Re: US strike options on TSP

[darshhan]

If ordinary citizens are deprived of their fundamental rights to carry weapons on airplanes, trains and other public transport systems to defend themselves, I do not see what is so fundamental anymore about gun rights, a relic of the past. Americans have surrendered greater freedoms in the last ten years since 9/11, so this oddity will and should also be left by the wayside. That is the sanest thing to do.

Bade ji, USA is now USSA. Land of the fee and home of the slave.

Once GOTUS succeeds in neutralising 1st and 2nd amendments, even the pretense of freedom will be over.

[SwamyG]

If ordinary citizens are deprived of their fundamental rights to carry weapons on airplanes, trains and other public transport systems to defend themselves, I do not see what is so fundamental anymore about gun rights, a relic of the past. Americans have surrendered greater freedoms in the last ten years since 9/11, so this oddity will and should also be left by the wayside. That is the sanest thing to do.

When the 2nd Amendment was adopted in the year 1791, the society and World was way different than what is now. It would have made sense 221 years ago, when the arms were not as destructive, efficient and accurate as now. Moreover, the potential individuals that could be targeted was different from now; now it is easy to shoot several people in a manner of minutes than 200 years ago. The fundamental right has to be revisited and thought over. Societies cannot be run to the satisfaction of only the jingo or corporation hearts. The gun lobby will come up with excuses and reasons. While some of them are valid, the bulk of them are lame and only rhetoric.

WTF did the teacher need so many guns?

[Agnimitra]

One interesting data point in all such insane public shooting sprees in the US AFAIR is that the perp was on psychiatric medication. That includes this latest Connecticut case where the Lanza guy is reported to have "a history of mental illness". In the US, "mental illness" records include such things as any kind of depression, attentiveness problems, addictions, or anything you've popped a pill for.

Its become a strangely unimaginative culture when the solution to human sadness or slack is a pill.

My psychiatrist friends all admit that most of their patients' problems would easily be resolved by the gradual learning and practice of simple "life skills". Yet, they admit they just prescribe pills and patients prefer it that way because of "no time". They acknowledge that many such patients become psychologically addicted to such medical quick fixes for anything from the blues to attentiveness problems, etc. They also admit that "everything has side effects", but are more reluctant to speculate on whether the cumulative effect of these side effects eventually causes serious neuro-biological imbalances.

The interesting thing about these shooting incidents is that there is a coordinated campaign against the 2nd amendment as if on cue, but not a peep about the culture of insanity behind it, and the role of the psychiatric drugs industry in it.

"The society prepares the crime and the criminal commits it". Someone had posted this news report from China on the same day - China school knife attack in Henan injures 22 children. Would one have to ban knives too? This is one of several such incidents in China in recent times.

The bottom line is that insanity cannot be handled by making or abolishing laws. That's not quite mature, to say the least. It can only be handled by teaching people the responsibility that comes with owning and handling weapons to protect one's fellow-citizens who abide by certain values. And those high values are enshrined in the same US Constitution.

IMHO, just like "sex education", the school system should incorporate a "weapons education" program to give citizens the required hatting to bear arms - hatting in terms of moral code and sense of responsibility, pride, camaraderie and national values.

[darshhan]

When the 2nd Amendment was adopted in the year 1791, the society and World was way different than what is now. It would have made sense 221 years ago, when the arms were not as destructive, efficient and accurate as now. Moreover, the potential individuals that could be targeted was different from now; now it is easy to shoot several people in a manner of minutes than 200 years ago. The fundamental right has to be revisited and thought over. Societies cannot be run to the satisfaction of only the jingo or corporation hearts. The gun lobby will come up with excuses and reasons. While some of them are valid, the bulk of them are lame and only rhetoric.

WTF did the teacher need so many guns?

