK74 to every cop.

Solutions are simple : legalize weapon ownership and enact procedures by which commons can replace Police Chief, District judges, HCjs, Govt lawyers etc.

Or just wait for more such naxal uprisings all over India.
Maoist are just criminals. They are not commons. And while you say that commons require law enforcement agency, the news report say that policemen have left the town en-masse giving ample opportunity to Maoists to rape, loot, kill, plunder, burn etc. The policemen and existing anti-gun laws were strong enough to make commons gunless. But somehow these policemen have decided to flee when Maoists showed up with guns. Why didnt policemen showed these Maoists the Arms Act and asked to to submit their guns ?

The plain fact is that anti-gun law does not stop criminals from having guns. You are only reducing the power of commons to fight against criminals and also corrupt policemen.

Maoists are now aided by missionaries. They have 10 times more weapons now than they had in past. And they have 10 times more money to recruit and pay people. It is a different ball game now. And yes, you did it and my sincere thanks for that. But pls do ask how many anti-gun people would join you. I not sure if even 5% would be willing to go to WB now to save commons from naxals. As per me, I dont see any need to go there - IMO sending guns to commons in that area will suffice. Let each common in India have gun, and scums like Latif, Naxals, Akku Yadav etc will vanish within weeks.

7)Do you remember a cretin called kasab? do you know that a gunless Lathidhari constable arrested him,world first live cretin performing live to boot.

Yes, that constable was brave and should be promoted. But policies cant be made on such exceptional cases. Why dont such Kasab's show up in Israel? Because commons have guns. And so such Kasab would be shot dead within minutes. Now thats the fact we should use to make policies.

”If you did not selectively read the news, you would have realised that the policemen have orders not to shoot at all. It is a political decision taken by the Communist Govt of WB fighting shy of having another Nandigram and totally bewildered and scared after their electoral debacle.”

More the reason why we commons should have guns and procedures to replace District Police Chief as well as CM.

We have CMs who ask policemen not to shoot at criminals and let criminals run amok. And we have IPS who accept such orders !!

Policemen can always shoot using self defense as a reason and self defense includes defending others from gun wielding criminals). Thus policemen can disobey the CM's orders - self defense overrules everything. The junior policemen did not shoot as IPS told them not to shoot I wont blame him. And IPS did not shoot because (a)CM told him not shoot (b)the IPS in charge is defunct and obeying such useless orders. The IPS is defunct. A senior officer is supposed to follow CM's orders and at the same time openly disobey defunct orders such as these. IPS and IAS have enough Constitutional protection that even God cant expel them easily. CM Budddadev is definitely at fault and should be expelled and imprisoned for giving such "no shoot" orders. But we should not let IPS in-charge of Lalgadh walk away with mere excuse like "I did not shoot and has lit candle as CM told me not to shoot". If the guy wants to be a CM's puppy, he should CPM cadre. We dont want such puppies in IPS. We should expel that IPS ASAP.

If citizens had procedure to replace District Police Chiefs, the Police Chief would have shown middle finger to CM for such "no shoot" order and started shooting Maoists. And in case Police Chief still decides to lit candle, sing raamdhun and spin charkha instead of shooting, at least commons can pull out their own guns and kill these Maoist criminals. A few commons would die, but better than waiting for CM, IPS etc to show up.
Thanks to CIA, MNCs and Christianists, Maoists now have AK47. Now pls explain us how keeping commons unarmed will help us, given that Maoists already have 100s of AK47.
Today, commons are helpless despite numbers as Maoists have AK47. But once 1000 commons have even a decent 0.22, a Maoist will not dare to show his AK. Also, with gun, a person can kill at most 1-10 before he is shot back.
I just came across a number in newspaper -- except policemen and ex-servicemen, only 70000 people in Gujarat have weapons !! IOW, out of 3.7 crore adults, say some 200,000 will be policemen, soldiers, ex-policemen and ex-soldiers who have weapons. And after that, only 70000 commons have guns. So all in all, less than 1% population has weapons. Who will benefit from this? AFAIS, the biggest benefit will be reaped Americans. When they decide to do an Afghanistan on India, the casualties will be much less. And when Americans see that only 1% Indians have guns, they will see India as a low hanging fruit and attack without thinking twice. I would hope that anti-gun people will realize that they are only helping Americans by not letting us commons bear guns.
9)In Jan-1990, how many had forecast-ed that US will attack Iraq in Aug-1991? NONE. And in 2004, how many forecasters had forecast-ed that Americans would another 500,000 Iraqis? And how many had thought in 2000 that US would killed 200,000 in Afghanistan? NONE. IOW, "most remote possibilities" are nothing but wishful thinking. US is not going to give 2 year notice before it attacks India. If and when it attacks, it would sudden backstabbing attack.

N Korea is close to Pacific and Japan. And NK has less resources than India, and Christianists see that NK is only 2-3 crores souls whereas Christianists see India as 114 crore souls. So US may spare NK, but wont spare India. US also has option of using Saud money to give huge cache of weapons to Pakistan to attack Pakistan. The US anyway wants a war to reduce recession back home. If Pakistanies see that only 1% Indians have weapons, they will have LESS deterrence. Ditto with China --- they also dont see any harm in attacking India.

The safest way to deter foreign army is to arm the commons to teeth, and give commons gun and bullet manufacturing skills. Thats what I intend to do, not depend on "Delhi door hai" wishful thinking.
In the old princely states of Rajasthan, Rajputs were permitted to bear arms, but they had a lifetime of experience in using weapons. More importantly they formed only a small proportion of the total population.

Thats why Jodhopur lost against Muslims and British. In Muslims, everyone was allowed to bear weapons and so number of islamic warriors were more than Hindu warriors even though number of muslims were less than number of Hindus. The un-weaponed Hindus could do nothing but watch the show, and then get killed if the victor decides to kill them. And in UK, back in 1800 and 1900s, almost 70% commons had guns. So soldiers came from wide population and made British army much stronger.
Somebody gave example of some American guy killing 7 chilean student. Well, you may want to post 20000 more post and flood this thread as there are some 20000 gun deaths in US. And one can make case of banning all vehicles as there are 40000 deaths due to vehicle accidents !! All this hoopla that 20000 died and so ban guns is nonsense. [b]The guns save us from criminals like Dawood, and make elitemen more democratic, less totalitarian, more welfare oriented and make them work hard to create jobs[b]. This guns save several times more lives than they take.

