Interesting viewpoint on gun ownership

[Mark]

Posted as a comment on another forum, I think it is a valid point:


The "anti-gun" nuts are every bit as pro-gun as the "pro-gun" nuts. The real difference is that they somehow have convinced themselves that "gun control" involves putting all the guns in the hands of the government, ironically one entity that has slowly and inexorably legislated and adjudicated itself to be legally beyond control.

[bennedose]

Technically every government that is in control of the situation allow themselves calibers that no one else is allowed to have. For example - I don't think any government legally allows people to own weapons in excess of 12.7 mm/0.5 inch. Governments allow themselves the liberty to own 120 and 155 mm weapons and rocket launchers. But many states in which the government has little control over the population - the latter have acquired heavy firearms that include rocket launchers. Somalia, Pakistan and Iraq come to mind.

Even in the US I think pro-gun "nuts" have de facto accepted that private ownership of 23 mm cannon or higher is not an urgent need for private ownership but governments are allowed to own them. Ultimately the theory of government states that the government should always retain coercive power over the population. This remains fundamentally correct for all countries with a stable government.

[timmy]

I think that the idea here is reverse of this. Rather than the government having "coercive power" over the people, the people are supposed to have a consenting power over the government. The basic idea, as I understand it, is the one of accountability, where nobody has the ability to exercise unfettered and unaccountable power over anything without checks and balances.

It can sometimes seem as if we are a long way from that.

[brihacharan]

I think that the idea here is reverse of this. Rather than the government having "coercive power" over the people, the people are supposed to have a consenting power over the government. The basic idea, as I understand it, is the one of accountability, where nobody has the ability to exercise unfettered and unaccountable power over anything without checks and balances.
It can sometimes seem as if we are a long way from that.

Just a thought....
Has any government lawmaker (pertaining to arms) ever been in the NCC or served in the Territorial Army, Home Guards or even been a lover of the outdoors?
I wonder
Countries that have compulsory conscription for every citizen over the age of 18 (this includes those who later assume government positions, as lawmakers etc) know what it is to own an Arm / Gun....
Unfortunately countries that don't have this legislation have academicians or dropouts who turn into 'pen-pushers' & later through default become lawmakers....
Briha

[bennedose]

I think that the idea here is reverse of this. Rather than the government having "coercive power" over the people, the people are supposed to have a consenting power over the government. The basic idea, as I understand it, is the one of accountability, where nobody has the ability to exercise unfettered and unaccountable power over anything without checks and balances.

This covers two separate areas - one being the right to bear arms and the other being a question of effective, constitutionally guided democratic government.

If we leave out the right to bear arms from the discussion, effective democratic government technically has the checks and balances that give people consenting power over government. Even so - the "consenting power over government" that people ostensibly enjoy are dependent on the loyalty or otherwise of the armed forces - which are the legal bearers of arms in every national set up. If the armed foces choose to govern or go along with the government in coercing the people, the system has failed. As long as the armed forces remain loyal to the constitution, they will not interfere with the people's consenting power over government even though they retain the coercive power to do that.

In a country where everyone enjoys the right to own firearms, it would be mandatory for them to be as disciplined and loyal to the constitution of the country as the armed forces, by restricting the use of those firearms to self defence, not using arms for illegal or unconstitutional purposes. What checks and balances can be put in place to ensure that people who own weapons will use them purely for self defence and not for an unconstitutional revolution? For example, I don't think the US is full of patriots. There must be some people who would use weapons for unconstitutional purposes. What methods exist to discourage or curtail this? I am not speaking merely of illegal use of firearms as in armed robbery. I refer to the organization of political groups with arms who seek to impose unconstitutional laws or even secede in some areas. How does the US deal with this?

[brihacharan]

I am not speaking merely of illegal use of firearms as in armed robbery. I refer to the organization of political groups with arms who seek to impose unconstitutional laws or even secede in some areas. How does the US deal with this?

> Very interesting query bennedose!
> Perhaps fellow IFGians residing in the US could throw some light on this....
> We are listening....
Briha

[brihacharan]

> Here's what a bit of searching revealed on "Viewpoints" on Gun Ownership across the world....

Quotes on the Right to Bear Arms

Don't think of it as `gun control', think of it as `victim disarmament'. If we make enough laws, we can all be criminals. The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed.
Jeff Snyder

As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people.
Jeff Snyder

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison - The Federalist Papers

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
Mohandas Gandhi, An Autobiography, pg. 446

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."
Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court US - Justice Joseph Story, 1840

"The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being..."
J.G.A. Pocock describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S.

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.
From the US Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
US President - Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.

"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater."
Peter Venetoklis

Briha

[bennedose]

Unfortunately I find that a lot of America inspired arguments for gun ownership sound very bad under Indian conditions - and actually make more liberal gun laws in India less likely. I believe that we in India have to find better and more India inspired reasons to argue the case for liberal gun ownership. Some of the US gun lobby arguments I hear make me cringe because they would be self goals and it is because the US already has liberal laws the environment is easlier for rhetoric of that type to be used against stricter gun laws in the US.

American arguments should not be copy pasted as Indian arguments because they can be made to fail on so many counts by the anti-gun lobby which is already powerful in India and will not allow as valid some of the arguments that are made. With a powerful gun lobby in the US it is far easier to say things which are marginally stupid sounding and still have no one arguing back - because the issues in the US are diametrically opposite to what we face here in India. Anything less than a very powerful argument for gun ownership will simply get rejected out of hand in India.

In India there already is goonda raj both by the governemnt (such as some state police forces) and by influential political/business heavyweights. Telling such people that ordinary Indians need guns for self defence is like informing them that their monopoly on guns should end and then begging them to end their own source of power. Such arguments sound hollow and laughable under Indian conditions.

There may be many ways to get the attention of the authorities in India. But there has to be cooperation among law abiding gun owners and other law abiding people who desire weapons in India. One method is to organise an en masse application for weapon licenses after undergoing adequate gun training in a recognized body. The other is to try and encourage "camps" to teach over-14 boys and girls how to hold and use a weapon as well as some practice with air rifles. I don't know the legal implications of this though. In India "self defence" is an excuse that rich diamond merchants can get away with to get a licence - not the average citizen who is considered as not facing much of a threat.

Until India can have a unique Indian gun lobby of its own with good Indian reasons to allow more liberal gun ownership, I can see no hope for change.

[brihacharan]

bennedose wrote:
I am not speaking merely of illegal use of firearms as in armed robbery. I refer to the organization of political groups with arms who seek to impose unconstitutional laws or even secede in some areas.
How does the US deal with this?

American arguments should not be copy pasted as Indian arguments because they can be made to fail on so many counts by the anti-gun lobby which is already powerful in India and will not allow as valid some of the arguments that are made.

Hi bennedose,
> My response was merely to illustrate how the US govt. dealt with the situation...(a probable answer to your query)
> No more - No less
> We are suffering from a legacy that was thrust upon us (read Mahatma Gandhi's quote) which served well for them who imposed this on us - which to say the least is like a 'millstone' around our necks even today
Briha

[timmy]

I think that the idea here is reverse of this. Rather than the government having "coercive power" over the people, the people are supposed to have a consenting power over the government. The basic idea, as I understand it, is the one of accountability, where nobody has the ability to exercise unfettered and unaccountable power over anything without checks and balances.

This covers two separate areas - one being the right to bear arms and the other being a question of effective, constitutionally guided democratic government.

If we leave out the right to bear arms from the discussion, effective democratic government technically has the checks and balances that give people consenting power over government. Even so - the "consenting power over government" that people ostensibly enjoy are dependent on the loyalty or otherwise of the armed forces - which are the legal bearers of arms in every national set up. If the armed foces choose to govern or go along with the government in coercing the people, the system has failed. As long as the armed forces remain loyal to the constitution, they will not interfere with the people's consenting power over government even though they retain the coercive power to do that.