I sincerely hope that Barack Obama develops a spine and takes a executive decision banning guns. Gun confiscation program should also be launched thereafter. No American citizen should be allowed to carry any sort of weapons. Any one who is caught flouting this ban should be penalized harshly preferably with life imprisonment. Any hold out groups/militia can then be dealt with drones. It is high time that these vagrant militias be targetted via Armed drones. Surveillance measures should be strengthened further with cams and TSA deployed at every nook and corner including schools and shopping malls. Back scatter x-ray vans should patrol the communities 24 x 7. Any mischief monger should be dealt with extremely harshly. Legislation encouraging use of Rapiscan machines should be implemented immediately. A list of all proponents of 2nd amendment should be made in order to intern them afterwards for a long period.

[JwalaMukhi]

More and pure islam is the solution.
The problem is not due to guns per se. It is because not powerful weaponry such as AK-47s and SLRs are not allowed to be carried in open and used at the discretion of the enlightened weapon owner/s. It solves many problems too. It will allow survival of the fittest as proposed and fanned. It will allow unemployment issues to come down. More manufacturing and sale of weapons is good on the sagging employment front. Will allow many cottage secondary industries to thrive too, such as ambulance chasers, preachers etc. Good over all. More ijlam please.
Those that gods want to destroy will be made insane first.

[devesh]

waah, once again BRF out in full force expressing their hurt "liberal" sentiments. before saying anything else, let me say this: I admire the Americans for their dogged resistance to any kind of meddling of the 2nd amendment. there are only a few pockets in India which show such resistance to govt intervention in armed private defense. Punjab, Haryana, and Chattisgarh come to mind. perhaps even Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.

Carl ji raises a very good point about the psychiatric medications. perhaps BRF's "liberal" sentiments should be channeled in that direction, b/c in almost every shooting incident, the perpetrator is on some kind of a cocktail of medications. where are the "liberal" sentiments about these medications which seem to be doing the opposite job of what they're supposed to. where is the rage against the FDA which approves them? against the doctors who prescribe them like chocolates? the pharma companies which make them?

and yes, in a skilled hand, or even a blunt hand with brute force, a knife is as dangerous, perhaps even more dangerous, due to the silent nature of the kill, if done in seclusion. don't see much lamentations on knives?

the real reason for hatred of the American 2nd amendment is because it allows, even encodes it in the constitution, that a private citizen has every right to armed self defense, and that Government cannot take away that right. tyrants hate this beyond all measure. our very own Aurangzeb is supposed to have gone into apoplectic rage when he heard stories of peasants and farmers resisting Mughal tyranny in Central India, b/c they had guns and the means to protect themselves. One of his first, widespread decrees, was the dis-arming of the entire rural population in vast swathes of North+Central India, especially in Malwa and Bundelkhand.

the American founders deserve true credit for accommodating private self-defense as an irrevocable RIGHT in the Constitution itself. in that sense they contributed to human progress by encoding the right to private defense against totalitarian or dictatorial regimes as a sacred right, nay, even a sacred duty of every able-bodied man and woman.

[darshhan]

Devesh ji, I hope you realise that my post was more sarcasm. Although I suspect this is exactly what GOTUS and POTUS might do at some point of time. Which will lead to some form of civil conflict( fourth gen warfare in all likelihood ).

Now I can't say that I oppose the coming civil war in US beacuse I do not. As per me it is even required.

[darshhan]

waah, once again BRF out in full force expressing their hurt "liberal" sentiments. before saying anything else, let me say this: I admire the Americans for their dogged resistance to any kind of meddling of the 2nd amendment. there are only a few pockets in India which show such resistance to govt intervention in armed private defense. Punjab, Haryana, and Chattisgarh come to mind. perhaps even Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.

Carl ji raises a very good point about the psychiatric medications. perhaps BRF's "liberal" sentiments should be channeled in that direction, b/c in almost every shooting incident, the perpetrator is on some kind of a cocktail of medications. where are the "liberal" sentiments about these medications which seem to be doing the opposite job of what they're supposed to. where is the rage against the FDA which approves them? against the doctors who prescribe them like chocolates? the pharma companies which make them?

and yes, in a skilled hand, or even a blunt hand with brute force, a knife is as dangerous, perhaps even more dangerous, due to the silent nature of the kill, if done in seclusion. don't see much lamentations on knives?

