• Advertisement
Kiehberg.in -  Outdoor gear and sports equipment

Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Discussions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
User avatar
timmy
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:03 am
Location: I'm a Nuevo Mexicano

Re: Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Postby timmy » Mon May 16, 2011 11:19 pm

hvj1 -- a few questions/observations related to your statements:

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.


Regards,
tim

For Advertising mail webmaster
hvj1
Eminent IFG'an
Eminent IFG'an
Posts: 1359
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:05 am
Location: Satara

Re: Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Postby hvj1 » Mon May 16, 2011 11:25 pm

captrakshitsharma wrote:So if u r a paan waala and not a renowned shot then you don ot have the right to self defense ??

If I am a paanwallah and not a renowned shot, I certainly have the same right to self defense as you have, since I a have no hopes of getting a firearms license my choice of implements may be anything which could ward of the threat.

-- Tue May 17, 2011 12:37 am --

Hello Vikram

The first and foremost use of a firearm is self-protection.Then come sport and where legal hunting.


:agree:

How do you come to the conclusion that my life is not in danger?Especially given the socio-economic-political assessment of our present society given by you?

How do you get a medal or two without access to expensive shooting equipment and ammunition?How do you familiarise yourself with a gun in the first place without one?How many people can have access to a club where there is none?

Please do not get me wrong,good sir, but do you represent the common man? I mean in terms of your access to shooting facilities and access to guns early in your life?


How do you come to the conclusion that my life is not in danger?Especially given the socio-economic-political assessment of our present society given by you?


I am afraid I have not been able to understand you regarding this point.

How do you get a medal or two without access to expensive shooting equipment and ammunition?How do you familiarise yourself with a gun in the first place without one?How many people can have access to a club where there is none?

Please do not get me wrong,good sir, but do you represent the common man? I mean in terms of your access to shooting facilities and access to guns early in your life?



In my opinion a common man is no longer a commoner if he/she has developed ‘uncommon’ abilities in his/her field of choosing.
Though I may have had access to weapons at an early age, that did not qualify me in anyway in getting my own firearm license. I had to migrate to Bombay to acquire higher learning and to make both ends meet like almost any other common man. But there the commonality ends. There was a shooting range, I enrolled and worked and toiled for years, even then I could not hope to own an air pistol leave alone a competition firearm.
But I put in uncommon effort just like scores of others did before me and are still doing today. Eventually it helped me in getting my license.

-- Tue May 17, 2011 1:20 am --

Hello Timmy and other esteemed IFGians,

The point I am trying to make is this;

1. We talk about rights, specifically gun rights, it is even quite clearly spelt out in the Arms Act. YET, yet , the only people who do get an arms license are the Politicians, their cahoots, affluent and the influential who get their licenses without too much difficulty and yes of course there are the sports shooters.

So what does this mean, is this then NOT a different TYPE or CLASS of citizens. And pray, who is responsible for this?

2. The criminals are in a class of their own, they DONT require licences.

3. Then there is a class/type of citizens who are just not interested in owning firearms.

4. This then probably leaves a minority class/type of citizens who would dearly love to own a firearm and use it. The only avenue left open is through sports category, since even self defense or threats to one's life is difficult to prove.

The bottom line is that only the elite, the sports category shooter who can acquire a license. The criminals can acquire a weapon anytime.



User avatar
nagarifle
Posts: 3374
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: The Land of the Nagas

Re: Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Postby nagarifle » Tue May 17, 2011 5:42 am

as for type and class of Citizens? lets explore that a little, we have the type who are connected and get arms licence, we have the type who pay a bribe and get an arms licence, we have class of citizens who are never under any threat of any kind according to LA this class is the vast majority of the population.

we also have the backward tribes, the untouchables, the middle class.

and the ruling class who are provided armed guards and they can and will get a arms licence of any kind just because they are the ruling class. for example. http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13602 "former governor S.C. Jamir was granted an arms licence for his single barrel muzzle loading (SBML) gun which the former chief minister of Nagaland intends to use for self-protection."

why would a 70+ year old man who has a company of state security guards need to have a firearm for protection?

it would aper that in India there is a law which relates to every type and class of people, unlike the USA,UK ETC, we have the HINDU law, the Christan law and so on,

there is a great division in India,


Nagarifle

if you say it can not be done, then you are right, for you, it can not be done.

cottage cheese
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Shillong-Dimapur

Re: Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Postby cottage cheese » Tue May 17, 2011 6:08 pm

India never stopped being feudal....that about sums it all up.


He who can not think, is a fool; he who will not, a bigot; he who dare not - a slave!