 Post subject: Re: Weaponisation-Quotes
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:30 pm 

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
11)Someone wrote:
The issue is this, can criminals have easy access to firearms and protective body armour and then go about their business of dealing in drugs where billions are to be made every year. So much of illigal money has caused a parallel economy, where turf wars are common and settled with violence. Unfortunately, it is easy for a criminal to get an AK-47 and then put on bullet proof vests and start using his weapons. Drug money can buy the best weapons they want. The recent killing of 4 policemen by a parolee in Oakland shows the problem. ...

The problem here is banning of drugs -- not weapons. There are superior people who want to enforce rules on us immoral commons, that we commons should not have drugs, we commons should not have commercial sex etc etc . These superior beings have managed to get anti-drugs laws passed. And so the profit margin in these area is high and so there is violence. IOW, the drug violence is ONLY due to people with superiority complex and a desire to impose morals on us otherwise immoral commons. If we commons have procedure to register YES/NO on laws passed, drugs will get de-criminalized and so drug violence will reduce to zero.

Also, criminals will ALWAYS have guns. The anti-gun people are really wasting everyone's time by citing gun violence unleashed by criminals and linking it with free-gun laws that we pro-gun people demand. Their anti-gun laws are NOT going to stop criminals from getting guns. eg Mumbai has laws against bearing guns. That did not stop Kasab and company from brining guns from Pakistan and shooting 300 people. Now in case Mumbai had liberal gun laws, anti-gun people would have run to claim that 26/11 was due to liberal gun laws !! As of banning of guns has stopped Kasab and company.
But what intellectuals do NOT tell is --- Total crime rate, when crimes like extortion, police atrocities, suppression, rape, beatings, forceful eviction by criminals etc are all taken into account --- crime rate in US is far far lower than in India. And it is lower mainly because too many commons have guns and so criminals will NOT dare to committ crimes like extortion etc which makes them known. So criminals confine to mugging, and so total crime rate in US is lower than India. Now official statitics may be other way, as criminals in India are so powerful that many commons dont even report crimes. But if anyone spends a day in slums in India, he will realize that crimes like beatings, rape, forcible sex where victim does not even dare to resist or scream, extortion in name of protection money or rent or rangdari is far far higher in India.And main reason is -- we commons do not have guns.
Next intellectuals of India have run a systematic dis-information campaign. I meet learned students with degree in MA. They do NOT even know that bearing weapon in Switerzland is LAW i.e. a male can face punishment if he does not have gun and 72 bullets at home. I am NOT cooking this number 72 -- it is swiss law. And many feminist organizations in Switzerland want this law to be applied on women as well. And the ONLY reason why Adolfbhai did not attack Switzerland despite tons of Gold Switzerland had was because every Swiss was armed to teeth. The intellectuals have created a lie that Adolf did not attack Swiss as he respected autonomy of Swiss. What an utter nonsense --- a man who had no respect for human lives and insisted on killing by millions and tens of millions respected a sovernity and autonomy? The gullible students believe this nonsense as they are kept hidden from the truth that Adolf WANTED to attack Swiss, and his generals refused as they rightly feared that casualties will too too high.

The intellectuals of India also do NOT mention that ONLY reason why US elitemen worry about well being of common Americans is because some 50% to 70% of audult males have guns. So if there is hunger in US, elitemen's palaces will be ruined within 7 days. Compare India, where number of palaces keep growing but starvation and malnutrition in bottom 40% is increasing EVERY year since 1991. Why? Because not even 1% in bottom 40% has guns. So why bother? Just rob them merrily.

The intellectuals have also given WRONG examples of Pakistan and Somalia. In Pakistan, except NWFP , only 5% to 10% own guns and rest are weaponless. So these10% are safe but they beat remaining 90% at will. So much so, that landlords in Pakistan are local judges and also run prisons. All this happens because commons are weaponless. Ditto in Somalia.

12)Pls also see page 327 and see item 1(h) in that page. Following is the link from "Collected works of Mahtma Gandhi"

Fundamental rights of the people, including :
(a) freedom of association and combination;
(b) freedom of speech and of the Press;
(h) right to keep and bear arms in accordance with
regulations and reservations made in that behalf;

IOW, Nehru, Sardar and Gandhi had demanded that "right to bear weapon" be made FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. Implicitly, this means a promise, that "we would make right to bear weapon a fundamental right" if we were to come into power !! So much for keeping promises.

13)How would not carrying gun cancel the civil war, if civil war is going to happen? And how would guns cause civil war? OTOH, people in riots die ONLY because they dont have guns and so raging mobs kill them. If they have gins, mobs will not dare to come close to them. So riot casualties will decrease if people have guns.

Swiss have been having "compulsory gun laws" for centuries. And since 1000 AD, they have law that everyone must keep swords, spears, bows and arrows. They never had civil war. So why should civil war erupt if Indians are given weapons. Are you saying that we Indians are inferior than Swiss? Is that because we have brown skins?
And if weapons was solution for crime problem then there should be no problem in US and phillipines.

Crimes like extortion and hafta vasuli are ZERO in US and main reason is guns. And crimes like mugging in US are higher ONLY in those states where people are banned from carrying guns with them (eg NY). And if guns increase crime, why are crimes in Swiss lesser than India? In Swiss about 90% civilians have guns, where in India less than 2% civilians have guns.

Gun related crimes are higher in US, but that is like saying "electricity related accidents are higher in areas which have electricity". The TOTAL crimes reduce with increase in number of guns eg criminals like Latif and Dawood do not exist in US and main reason is people have guns. Even if 5% civilians in Ahmedabad had guns, Latif would have been dead before he became a extortion don.
did you receive huge amount of donation from GUN MAFIA?

Lets say I did receive bribes from Gun Mafia.