In a country where everyone enjoys the right to own firearms, it would be mandatory for them to be as disciplined and loyal to the constitution of the country as the armed forces, by restricting the use of those firearms to self defence, not using arms for illegal or unconstitutional purposes. What checks and balances can be put in place to ensure that people who own weapons will use them purely for self defence and not for an unconstitutional revolution? For example, I don't think the US is full of patriots. There must be some people who would use weapons for unconstitutional purposes. What methods exist to discourage or curtail this? I am not speaking merely of illegal use of firearms as in armed robbery. I refer to the organization of political groups with arms who seek to impose unconstitutional laws or even secede in some areas. How does the US deal with this?

Two points to this: First of all, there are laws against attempting an armed revolution against the nation's government -- not only laws against doing it, but laws against conspiring to do it.

Secondly, I feel the question assumes that guns alone are the "seed" -- either the motivating factor or strong encourager -- of the hypothetical governmental defiance/takeover. Such an act by a group of people (I only consider a group, since such acts by an individual or small group are easily dealt with by law enforcement) is dependent on the exercise of other rights, like free speech and the freedom to assemble. Perhaps, or perhaps not, freedom of religion may be involved. But these other rights are actually more important, in that they must predicate the use of guns in the movement you are hypothesizing. Indeed, guns may not even be necessary, as the example of Mahatma Gandhi shows -- it too was met with the force of law by the governing authorities as a danger -- even a severe danger -- to their authority, yet this movement didn't use guns. If guns would have been used, they would have been secondary to the ones that were used by Gandhi and his associates.

Therefore, I reply by stating that the security of the government has at least as much to do (if not more) with the regulation of other rights than it does with RKBA. How does the government deal with them? For instance, in the USA, it is not only illegal to attack certain elected officials, it is even illegal to speak of it, and there are, at times, newspaper articles dealing with someone who law enforcement has scooped up for making a stupid, brash statement in a tavern.

The thought and the act are the major issues to this sort of thing. The tools (guns) are only one of many accessories to enable such an act.

[timmy]

As I need to run now, I'll need to wait until tonight before I can reply more fully to the topic -- thanks for your patience.

[timmy]

Unfortunately I find that a lot of America inspired arguments for gun ownership sound very bad under Indian conditions - and actually make more liberal gun laws in India less likely. I believe that we in India have to find better and more India inspired reasons to argue the case for liberal gun ownership. Some of the US gun lobby arguments I hear make me cringe because they would be self goals and it is because the US already has liberal laws the environment is easlier for rhetoric of that type to be used against stricter gun laws in the US.

I think that there is a lot to what you say here. The gun-antigun discussion in the USA is very polarized, because the situation is one where anti-gun forces have clearly identified their goals as being a total ban on gun ownership. While the RKBA response in the USA has not always been logical, it must be remembered that it is a response to a very radical program.

India has a very different situation, where a subset of reasonable and consistently applied access to some guns is sought. As you note, because of this situation, some of the arguments that apply to the USA don't apply to India.

American arguments should not be copy pasted as Indian arguments because they can be made to fail on so many counts by the anti-gun lobby which is already powerful in India and will not allow as valid some of the arguments that are made. With a powerful gun lobby in the US it is far easier to say things which are marginally stupid sounding and still have no one arguing back - because the issues in the US are diametrically opposite to what we face here in India. Anything less than a very powerful argument for gun ownership will simply get rejected out of hand in India.

Yes, what you point out here is also true. For instance, we had some jokers who marched with open carry into a restaurant in Texas recently. Such stupid behavior is pretty much too much, even for a family restaurant in Texas, much less anywhere else (I can't imagine it in New Jersey; they would have SWAT teams here pronto!). So your point here is true, as well, I think.

In India there already is goonda raj both by the governemnt (such as some state police forces) and by influential political/business heavyweights. Telling such people that ordinary Indians need guns for self defence is like informing them that their monopoly on guns should end and then begging them to end their own source of power. Such arguments sound hollow and laughable under Indian conditions.