the real reason for hatred of the American 2nd amendment is because it allows, even encodes it in the constitution, that a private citizen has every right to armed self defense, and that Government cannot take away that right. tyrants hate this beyond all measure. our very own Aurangzeb is supposed to have gone into apoplectic rage when he heard stories of peasants and farmers resisting Mughal tyranny in Central India, b/c they had guns and the means to protect themselves. One of his first, widespread decrees, was the dis-arming of the entire rural population in vast swathes of North+Central India, especially in Malwa and Bundelkhand.

the American founders deserve true credit for accommodating private self-defense as an irrevocable RIGHT in the Constitution itself. in that sense they contributed to human progress by encoding the right to private defense against totalitarian or dictatorial regimes as a sacred right, nay, even a sacred duty of every able-bodied man and woman.

Devesh ji, Very good post.You must have heard/read the following quote from Benjamin Franklin.

"'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.' "

Guess what. A sizeable percentage of BRFites(probably even majority) fall exactly in this category. The USP of this category is that you can appropriate their property, rob their wealth, rape their woman and also get away without so much as a scratch

Lord Macaulay and British followed by Congressi rats have ensured that a very vast majority of Indians(especially hindus) have been completely Dewarriorized and demilitarized. Eunuchification in mind and spirit of Indian Citizens( Actually Subjects) was always their objective. As the various earlier posts have shown, this objective has largely been achieved.

Doesn't it give you shivers that this is the caliber of our nationalist segment of population. I mean forget completing reconquista, if we can hold on to our existing domains that would be extremely creditworthy.

[devesh]

sorry, darshhan ji, I didn't mean that as a rebuke to you, but against the general "consensus" of gun-bashing.
people underestimate just how unique the American 2nd amendment is.

in India, other than the Khalsa, nobody really tried to harness the instinct for private self-defense as a valid form of dissent against totalitarian regimes. even the Marathas, though they armed a lot of the rural peasantry due to practical reasons of war-recruitment, they never turned it into a "code".

[darshhan]

sorry, darshhan ji, I didn't mean that as a rebuke to you, but against the general "consensus" of gun-bashing.
people underestimate just how unique the American 2nd amendment is.

in India, other than the Khalsa, nobody really tried to harness the instinct for private self-defense as a valid form of dissent against totalitarian regimes. even the Marathas, though they armed a lot of the rural peasantry due to practical reasons of war-recruitment, they never turned it into a "code".

Just imagine what would have happened if Sikhs, Marathas and other Dharmic societies practiced sword control and bow control. You can safely bet foreskin control would definitely have been achieved for majority of the populace.

One poster even wrote strict licensing of guns is an Indic value that Americans must imbibe. I mean wow. Totally hopeless and pathetic.

[Lilo]

the real reason for hatred of the American 2nd amendment is because it allows, even encodes it in the constitution, that a private citizen has every right to armed self defense, and that Government cannot take away that right. tyrants hate this beyond all measure. our very own Aurangzeb is supposed to have gone into apoplectic rage when he heard stories of peasants and farmers resisting Mughal tyranny in Central India, b/c they had guns and the means to protect themselves. One of his first, widespread decrees, was the dis-arming of the entire rural population in vast swathes of North+Central India, especially in Malwa and Bundelkhand.

the American founders deserve true credit for accommodating private self-defense as an irrevocable RIGHT in the Constitution itself. in that sense they contributed to human progress by encoding the right to private defense against totalitarian or dictatorial regimes as a sacred right, nay, even a sacred duty of every able-bodied man and woman.

Agree Devesh ji,
India and Indians too needs to rearm themselves starting with the groups who having the greatest belief in a common Indian identity - but this process has to be carefully controlled under the over watch of a nationalistic government at the centre. After all, emergence of armed populations with a propensity to be manipulated by foreign interests will be the most dangerous situation possible in the context of the current weak Indian state. Imagine the yahoos in kundankulam waving AKs while arrayed outside Kundankulam or azad maidan Islamist mobs rampaging in mumbai with AKs in hand or Ranvir sena types decending on the villages of their "enemy" castes ...

In the meantime watch and learn the american lessons in gun ownership - ultimately guns have to be procured by indians too and their ownership managed (preferably in a community centric way).

[devesh]

^^^
I have no doubt.

also, those who keep repeating that in 1791 guns weren't "that efficient" or "that dangerous", really need a lesson in history. the reason the Americans were able to throw off British rule was because of their armed rural population. these not-so-dangerous, not-so-efficient guns were the weapons that were used to kick off the revolutionary war and bring a powerful imperial power to its knees. so much for "inefficient" and "not dangerous" guns. without this armed-to-the-teeth rural component, the American Revolution would have never happened. and these guns were the tools which defended the Americans in their war against the Brits. so, yes, guns were powerful. since the advent of guns, they have always been powerful and psychologically debilitating, b/c you cannot see the bullet that hits you, only the trigger that releases the killing projectile. it invokes something instinctively paranoid in us. it was and still remains, the invisible killer. so they've always been powerful.

some types of guns are banned b/c of their destructive potential and honestly civilians who want to use it might want it purely for its destructive uses, so they are rightfully banned. but handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, these are were widely used, to the tune of millions of people and millions of guns all over America. just b/c one in millions goes off his rocker doesn't mean you need to ban or revoke a fundamental right that has been a positive influence and done good for the entire country....

[devesh]

Lilo ji,

what you say is impractical. anything that is "carefully watched over by Central Govt" is recipe for disaster. you'll have patsy groups who will be given weapons to go shoot up a bunch of people and which will be conveniently used as an example of "dangerous guns creating havoc".

what makes you think a "nationalistic government" will actually relax the draconian gun-banning laws? GOVERNMENTS, everywhere, are enforcement agencies. they exist only for one purpose: to exercise some form of control on the their subjects. even a "saffron" or "nationalist govt" might be very paranoid of private self-defense.

this process is not something for a particular political party to undertake. it has to be done under the auspices of a Common Law. a common code for all citizens, all individuals regardless of their regional/religious/caste/ethnicity background under impartial common law, preferably coded into the common constitution, and upheld as a sacred right, just as all other fundamental rights.

[JwalaMukhi]

No dog in the race. But just out of curiosity who decides what should be the limiting firepower of the weapons allowed? Because that is very subjective. If liberty needs to be protected with weapons why not do it right? Why not make it mandatory to own a weapon, else fine people who do not own weapons and are in public places? Also why should there be any restriction on firepower at all. Just casting the debate as gun ban and gun ownership is actually misreading the problem. I think most of the debate is where to draw the firepower restriction. Currently, it ranges from zero to handguns. It is very limiting. IMVHO there should no upperlimit on the firepower and there should be only a few designated locations, if at all any, that should allow people to be unarmed without possession of minimal firepower.

[devesh]

I guess the difference between RIGHT and MANDATORY is lost on you. a Right is something that is voluntary without any component of force.
when you make something Mandatory, now that is coercion. the rest of your post is a similar hatchet job with a cute "no dog in the race" to start off...when we are done posting these sarcastic, sneering prescriptions, we should really debate the heart of the matter: the 2nd amendment's value as a defense against totalitarianism, and the real roots of the hatred being a seething contempt at the "uneducated/illiterate masses" for "daring to thumb their noses" at the "Enlightened leadership". it is those who have the most contempt for the "lower orders" that always have the most seething and rabid hatred for any scheme or plan that gives power to these "lower orders".

sorry if I sounded too harsh.

[JwalaMukhi]

Harsh, no not at all.
The reason what I am trying to understand is the irony. The expectation is some one confers the scheme or plan power to the "lower orders". The expectation is that some one ("entity") must confer the rights yada yada., because some (maybe many) feel that liberty is at stake and is protected only with possession of weapons. But OTOH the very same "entity" feels (probably many more), that liberty is not protected by possession of weapons. Why one cares about what the entity feels? It is because as you have acknowledged that it is that "entity" to which you look to - "to confer your rights." The very fact you are depending on some one to confer, you already are not on an equal footing. Hence, the mere mention of the fact that "entity" is feeling that liberty is best preserved by not possession of weapons is causing lot of angst. Is the inability to deal with the fact - that possibly many more may feel that preservation of liberty does not flow from the barrel of the gun than the ones who may feel otherwise?