Now can you tell us WHO is bribing you for opposing weaponization of us commons?

Because if we commons have guns, islamic terrorists wont be able to kill us Hindus/Indians like "wolves killing lambs by 100s", if we all commons have guns. Are they the ones who are bribing you to oppose weaponization of us commons? Or are Sauds bribing you for keeping us commons (85% Hindus) unarmed?
I had read one news on Israel. I will later pull the links for the same.

In one gathering, there were about 50-100 Jews. Some nutcase popped out and started shooting and shot 8 people. But within minutes, he was shot down before police, soldiers came. Because about 5-10 people in the crowd had guns. They also pulled out their guns and started shooting back, and the nut case died. No hours long drama.


In Israel, about 10% civilian population, over and above policemen, soldiers, retired policemen and retired soldiers, are entitled to keep concealed weapons with them all the time at all the places (except airports and some classified places).


The attackers, like those who attacked Akshardham temple or those who attacked Tak hotel has advantage of surprise with them. So it is obvious that they will be able to 20-100 before anyone blinks. But when citizens are armed, these scumbags will face the bullets within minutes. No 50 hour long drama which would need 100s and 1000s of soldiers to be called for rescue.

Imagine if every staff member in Taj was allowed to keep guns, and if every Indian tourist inside Taj had gun. They would have shot back and killed the terrorist scums before any policemen would need to arrive.

We are having a 50 hour drama that only makes the nation look weak and terrorist look strong.
Mumbai has very very high level of violence in slums, where 60% of mumbabi lives. It does not get reported, does not mean it does not exist.

. You say that we Indians are immature fools and irrational. May I know who gave you certificate that you two are very very rational? Yourself?

If I were to say that Modi is corrupt, you would immidiately jump and say "do you have proof". But when you make allegations 110 cr Indians that they are fools, immature, irrational, NO proofs need to be giving. Right?

The criminals have guns -- commons have none, and so criminals beat commons left, right and center. And policemen protect rich or middle class ONLY as they have some money to pay. People in slums dont have money to even get FIR filed and so get beate Ghaziabad is unsafe as people DO NOT have guns. SO mugger rightly presumes that someone who is walking by does not have a gun and so pounces on him.

If everyone had guns, the mugger would be scared to hit him, as even if 2 out of 10 were to shoot back, mugger would be dead by within 5-15 tries.
As of now, in India, you need to APPLY for gun license. And it is police commissioner's discretion whether he wants to give it or not. IOW, you need contacts with IPS or Ministers, judges, IAS, or you gotta give them huge bribes to get gun permit.

14)Syed: you want to make it USA ? where everyday some kid shoots someone at school?


Looks like you are read SAME newspaper everyday. Because shooting in schools happens hardly 2-3 times a year in US, not everyday as you project. And shootout at schools occur mainly because the shooter knows that people their dont have guns and so they cant retaliate. Why doesnt such shooting happen at places where people are allowed to keep guns?

So instead of raising FAKE hysteria against my and Ramecha's proposal of arming civilians, it will be useful if you can give some cogent arguments why you want citizens to be kept unarmed and weak.



First get some information on per-capita gun ownership in various countries --- Somalia is nowhere in top. The countries at top are Swiss, Canada, US, Israel etc. So contrary to what you imply, widespread gun ownership IMPROVE law-order, not worsen it.

Ramecha does NOT say that everyone MUST carry AK47. He says that if someone *wants to* keep AK47 with him, he should be allowed to do so.

And about your gheesi-piti and wrong argument of Ghaziabad. You say you lived in Mumbai for years. And yet you were unaware that 60% of Mumbai population lives in slums. So your knowledge about Ghaziabad is not reliable anymore.

I have friends who grew up in Ghaziabad and still live there. Straight from them, less than 5% people in Ghaziabad own guns, and this is main reason why crime rate is high. And burglary is rampant in Ghaziabad, but far far less in homes where owners have guns. In fact, one main reason he applied for license was because burglars seldom attack home with guns. The local cop is asking for Rs 100,000 of bribe. All this shows that getting gun is NOT easy as you say.

Do you have any statistics on how many people own gun in Ghaziabad?



Room rent in Taj is about Rs 10000 to Rs 20000 roughly. One can buy reasonably good gun for Rs 20000 to Rs 100,000. IOW, everyone who was staying in that hotel was capable of buying a descent gun. If they had stayed a 2 days or a week less in Taj, and used the money saved to buy a gun, many of them would have been alive. Likewise, offices in Nariman Point are Rs 20,000 sqft upwards and may be much much more. If they had bought 10% smaller offices and used money saved to buy guns, some of the would have been alive. And they could have killed terrorists creating fears in terrorists. Instead, these "bania" brains chose not buy weapons and instead throw money in luxuries like large offices, furniture etc and got slaughtered like lambs and pigs without putting any fight.

15)Sikh Gurus demanded that EVERY Sikh should bear weapons, and so did many Hindu Gods before them. But some brainwashed self certified liberals insist that "it is Govt's job" to protect us and we should only bear charkha and laptop. Using laptop, they will send email to policemen when a terrorist attack occurs and viola ... help will come within seconds.

Most commons I meet, including vegetable vendors, agree that commons should be allowed to keep guns. You will be surprised to see that commons are more likely to agree with "common sense" ideas that most intelligent people with 5 degrees in humanities oppose on 24*7 basis. So I would say --- disregard the opposition of liberals --- they are mere 4.5% of Indian population though they are mostly in top 5%. The bottom 95%agrees with weaponization of commons.
And it is because of the fact 80% Americans have guns, the ruling elite is trying to ensure that everyone American has home and bread even in depression. Compare with India --- where food consumption of bottom 50% has been decreasing by 0.5% every year for past 17 years. And rulers dont give a damn. Why ? They have no weapons.
We saw emergency in India in 1975-1977. We hear horror stories of how policemen would round up 100s of youth and beat them to death. We have heard stories where policemen raided a village and did vasectomies of 100s and 100s or males and females, many of whom were childless.

Why such things dont happen in US, Swiss. Because in a country where 80% to 90% commons guns, cops and soldiers will refuse to inflict such atrocities on commons. "Guns to commons" is the sole source of liberty, democracy and freedom of commons
Just read how Hindus got slaughtered in 1947. If they had guns, they still might have been on run, but less would have died.
Akku Yadav , Pune . The guy was slumlord of Pune slums, but every slum in India has a slum lord who is just like him. There is no reporting of crimes as the slum lord has nexuses with local policemen, local judges and local MLAs, and hafta go all the way to CM. But lack of reporting does not mean that mumbai slums dont have Akku Yadavs.
Would a person give hafta WITHOUT violence or realistic threat of violence? Why do they hafta to bhai and not to me or you? Is it because he says "please" and you/me dont?

Another crime is rape which is so omnipresent in slums --- that no one even notices. The criminals are so powerful (because they have guns, and have nexuses with policemen, judges, Ministers, CM, MLAs) that women will not even dare to file a complain.
As per the law I am proposing, a person can keep at most 3 guns. So when rich get richer, he will buy better guns and will be forced by law to sell away the cheaper guns. So it will create a huge market of CHEAP second hand but functional guns (eg mobile phones --- a Rs 3000 mobile is available in second hand market for Rs 500 in 1 year). So a Rs 10000 gun will go for Rs 1000 in second hand market, and many if not all slum dwellers will be able to own it. Even if 10% slum dwellers own guns, the dadagiri of local dada will reduce. The hafta will come down, and rapes and beatings will reduce.
Some good quotes on "guns for commons"

http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.ht ... uotes.html

No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Jefferson

James Madison, Gun quote: Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.

When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state". -- Robert A. Heinlein.


And here is the best one :

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi

The self certified liberals dont know that Mohanbhai had supported weaponization of commons !! Not because he wanted, but his disciples would have left him if he did not. So stupid is the idea of having unarmed citizenry, that every freedom fighter would have dumped him if he had supported the concept of unarmed citizenry.

. The KEY proposal is to get a law passed using which citizens can register YES/NO on proposed laws. Once this law passes, all laws, including recall, mine royalties, weaponization etc will pass within 2-3 months.
Our people read about once in 2 or 3 years gun shooting incident in US and rant about it, forgetting the fact that general crimes are far less there when compared to India. crime reporting and crime conviction rate are also high there which is what our commons don't understand when they compared statistics.
we intend to bring gun freedom VIA democratic means ONLY. We would first enact a procedure by which commons can register YES/NO on proposals, and the proposal will become law ONLY iff over 51% of commons approve. IOW, if you believe that commons will oppose gun freedom, then you dont have to worry at all --- 51% commons will NOT register YES. But if you insist that commons must not have guns even if 51% of commons want gun-freedom, then I have bigger question -- do you at all believe in democracy?

 Post subject: Re: Weaponisation-Quotes
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:34 pm 

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
16)Illegal militias like Naxals are seen ONLY in countries where guns are banned for commons. When commons have guns, such militia will get shot down by commons before the gang size increases more than 10, and so they dont dare to appear. Even in US, mafia are strong ONLY in areas where there is gun control.

Also, criminals like Dawood and all his gang members are only 0.1% of population. Despite 1:1000 ratio, criminals thrive as criminals have guns and commons have NONE. Quality of guns is lesser issue. Eg if criminal has AK47, and all 1000 commons have ordinary revolver, then also the criminal will not dare to take out his AK, because if 100 commons around him pull ordinary revolver, he can kill at most 10-20 commons, but his death is guaranteed.

In US too, mafia have better weapons. But case of open extortion (except from drugs and illegal businesses) is near zero.
Why are riots much less in weaponized societies?

Consider the incident of Gulmurg society in 2002 Ahmedabad riots where a mob of 1000 had surrounded a society of 100-200 flats and torched them killing many. If everyone in house had guns, mob would NOT have dared to come close. And if even if everyone in mob had guns, the persons in house are behind walls and the ones in mob are open, more mobsters would have died than persons in society and mob would have fled.

So guns REDUCE riots as well as create protection in riots


By disarming Indians, you are only making it easier for American soldiers to take over India once they are done with Iran. By opposing weaponization of us commons, you only taking India towards re-enslavement.


The elitemen in India are so scared of giving weapons to commons, that forget commons, even constables are NOT well armed !! India has some 12,00,000 soldiers and some 15,00,000 policemen. Most policemen have useless arms like revolver and .303. It is cool to have revolver, provided a better weapon is also there. But revolver alone is almost useless ---except for head wound it seldom causes death. And .303 is now useless even against an ordinary gangster. So if we remove the cops with these toy guns, we have less than 10,00,000 armed policemen in whole country !!!

Why? Because elitemen who are scared of giving weapons to commons also are scared of giving weapons to constables, as many constables are close to commons. All in all, their opposition to weapons has created one of the weakest police in the world. So weak --- that when 3 terrorists came in Akshardham or when 10-12 terrorist came in mumbabi, local policemen and even SRP was helpless. And commandos from Central Units had to be called. In US, the LOCAL SWAT teams would have taken care of them.
Why are riots much less in weaponized societies?

Consider the incident of Gulmurg society in 2002 Ahmedabad riots where a mob of 1000 had surrounded a society of 100-200 flats and torched them killing many. If everyone in house had guns, mob would NOT have dared to come close. And if even if everyone in mob had guns, the persons in house are behind walls and the ones in mob are open, more mobsters would have died than persons in society and mob would have fled.

So guns REDUCE riots as well as create protection in riots


By disarming Indians, you are only making it easier for American soldiers to take over India once they are done with Iran. By opposing weaponization of us commons, you only taking India towards re-enslavement.


The elitemen in India are so scared of giving weapons to commons, that forget commons, even constables are NOT well armed !! India has some 12,00,000 soldiers and some 15,00,000 policemen. Most policemen have useless arms like revolver and .303. It is cool to have revolver, provided a better weapon is also there. But revolver alone is almost useless ---except for head wound it seldom causes death. And .303 is now useless even against an ordinary gangster. So if we remove the cops with these toy guns, we have less than 10,00,000 armed policemen in whole country !!!

Why? Because elitemen who are scared of giving weapons to commons also are scared of giving weapons to constables, as many constables are close to commons. All in all, their opposition to weapons has created one of the weakest police in the world. So weak --- that when 3 terrorists came in Akshardham or when 10-12 terrorist came in mumbabi, local policemen and even SRP was helpless. And commandos from Central Units had to be called. In US, the LOCAL SWAT teams would have taken care of them.

Further, the elitemen in US are always on their toes to ensure that commons get food, house and heating. Why? Because 70% commons in US have weapons. So if they are hungry and elitemen are living in palaces, then at some point commons will resort to shooting. In India, elitemen dont give a damn to commons dieing in hunger as only 1% people except policemen, soldiers, ex-policemen, ex-soldiers have guns and none of these 1% are commons. They are all elitemen. So Indian elitemen knows that a commons cant resist even if he starves to death. And so Indian elitemen robs us commons to last pennies. This robberies would NOT have happened if all commons in India had guns.
People dont have food to eat because they dont have guns. If commons had guns, the elitemen would have focused on increasing food production and ensure that no man willing to work is hungry.

Palaces and hunger can co-exist ONLY when hungry have no guns. If the hungry people have guns, people in palaces would reduce the subsidies they take from Govt and divert it on agricultural sides.

17)you are inviting civil war in india by this proposal....did you think over this proposal properly??

I have thought over it several times. Chances of civil war are grossly exaggerated --- muslims and hindus do not have any animosity except three temple/mosque plots. And debate over this will end (in favor of Hindus) and muslims are not stupid that they will fight war for three mosques. The Hindus are smart enough that they wont extend the agenda to 3000 mosques and will end with three temples. So there is NO possibility of Hindu Muslim war.

And caste war is over --- there is NO discrimination. The castes want power in administration, courts etc. No caste is large enough to threaten other to point of extinction. So no civil war on caste issue.

What other civil war do you think might happen?


If commons in Assam had guns, the BDites would not have dared entered Asam. It is because we commons are unarmed, BDits are now over 20% or who knows over 25% of Asam. And the BDites wont give a damn about your stupid anti-gun laws. So within 10 years, Hindus in Asam will have no guns, BDites will have guns --- and we will see 1947 Redux.

So wake and smell coffee. You guys worry of internal violence. Despite such gun culture, number of gun related deaths (minus suicides) in US are below 25000 a year . And if one excludes self defense, they are below 20000. So even if 100,000 die in India a year due to internal violence, it is a bargain. Look at Iraq. Americans are killing 200,000 Iraqis a year in a country of 3cr. So if Americans capture India, Americans would kill about 1 cr a year --- almost 100 times more than what internal violence may kill.

Looks like you guys have NOT thought of consequences of unarmed citizenry. Which is why I hear so many people cursing guns.
All this hoopla that guns increase violence is pure imagination, based on a false belief that commons are 2.1 random morons who will start shooting moment they have guns. Such anti-commons thoughts are borne from superiority complex (I/we are smart , others are stupid) and nothing else.

Even though guns in US are NOT decreasing, family homicides are coming down. Family homicides are mainly becuase family laws are not straight forward, and so the mess. But if family laws are clear, well defined and speedily unforced, then family violence is low. Guns ave nothing to do with it.

Israel has highest gun ownership, and least family violence. Family violence in Switzerland, Canada etc is unheard. And in US too, it is decreasing day by day despite high gun ownership.

So fear that guns will increase family homicide is misplaced.
Drawing parallels with most countries except the US is not really convincing because very few countries are as heterogeneous as India.

US was far more hetrogenous 150 years ago than India. To the extent that US had civil war. And US Presidential candidate once made a statement - I am first a Virginian then an American. So much for homogeneity.
Today's situation is that India is much more fractious than the US. You don't have mainstream politicians in a US state advocating kicking out all people of another state. You don't have the extremely high level of division that leads to things like the Gujarat or Orissa riots. To give an example, when Indira Gandhi died there were anti-Sikh riots. When 9/11 happened, there were stray hate crimes, but no riots against Muslims.

US has politicians who were virulent against immigrants. Yet, there has never been ANY large scale violence against immigrants except some random attacks.

If citizens had guns, the without using guns, Marathies would have been able to enact laws to block emigration in low skill . Today,l since commons dont have guns, no one listens to them, and so things go out of hand. So the problem is lack of guns -- no guns.

And Sikhs died because they did not have gun and good old policemen refused to protect them. And in 1947, Hindus dies by truckload as they did NOT have any guns and policemen just looked aside. Ditto in Kolkata in 1946 Direct Action Day. Many got slaughtered because they did not have guns and the then CM Suharwardy had told policemen not to intervene.

In each example of riot, the weak die by tons ONLY because they dont have guns. If the weak have guns, the mob will NOT dare to surround their houses, as the guy in house can kill 10s of mob-men standing outside, as the guy in the house is covered and guys in mob are not covered.
Some people here suggested that if commons in MH had guns, Northian-MH riots would have started. But to begin with -- why are there lakhs and lakhs of UPites in MH, given that MH has no shortage of population (like California had once)? Because things are so messed up in North, that millions of people leave North to live in shoddy slums of Mumbai. But why are things so messed up in North? Because there are criminals there, and ONLY reason these criminals thrive is because commons dont have guns.

IOW, if commons in India had guns, the police atrocities and corruption would have been much much lower and crime of extortion would NOT have been there at all. And in such case, North too would have attracted many industries and so such a large scale migration of Northies would not have happened.

So if commons are given guns, the law-order in North would improve, and extortion will reduce and many industries will move to UP, Bihar etc. So the migration will reduce and many Northies living in Mumbabi slums may willingly go back , as they have better houses in their states.

So guns will NOT create civil war in MH --- it will in fact improve North and reduce the Marathi-Northies tension all over India.

What % of Indians have guns?

Not even 2%.

So how did you "empirically" concludes that Indians do not deserve guns?

IOW, your conclusion that Indian are not ready for guns is NOT based on observations, but merely your analysis, which is severely polluted due to anti-common pro-elite information intellectuals write on 24*7 basis. Which is why you came with this conclusion that policemen, judges should have guns, commons should NOT.

Can you tell what good things did you see in Indian judges that you trust them with so much powers and what good did you see in Indian IPS that you trust them with guns?
Your argument that the mob wont be unruly if they are aware that the commoner also posses a gun is seriously flawed. Even if both are armed there will always be violence there will always be rioting because the society in itself is not civilized. Until that changes this law cannot even be dreamt of.

The argument is : Till we are "uncivilized" cops and criminals may have guns, but commons should NOT. And if we are civilized, all may have guns.

But if we are "uncivilized" as you say, what makes you think that gunless commons will be better off against gunned criminals and cops?
18) A: Nevertheless, educated or not, Indians as a whole are not a mature enough society to deserve guns.

B: Well dude I am sick and tired of these Racist arguments.

Please cool down. A is NOT racist, but his views are because of 60-100 years of anti-common pro-elite propaganda unleashed not by Western but by Indian Indian intellectuals Which is why we see hostility towards ALL empowermen procedures.
Democracy was there in Rome (magistrates were elected there) because plebians had weapons and so Roman Emperor did not have option of using Military against Plebians. And Jury system in 950 AD (Coroner's Jury) came because Arab attacks forced European lords to weaponize commons, and with so many commons having weapons, the king had no option but to accept the participation of commons into Inquiry Commissions over Policemen. And later, King had to sign on Magra Carta as too many commons had too many weapons, and so using Army to suppress them was NOT viable. And later King was executed, which made PM more powerful than Kings, but this execution happened because King's Army saw that that suppressing commons was not feasible option. And in India too, the British had to leave ONLY because too many Indian soldiers had guns and these Indian soldiers were about rebel.


Case-1 : When Govt has no guns, commons have no commons, whole nation becomes slave (eg Tibet. No wonder why Switzerland could protect itself from Germans, French and Italians while Tibet could not protect itself from China. If every Tibetian had guns, Chinese would NOT have dared to attack Tibet.)

Case-2 : When Govt has guns, commons have no guns --- commons become slaves (eg India)

Case-3 : Democracy is possible ONLY when both Govt has guns and commons have guns. Both Govt and commons can and will use the guns against invaders and criminals as the need be. But commons' guns deter Govt from using Govt guns against commons, throw away democracy and impose oligarchy. So I am defining Democracy as regime where commons have guns and have elected/recallable officers.

Case-4 : Govt has no guns, commons have guns --- possible when Govt is destroyed by invaders. eg Russians and Americans have destroyed Afghanistan Govt since 1980s. But then, gun wielding commons are the only hopes left.

Amongst educated Indians, it has become fashion to say "commons of India are brainless irrational creatures". Be legacy of Brahminism or whatever, not all, but many educated Indians take great pride in saying that "commons in Indian dont have moral character, dont have sense, dont have national character. dont have senses etc".

I politely request ALL such people to leave this filthy land of us filthy Indians for good and never ever come back. India will be better without these people.


If a wife wants to attack husband with knife, she can always drug him to the point of unconsciousness and then kill him with knife. And such things do happen. And domestic violence is because of poor divorce laws i.e. divorce laws are NOT fast. Otherwise either side will just part the ways and violence will be minimal.


So your claims that guns will increase domestic violence is baloney.
a 92 year old gentleman Govind Prajapati called me and told me that in 1931, Congress had demanded "right to bear weapons" and he used to distribute these leaflets in 1940s in Ahmedabad streets !!!

To verify what he said, I asked many and found a book written by Pravinchandra Kanubhai Lehri retired Cabinet Secretray GoGuj on Mohanbhai. The book title is "Hind Swaraj naa Shilpi - Gandhiji". The page 96 of that book says


in 1931, under the chairmanship of Sardar Patel in Lahore Adhiveshan, Congress demanded following FOUR rights

1. right to form organizations and conduct meetings in public

2. Right to free speech

3. Right to bear weapons !!

4. Right to property


IOW, Mohanbhai, Jawaharbhai, Nehru demanded RtBW (RtWB = right to bear weapons) in 1931. And they forgot about it in Aug-1947 . After Aug-1947, Mohanbhai had 5 months to implement RtBW, Vallabhbhai had 2.5 years to implement RtBW and Jawaharbhai had full 14-15 years to implement RtBW. What did they do? Nothing. NOTHING. Bunch of liars, fakes, frauds and phonies.

(Aside : this just FYI. I dont want to to quote Lahore resolutions of 1931 to make my case as I have no respect for Mohanbhai et al anyway, and I am Subhash/Bhagat follower)
Policemen too misuse their weapons and so do some soldiers.

Shall we take away their weapons as well?
I hold one public seminar every Sunday 10-2, plus public visit office hours Sat/Sun 10-3 and attend at least 3 more public meetings every week. Trust me, commons find weapon bearing arguments acceptable after initial simple queries. I give them four arguments

1. Guns are needed to protect from regular criminals. If people had guns, Latif/Dawood could not have extorted and evicted people

2. Guns are needed to protect from terrorists. If people in Taj had guns, number of casualties may have been same, but terrorists would have been dead in 10 minutes and no NSG would have been needed.

3. Guns are needed to reduce atrocities of cops and govt. If citizens had guns in 1975 emergency rule, police atrocities would have been much lesser.

4. Guns are needed to protect India from foreigners. in 1938, there were only 80000 British with weapons in India. These 80000 British peacefully ruled over 38 cr Indians (India + Pak + BD) like kings. And some 100,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan today cant do so over 3 cr of Afghans. Why? Because every Afghan has a gun.
Without going into details, I would say we need weapons for 4 things

1. To protect us from regular criminals.,

2. To protect from jehadi attacks --- no matter how good policemen and courts are, they cant be omnipresent like God and air to come within minutes when terrorists come. We must have arms ti protect them

3. To protect ourselves from foreign invasion : armed citizenry makes country a porcupine for foreigners. The final line of defense is armed citizenry.