There may be many ways to get the attention of the authorities in India. But there has to be cooperation among law abiding gun owners and other law abiding people who desire weapons in India. One method is to organise an en masse application for weapon licenses after undergoing adequate gun training in a recognized body. The other is to try and encourage "camps" to teach over-14 boys and girls how to hold and use a weapon as well as some practice with air rifles. I don't know the legal implications of this though. In India "self defence" is an excuse that rich diamond merchants can get away with to get a licence - not the average citizen who is considered as not facing much of a threat.

Until India can have a unique Indian gun lobby of its own with good Indian reasons to allow more liberal gun ownership, I can see no hope for change.

I talk a lot with a friend at work; this fellow's family had to move from what's now Bangladesh to what's now India during the days of the Partition. He is strongly anti-gun, but gradually, I have been able to discuss the subject of RKBA with him. He is quite ready to identify the issues of corruption and special treatment for special born in India, so that part of the issue you identify is something he would echo. One point that he has often made to me (and not just with respect to guns) is that the Indian folks I come into contact with in the USA are not representative of the populace of India.

Keeping this viewpoint in mind (which, I think, has a lot of truth), I would note that when I have brought up guns to Indian folks that I know here in the USA, I got, with one exception, a very strong negative response. The exception was one person who was, at first, very hesitant, but who became interested when I showed him my RFI 2A. This person is hardly representative, either, as he is now a physician.

I do think that your approach in India requires a "hearts and minds" approach. I believe that each gun owner and gun aficionado, including those on this board, have to demonstrate a reasonableness that will give their next door neighbor no cause to object to their gun ownership. in other words, everyone who gives their neighbor an uneasy feeling -- who makes their neighbor feel unsafe living next door, because of words or actions -- is doing a great disservice to RKBA in India.

I believe that, until Indian women are brought on board with RKBA -- until women see gun ownership as a people issue and activity, rather than a man's activity, very little will happen. Women must feel comfortable in the gun community.

Regarding what we call the "American" methods, ideas, and arguments, one does stand out in my mind, and that is one of equal rights -- of the rights of a law abiding citizen to have equal access to gun rights before the law. I believe that such an approach helps to transcend political party, communal, and other barriers in the eyes of most. At the least, it does give a sound basis for moral and rational logic.

Within all of this, I'm sure that there will be disagreements in the levels of implementation. This, rather than being the external face to RKBA in India, is going to be an internal matter. If there is factionalism and bickering among the exponents of RKBA, the chance for success will also be extremely remote.

These are the responses I would make to your comments, Bennedose.

[brihacharan]

Timmy wrote:
I do think that your approach in India requires a "hearts and minds" approach. I believe that each gun owner and gun aficionado, including those on this board, have to demonstrate a reasonableness that will give their next door neighbor no cause to object to their gun ownership. in other words, everyone who gives their neighbor an uneasy feeling -- who makes their neighbor feel unsafe living next door, because of words or actions -- is doing a great disservice to RKBA in India.

> Well summarized!!!
Briha

[bennedose]

The idea that more women should be brought into both IFG and into the shooting arena in India is a good one. At KSRA I am pleased to find a significant number of women/girls. Apart from that - I have found a number of women/girls/young mothers open to the idea of shooting as a sport. I wonder if I could personally do domething to foster interest in shooting.

At a pinch I could actually set up a training camp - during summer holidays for over-14s or over 16s to be taught some basics and to play around with an air rifle. I can think of ways in which it could be done including a consent letter countersigned by parents of under-18s informing them that hunting is illegal and that the training is for gun handling and target shooting alone. But I need to check the legality.

[brihacharan]

At a pinch I could actually set up a training camp - during summer holidays for over-14s or over 16s to be taught some basics and to play around with an air rifle. I can think of ways in which it could be done including a consent letter countersigned by parents of under-18s informing them that hunting is illegal and that the training is for gun handling and target shooting alone. But I need to check the legality.

> A very noble thought bennedose
> If you pursue it it can happen....
> Good Luck
Briha