User avatar
Safarigent
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:52 pm
Location: Delhi

Re: Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Postby Safarigent » Tue May 17, 2011 7:29 pm

prevention is better than crime.
that seems to be the overarching aim of the indian filewallahs when it comes to firearm violations.
any man or woman with good antecedents or not with a licensed weapon or not can commit a crime if the right buttons are pushed.
why come people do and some people dont is a very thin line which is not very obvious even to us or to those who are entrusted to look after us.
if i have to kill someone, a fire arms would be the least desirable weapon of choice and the lack of one the least debilitating factor.
although i agree that if one has ever been found guilty under criminal law or is an undertrial under criminal law, his/her license if already issued should be revoked/impounded and if the same person applies for a license in the future, the process should be very very stringent, perhaps involving the home ministry.
somewhere down the line, the government will have to realize that better policing not draconian licensing is what is required in this country.
i personally feel that a firearm handling competency certificate, a medical certificate from any GP is all that should be required.
the verification, with all that it involves should be done by the police in a timely manner and the officer responsible should be penalized if that is not the case.
thats all that obtaining a license should entail.
after that if you want to take up a shooting sport, join a club and start shooting, work your way up and get more ammo quota and import permits.
daku mangal singh cant plunder a village if every man there can put a barrel out his window and tell messrs singh & co to get a move on.


To Excellence through Diligence.

User avatar
xl_target
Posts: 3439
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:47 am
Location: USA

Re: Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Postby xl_target » Tue May 17, 2011 11:33 pm

I think Jonah is quite correct. The question should be "who should not be allowed to own a firearm".
The constitution implies that everyone is equal. The Pann-Wallah should not be "less equal" than a member of Parliament.
The thinking that relegates a 'mere Paan-Wallah' to lesser status is contrary to the tenets of the Indian Constitution as it was set up.
This is the thinking that the powers that be use against you, a mere citizen, when they deny you equality with themselves.

Some countries prevent firearm ownership by a certain class of convicted criminals, usually those who have been convicted of violent crimes. For non-violent crimes, should we or shouldn't we consider those who have served their time to have paid their debt to society? Since there is no way to predict what anyone will do in the future (with a one hundred percent certainty), every citizen of India not convicted of a violent crime should be allowed the tools to protect themselves and their families.

Rather than you having to prove to the police that you are a safe risk, they should have to prove that you are not. Otherwise we are no better than Hitler's Germany where a mere accusation by anyone could be enough to doom you to death or a concentration camp.


“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense” — Winston Churchill, Oct 29, 1941

User avatar
timmy
Posts: 1950
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:03 am
Location: I'm a Nuevo Mexicano

Re: Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Postby timmy » Tue May 17, 2011 11:49 pm

The constitution implies that everyone is equal. The Pann-Wallah should not be "less equal" than a member of Parliament.
The thinking that relegates a 'mere Paan-Wallah' to lesser status is contrary to the tenets of the Indian Constitution as it was set up.
This is the thinking that the powers that be use against you, a mere citizen, when they deny you equality with themselves.


Precisely!

Rather than you having to prove to the police that you are a safe risk, they should have to prove that you are not. Otherwise we are no better than Hitler's Germany where a mere accusation by anyone could be enough to doom you to death or a concentration camp.


It is the government's business to preserve the rights of its citizens. This is what it ought to be doing. Pandering to the fears of some citizens by taking away the rights of others is a cheap demagogue's trick, whether the right in question is stopping someone from saying something uncomfortable, or going against the grain by practicing a less popular religion, or owning a gun.

We must stand on the principle that owning a gun or participating in the activities of collecting, sport shooting, etc, do not incite the practitioners to criminal behavior. As XL says perfectly, it is the government's burden to prove the existence of due cause for denying someone of their rights.

Also, even more ominous, as XL says perfectly, when rights can be ridden over roughshod without attention to due process, then society is heading down the slippery slope he cites.

His observations and questions here go exactly to the heart of "who should own a gun," both in the principles to be observed and the questions to be resolved, as we seek to establish the gun rights that are promised.

In my opinion, we should all devote the time to rereading and pondering on XL's post. It goes to the crux of what we're about here.


Regards,

tim

goodboy_mentor
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Postby goodboy_mentor » Wed May 18, 2011 1:19 pm

Rather than you having to prove to the police that you are a safe risk, they should have to prove that you are not
This is exactly what Arms Act 1959 wants but since so many powers have been delegated to government by Parliament, the government has practically screwed up the arms act by issuing notifications and thus creating confusion. To understand this one can read point numbers (viii), (ix) and (x) about detailed explanation of this at viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11595&start=15#p117785


"If my mother tongue is shaking the foundations of your State, it probably means that you built your State on my land" - Musa Anter, Kurdish writer, assassinated by the Turkish secret services in 1992

spin_drift
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Noida

Re: Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Postby spin_drift » Thu May 19, 2011 8:03 am

hvj1 wrote:
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.



Here is a context for you: ever heard of the thing called the "CONSTITUTION OF INDIA", it has a section called "Right to Equality" and in Article 14 it explicitly states: "The State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."