[pentaiah]

Right is not per se voluntary but the exercise of right is

Right is a unquestioned or unchallenged or guaranteed privelage and is protected by law

Mandatory precludes choice or exercise of will. It may even be coerced

[Agnimitra]

Ideally speaking, should there be limits on the sophistication of weapons citizens are allowed to possess? If one of the essential aims of 2nd amendment is to prevent the state from having a monopoly on violence, then why should there be any limits? Of course, with all the machinery of modern warfare, the equation is asymmetric to say the least, but all the more reason for no limits, no? Just asking...

In any case, I believe the fundamental issue here is one of insanities in the social culture, a lack of addressing certain socio-political questions, and a deliberate policy of suppressing such questions, and the encouragement of neuro-psycho-pharmacological "fixes" for the insanities.

[SwamyG]

2nd Amendment, alright like Sikhism's, personal defense is a sign of enactments borne in harsh conditions. Times are different, weapons are different, people have changed...it is stupid to allow people have advanced weapons.

http://centreright.in/2012/12/connectic ... Mzd83y9KSO

Kalavai Venkat's take on the recent shooting.

[JwalaMukhi]

There is always scope for - legislating to severely curb "any right" if it has to be a living document. Else it would be decree from God set in stone 4500 years ago when the earth was born.

[ramana]

The Second Amendment came about because of the pre-Independence experience of the Colonists when King George came after them with the Red Coats. This fear of state using military force was what brought about the idea of the well armed militia. It was only after the civil war that the Posse Comitas law was enacted preventing the US military deployment in the states.

Recent experience of WACO and Ruby Ridge are again recent examples. Recall Ollie North and his plans for military takeover in case of Contra hearings going south. So both sides have used force.


So if what is needed is a very clear cut restraint on potential for Govt use/abuse of force against citizenry is needed if these weapons are to be prohibited.

[devesh]

Harsh, no not at all.
The reason what I am trying to understand is the irony. The expectation is some one confers the scheme or plan power to the "lower orders". The expectation is that some one ("entity") must confer the rights yada yada., because some (maybe many) feel that liberty is at stake and is protected only with possession of weapons. But OTOH the very same "entity" feels (probably many more), that liberty is not protected by possession of weapons. Why one cares about what the entity feels? It is because as you have acknowledged that it is that "entity" to which you look to - "to confer your rights." The very fact you are depending on some one to confer, you already are not on an equal footing. Hence, the mere mention of the fact that "entity" is feeling that liberty is best preserved by not possession of weapons is causing lot of angst. Is the inability to deal with the fact - that possibly many more may feel that preservation of liberty does not flow from the barrel of the gun than the ones who may feel otherwise?

this "entity" is not a government. a government is still a temporary edifice. they come and go every time there is an election. even the government is ultimately a servant of the constitution. the constitution is what gives the rights. the Constitution is the "entity" which confers these rights. the "fundamental rights" encoded in the constitution are not 'given' or 'taken' by the Government. even the Government must follow the limits of the Constitution, so the superiority of the "entity" is unquestionable, at least to the extent that it is considered a just and fair document.

you need to elaborate more on the "equal footing"; no idea what you mean by it.

actually, when faced against the possibility of violent suppression of rights, it is only the barrel of the gun which is the protector of freedom. all other pontificating about "believing in something other than barrel of the gun" goes down the drain ones the tyrant or tyranny brings out the guns and tanks. at that point, it is ONLY the gun, the bullets, and whatever military supplies you can commandeer, that will save your liberties and freedoms.

[devesh]

Recall Ollie North and his plans for military takeover in case of Contra hearings going south. So both sides have used force.

which is why you can't trust the "nationalist" or "right wing" government to necessarily protect those rights. all govts and govt/military leadership believes in enforcement of their will, which is how they are trained to operate, anyway. so there is no guarantee that these "nationalists" will protect those rights. it has to be something beyond the government and political parties. it has to be considered a fundamental right, or it can and will be taken away at whim and fancy.