4. To protect us from Govt. When I first read Thomas Jefferson's quote that "armed citizenry is best guarantee against despotism" in early 1990s, I was shocked. But after some hours of thinking, I saw his point. Consider atrocities in emergency 1975-1977. If commons had guns, Sanjay Goonda, Indira Amma, IPS, IAS etc would have confined high handedness to arresting leaders and political party executives, but would NOT have dared to commit atrocities on commons. When citizenry is armed, the dictatorship still may manage to block political movements, but will not dare to beat and kill lakhs of people. So armed citizenry does make this beast of dictatorship less inhumane than what it otherwise can become.

Commons accept this arguments. It is intellectuals who come up with crazy headless comments.

Trust me, commons do like weaponization idea. The intellectuals are agents of elitemen and want to keep commons weak. So they oppose weaponization of commons.
In UP, criminals kill using guns, but if commons dont have guns, there will kill many more. And yes, we do need good police and courts. Guns are by no means are substitute for good police and good courts.

Which is why to improve police, we need procedures by which we commons can expel/replace district police chiefs and we need Jury Sys. And to improve courts, we need JurySys and procedures by which citizens can replace SCjs, HCjs etc.

But guns dont increase crimes, and so we should let citizens bear guns as demanded by Sardar in 1931

. http://www.global.ucsb.edu/punjab/journ ... sharma.pdf

Pls see page 179

Search on Lajpat rai.

In 1915, Lala Lajpat Rai supported right to bear weapons !!


Shame on people who ridicule right to bear guns. They are making mockery of Gandhi, Sardar, Lajpat Rai and Bhagat Singh.

20) UP cops shoot at polio-affected man
6 Feb 2009

KANPUR: The inhuman face of UP policemen again came to the fore when a 30-year-old polio-affected man was allegedly shot at and critically
injured by two policemen on duty under the Sikandara police station in Kanpur Dehat.

Acting swiftly, the police registered an FIR in this regard and seized the weapons of both the cops for ballistic probe. According to reports, the incident took place when one Arun Kumar Mishra of Sadhuwa village in Mangalpur police station — about 50 km from here — was on his way back home along with two friends Ajeet Singh and Shri Krishna on a two-wheeler. They had gone to get the vehicle refuelled at a nearby petrol pump.


Given that a cop has shot a police affected men, doesnt it make a fit case to take away guns from ALL the policemen?

After all, when one civilian kills shoots someone, people with 4 digit IQ make a case that EVERY civilian should be disarmed. So given that one policemen has killed, deliberately or by mistake, shouldnt we disarm all policemen?
As of now, bearing weapon needs PERMIT. Hence it is privilege and not a right. Further, bearing weapon is NOT a constitutional right as demanded in 1931 resolution. care to explain why Jawaharbhai and Vallabhbhai defaulted on this promise?
Jawaharbhai and Vallabhaibhai must have changed their ideas after witnessing the partition riots.

Have they written that anywhere? Have they explained why they are canceling their promises? It is possible that they did not let citizens bear arms because they knew that armed citizenry cannot be controlled in the despotic ways they wanted.

And can you explained why eminent historians, be secular or hinduvadi, dont publicize this fact that Nehru, Gandhi and Patel had demand right to bear weapons in 1931 and they did not keep this promise in 1947?
Consider year 700 AD. The islamists invaders were ripping Indians apart. Millions were being killed, raped, looted and enslaved. Why did Indians back then lost? Because only 1% Indians were allowed to bear weapons and rest were weaponless. The elitemen back then had made rules that any common who bears weapons will be punished.

There was a simple solution to this mess - weaponize commons. But if commons were weaponized the elitemen would not have been able to rob commons with efficiency. So they continued with the myth that commons should be kept weaponless for "larger interests". What if Indian becomes slaves due to weaponless commons? They couldn't care less.

 Post subject: Re: Weaponisation-Quotes
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:17 pm 

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
Please show me some figures where it says that Gun controls reduces crimes.

If Gun control really reduced crime what were the authors of these books smoking when they wrote them:

The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... iaforpubl/

More Guns, Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... riaforpubl

A Nation of Cowards
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... riaforpubl

Targeting Guns : Firearms and Their Control
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN= ... riaforpubl

Stopping Power : Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... riaforpubl

Armed and Considered Dangerous : A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... riaforpubl
I would suggest you to read at least "More Guns Less Crime", its has a very interesting story about its author.

John R Lott was a Liberal who decided to write a book with extensive study about how More Guns cause more Crime.

But after years of extensive research he was forced to conclude that More concealed carry permits result in less crime.

It is the most comprehensive and conclusive research to date on the specific topic of the effects of Concealed Carry laws on violent crime and firearms accide Ben Franklin who wrote American Declaration of Independence had to say this:

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Right,and when a communal flare up happens everyone should start shooting each other.

The communal flare we saw in Ahmedabad in year 2002 was NOT due to Godhara arson, but because criminals like Latif and his gangmen had harassed 10000s of Hindus for 10-15 years.

The gangmen could do so as they were sponsored by Guj HCjs, CM, MLAs, IPS and IAS, and commons did not have weapons to kill the gangmen.

If commons had weapons, there would have been NO Latif, and no mass terrorization, and no hatred against Muslims in Hindus.
The mass scale extortion like you see in Bihar is unheard in US since ages. And most part of Europe has never seen such except during wars, where sometimes law-order breaks down and gangs spring up.
With guns in every hand there may not another latif in ahmedabad but there will certainly be incentive for thousands of people to take the easy route to earning money, by using there firearms.

Wrong. When everyone has gun a CAREER criminal will not even dare attack a paan-waalaa, as there is a possibility of 1% that paan-waalaa may shoot back. For a career criminal to be in business, he needs to extort 10-100 people every year, and even 1% possibility that victim may shoot back will ensure death of say 5% of such career criminals within year. And this will be enuf to deter the rest.

Latifbhai due to his support from HCjs etc must have forced some 100,000 Hindus in Ahmedabad to evict. If commons had guns in Ahmedabad, he would have been dead before count crossed 100.

In gunless society, the criminal (who has gun anyway) can peacefully assume that victim is gunless and so can rob him at peace. And all he needs to do is to share his loot with IPS, judges, neta etc and then keep the rest. Thats why in gunless society you see more organized loot.

(In gunned society the organized crime may exist, but stay away from looting people like commons, shop-keepers etc and confine to drugs, gambling etc)

Even today there exists a procedure by which an individual can be licensed use of a firearm and ammunition upon showing a reasonable threat.

You need to bribe IPS to get a gun these days.

1. In fact [weaponizing commons] will raise crime levels to an unprecedented levels never before seen in our country.

2. People with superior weapons will clearly dominate those with inferior weapons, many poor who do not have the money to eat properly cannot buy weapons are will be sitting ducks in front of those whom they disagree with.

Poor will get second hand superior weapons. Just as sweeper has mobile today --- he gets a second hand mobile.

And even an inferior gun can kill. And a criminal knows that, and so he will stay away whether gun is superior or inferior.
The countries which promote and allow guns have low organized crimes at lower/middle level. (At high level, it is not guns, but their connections with senators, judges etc that create the difference. )

Can you name me even one western countries, all of which are far far liberal with guns than India, Pakistan etc, which has mafia problem at lower-middle level? There is NONE.


So there is a good correlation with gun ownership and reduction in organized violence. The statistics ends here, as statistics can only demonstrate correlation, not causality.


Secondly what is your answer to my question that many poor will not even be able to afford a weapon, even if you allow everyone to carry one.

Your claim that poor cant afford weapons is baseless. In slums, you do see TV, VCR and even refrigerators these days. And surely poor can buy second hand guns which someone will dispose at throw away price. So when guns are allowed, rich will have good guns and poor will have not-so-good guns. But all will have guns.

Whereas in law you propose, only rich and criminals will have good guns, and poor will have none. Surely, a poor man is better with bad gun rather than no gun at all.
22)In US, due to gun ownership the criminals dont stay a minute after mugging and so crimes are extortion are not viable

Why doesn't gun ownership prevent mugging?
Guns do reduce mugging.

But many people dont keep guns.

Mugging increased AFTER gun control became strict.


And many shop-keepers would rather want mugger take away some $50 to $100 and go away than shoot him, face some risk of getting shot and face inquiry.

The shop keepers have camera, and so they know that chances that mugger will get caught are high anyway. So why take the risk?

Portraying Indians as morons = Racist behaviour(Prashant-Orkut IP)
Is there a way I can express a negative opinion about a group of people without sounding "racist"?

It depends upon your definition of people.

If the group of people you are talking about belong to that group just by the mere virtue of being born like that or the thing you are talking about is a fact and not a subjective opinion then you can say that.

For example if you say, "Cons are vicious people", that's ok, because Convicts belong to the group of Convicts by acting something.

If you say "Reliance Industries Managers" are really aggressive in business practices. That's also allowed because again people choose to belong to Reliance Group and they choose to act aggressive.

But if you say 'Chinese are sneaky people", that's racist, because nobody can choose to be or not be Chinese.
Secondly, being sneaky is a subjective opinion which you hold, and is not a fact.

If you say "Mongoloid people have slanted eyes", that's not racist, because its a fact.

But when you say Indians are emotional people, they cannot be trusted with Guns, and other stuff like that, you are being racist because you are implicating everyone as emotional, immature and irresponsible just because they are born Indian.

Plus its totally your subjective opinion that they are emotional people.

Lemme elaborate your racism. When you say "Indians are not that educated, are very emotional, and cannot be trusted with guns like Americans and Swiss do", it can be correlated with what you say is that if you were made the Mayor of a City with Half of the people are Indians, and other half of the people are Americans, then you would allow Americans to carry guns, but not to Indians.
say in a city with 100,000 Indians and 100,000 whites, if one lets whites have guns and deny guns to Indians, then within weeks whites will enslave Indians.

Now consider the world as global village. The whites have huge number of guns (and weapons far more advances then guns). Now if we Indians dont have guns, the village shrinks in size (due to improvement in transportation), the whites will enslave us. An example is Iraq.

As of now, US can within days finish our air force , navy and large weapons like tanks. After that only deterrents against them will be individuals with guns. And if there are no guns, they there is no stopping them. So unless we give guns to ALL commons, we are heading back towards 1757 or Iraqification of India.
Why do all the Dictators and totalitarian governments support Gun Control?

Hitler killed 6 million of the Jews after he initiated a Gun Control.

Well if you don't have guns with you, will you throw bagels at us when we come to kill you?

We just seem to have infinite belief in Democracy, but we will never hold a referendum in Kashmir.

Japan did not invade mainland America because they thought everyone in America had guns.

Hitler conquered whole of Europe except Switzerland, because Swiss are very heavily armed.

The only reason why you think the most disgraceful category of Indian society must have weapons(The Govt) but not the commoners is because you have been brainwashed into submission.

You hate the govt, but the moment we talk about removing the govt or giving REAL power to the people you have some sort of Mental block there.

Switzerland-Porcupine (Orkut IP)
The sale of ammunition — including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles — is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there. Indeed, while the sale of all ammunition is registered at the dealer if purchased at a private store, ammunition purchased at a shooting range is not.

No wonder why Switzerland is independent despite being so small. Hitler had called it "porcupine", though insulting word but shows the strength.

Politicians do not trust Constables

I support giving AK to all constables.


Btw, Britishers did NOT give good weapons to policemen as they did not trust policemen well. And Indian CPM, BJP, COngress politicians also consider constables as "one of them i.e. commons" and so dont trust them much.
Recently, some 4-5 policemen in AP murdered 3 young men (criminals) in cold blood. I wonder why those who opposed weaponization of commons dont call for taking away guns of ALL policemen. When policemen misuse guns, it is cool for them. And by chance a common misuse guns, they demand de-weaponization of all us commons.

Best things about standards is that there are so many to choose from.

 Post subject: Re: Weaponisation-Quotes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:17 pm 

Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 2:49 pm
Posts: 596
Questions and answers on FB regarding Weaponisation-

http://www.facebook.com/groups/rrgindia ... omments=77

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group