Now what does getting a legal firearm means; that you are getting a firearm in accordance with the law and that law being The Arms Act of 1959 (which has been discussed a lot so i will not get in to it); so a person who has never held a gun and you who are a renowned shot go before the authorities that are appointed by the law to to get an arms license, should be looked upon equally and should have an equal chance of getting a license.

People you all need to realize that this is not just about RKBA there is something bigger at stake here. If we allow the government to subvert or take away one right then we let them establish the principle that any right can be subverted and or taken away at will and if that happens it would be the thin end of the wedge, it would be the end of the republic as we know it to be.


I believe in second chances… it’s called reloading

captrakshitsharma
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:36 am
Location: Dehradun, Delhi ,Gurgaon
Contact:

Re: Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Postby captrakshitsharma » Thu May 19, 2011 12:10 pm

I think we need to file a case.. discussing it within ourselves will get no results... GBM we need ur help


I dont dial 911... I dial .357

goodboy_mentor
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Postby goodboy_mentor » Fri May 20, 2011 6:28 pm

I think we need to file a case..
Of course we need to take this matter up in Supreme Court. In my opinion NAGRI can become party to the already ongoing PIL(or get in touch with the lawyers representing the respondents) that is the cause for creation of that unconstitutional MHA "policy" and proposed amendment to the arms act to cover it up. Unless we strongly make it a fundamental rights issue out of this, I do not think there is any other way out. It appears to me that the Supreme Court has not been apraised of Constitutional fact that Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Fundamental of citizens under Articles 19 and 21. Instead of finding which provisions of law under Arms Act 1959/Arms Rules 1962 are unconstitutional, it appears this case is moving in the opposite direction. It is Writ Petition(Civil) Number 462 of 2007. Visit http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/cas ... no_new.asp Select Writ Petition (Civil), put in Case no. 462 and select 2007 click Submit. Once on the next page click Case History and Order(s), you will get orders till now. This is the writ petition that media had sensationalised.
GBM we need ur help
Of course I am always there. If you want to discuss something specific regarding this I am always open to the idea.


"If my mother tongue is shaking the foundations of your State, it probably means that you built your State on my land" - Musa Anter, Kurdish writer, assassinated by the Turkish secret services in 1992

dr.jayakumar
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:55 am
Location: tamilnadu,india

Re: Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Postby dr.jayakumar » Fri May 20, 2011 8:07 pm

A person with keen interest and good temperament are the right candidates.people in shooting clubs should be given preference to own guns. any way when you run around for a licence you automatically get the temperament to own a gun.



User avatar
xl_target
Posts: 3439
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:47 am
Location: USA

Re: Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Postby xl_target » Fri May 20, 2011 9:46 pm

dr.jayakumar wrote:A person with keen interest and good temperament are the right candidates.people in shooting clubs should be given preference to own guns. any way when you run around for a licence you automatically get the temperament to own a gun.


Dr Ji, This is said with all due respect; please note that the Constitution makes no note of shooting clubs, renowned shots, subzi mandi's or any other hoopla. What it does say is that all citizens of India are equal.
"Preference" can a bad word in a democracy. We seem to have allowed successive governments to divide us so they can rule us better. It should not make a difference if you are a street sweeper or if your last name is Birla; every constitutional right should be granted to you equally and without qualification.

The situation that we have in India at present is very similar, in one way, to what George Orwell talked about in 1984; .... "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
This is just wrong, dishonest and contrary to the aims of the Indian Constitution. It goes against everything that I was taught about fair play and being an Indian citizen.
I'm just flat out amazed that I have seen this viewpoint advocated so many times, by so many people, in this forum. Don't they teach civics in schools anymore?
Last edited by xl_target on Sat May 21, 2011 2:02 am, edited 1 time in total.


“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense” — Winston Churchill, Oct 29, 1941

captrakshitsharma
Posts: 690
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:36 am
Location: Dehradun, Delhi ,Gurgaon
Contact:

Re: Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Postby captrakshitsharma » Fri May 20, 2011 11:33 pm

This is getting interesting....


I dont dial 911... I dial .357

spin_drift
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Noida

Re: Who should be allowed to own a gun?

Postby spin_drift » Sat May 21, 2011 2:24 am

Captain, I am with you regarding filing a public interest litigation against the moronic MHA order.

dr.jayakumar wrote:A person with keen interest and good temperament are the right candidates.people in shooting clubs should be given preference to own guns..


Dr, seriously what do you mean by “right candidates, people in shooting clubs”? Let me ask you this, people who are members of shooting clubs should only be given firearms or air guns for target practice and not for self defense and if they use their weapons for self defense should they be punished or penalized?

The reason I say that is because I know that none of the “Shooting clubs” in India teach tactics for self defense using fire arms (at least I have not come across one), shooting at a stable inanimate paper or cardboard objects is quite different than from shooting a person who is trying to kill you and is not stable i.e. moving around and most likely shooting back.


I believe in second chances… it’s called reloading


Return to “RKBA”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests