Let us have a free and frank discussion on the subject, keeping in mind the holistic view of the Indian nation and the different type of citizens.
In this statement, when you use the term, "different type of citizens," I question what you have in mind. There are people of different religions, people of different political views, people of different language, people of different ethnic background, people with different shades of skin color, and many other kinds of divisions in the population that you could define for us here, but which you have not specified. Frankly, I wonder if you are trying to hint at something. But since you have asked for "a free and frank discussion," why have you not seen it fit to be frank enough and define the "different type of citizens" your statement has in mind?
Now, for sure, one can divide up the citizenry of the country into all sorts of categories. However, before the law, what we are talking about here are RIGHTS. Rights include things like the right to assemble, the right to express one's self, the right to exercise one's religious beliefs, and also, what we are concerned about here at IFG, The Right To Keep And Bear Arms.
Speaking frankly and hoping for a frank response from you, do you envision a nation with one class of citizens who enjoy all of the rights promised by the Constitution, or do you propose a nation where different classes of citizens are entitled to certain rights, and if this latter is the case, on what basis do you propose separating the citizens into these classes before the law?
Rising affluence in the middle class and above is creating a stronger urge among the lower classes to get 'a piece of the action' without scruples attached.
Do you assert that there is an innate property present in "lower classes" (which you have, for some reason, neglected to define in your request for a free and frank discussion) to rise above their circumstances with fewer scruples than "higher classes"? Perhaps, in the course of your explanation of this point, you could help me to understand your plan by explaining the class motivations (along with definitions of the "Classes" you are discussing) that you associate with the word "Bofors."
My thinking, is that firearms license MUST be issued to ONLY those who stand to LOOSE everything they have striven for all their natural life, Personal liberty and freedom being the uppermost.
hvj1, do you assert that "lower classes" have less interest in their freedom, personal liberty, and what they have striven for in all of their natural lives, or that they hold these values less dearly than "upper classes"?
Also, how are you defining "class" in the way you use it in your statement? Upon what bases are classes divided from others? Are you, then, proposing different degrees or levels of citizenship, where each level enjoys certain rights recognized by the state that are distinct between classes? I would like to see how these classes are delineated and what rights each enjoys in your proposed plan.
Slowly but gradually, as this discussion matures, an underlying school of thought will emerge, which may not be too palatable to the socialist mindset.
My understanding is that a "socialist" is a person who subscribes to the economic theory of socialism. I am failing to understand what unique properties a socialist would posses that would affect their views of The Right To Keep And Bear Arms, or are you proposing that "socialists" (however you are intending this term to be interpreted -- your definition here might help to promote the "free and frank discussion" you have requested) comprise one of those classes that should enjoy a different set of rights from other citizens in your proposed plan?
I am all for a free and frank discussion on The Right To Keep And Bear Arms, for that's what IFG is all about. However, since you are the one requesting this discussion, I believe it is incumbent on you to initiate frankness along with your request for a discussion and in your use of terms in your statements.