[devesh]

There is always scope for - legislating to severely curb "any right" if it has to be a living document. Else it would be decree from God set in stone 4500 years ago when the earth was born.

but the question here is of "right" and "wrong". that is where values come in. that is where history comes in.

one point about human history. all govts eventually turn to tyrannies. in India of the past ages, perhaps the fall of dynasties was more peaceful than the rest of the world, but since the advent of Islam into India, no 'central govt' in Delhi has accepted its fate without going for a vicious, blood-curdling round of violence on the civilians. that should itself be a note of caution. as surveillance techniques have improved, the ability of all govts to monopolize violence has increased proportionately, perhaps even exponentially.

with the concept of "preemption" becoming a huge focus of modern intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the ability and even willingness of govts to act as the sole arbiters of violence has gone up.

the increasing amount of time spent by news media and various TV media on "preemption" of violence has actually undermined the position of civil liberties to a large extent. the concept of preemption has empowered govts disproportionately, to the point where you now have official testimonies to the judicial branch where "preemption" has become a valid excuse for overwhelming police force on a "target" before there is even a crime that justifies such violence. there are literally hundreds of cases like this. only a very few of these ever get the media glare, and they do so only if there is some vested interest for some party to raise the issue, to get concessions from one or more of the parties involved. so if a certain case has no incentive for the involved "agencies", more often than not these cases of preemptive targeting, even if not outright killed, fly under the radar.

[darshhan]

2nd Amendment, alright like Sikhism's, personal defense is a sign of enactments borne in harsh conditions. Times are different, weapons are different, people have changed...it is stupid to allow people have advanced weapons.

http://centreright.in/2012/12/connectic ... Mzd83y9KSO

Kalavai Venkat's take on the recent shooting.

This is the first comment on the article and I agree with most of the content.

Hindus are the stupidest bunch of people. 1000+ years of atrocities on them, yet people like Mr. Venkat continue to live in dreamland. How did not having guns help Kashmir Pandits? how did it help the 58 pilgrims who were roasted in Godhra? Yes , its unfortunate those kids died. The blame should be laid on US society that refuses to institutionalize these mentally unstable psychopaths. Instead of being happy that armed whites are ready to defend theirs & ppl like Mr. Venkat's right to bear arms, he is complaining. What an upside down world!

While on many issues Mr. Kalavai Venkat makes sense here he is completely wrong. Now I do not have a problem with America banning its guns( because I know what it will lead to ). But here in India we do need guns if we have to maintain our freedoms and foreskin.

While earlier Sikhs and Marathas were discussed, the recent events in Bodo areas of Assam were missed. The only reason that most of the Bodos are still living with honor in Bodoland is because they had weapons(fully automatic assault rifles) and knew how to use them. Otherwise there fate would have been exactly like Kashmiri Pandits.Living in Refugee camps without any privacy.

Apart from Bodos another example I can give is that of Hindus living in Jammu. The most important reason many of them are still in their homes especially in areas like Doda and Rajouri is that they have access to arms under VDC(village defence committee) program.But this can also be a disadvantage for them in future since these weapons have been allocated to them by the govt and can be taken mack by a secular govt any time. They seriously need to invest in their own weaponry like the bodos.

The other issue I have with Mr.Venkat's article is that he is equating Hinduism with Pacifism and non violence. In my view that is wrong and a very simplistic view. It is less Hinduism and more of Gandhianism/Nehruvianism. Hinduism is much more balanced. Where violence is required it should be used. Warrior spirit is encouraged in Hinduism. In ancient times in India education consisted of both shaastra(bools/academics) as well as Shastra(combat)

[darshhan]

deleted

[darshhan]

Devesh ji, fully agree with you. Infact some statistics were compiled by Professor Rudolph J.Rummel(university of Hawaii) in his book " lethal politics". He has done an extensive study of both wartime and peacetime deaths by govt. action. He concluded the following figures for 20th century which is not so long ago.

1.Deaths due to Wars( all including international and civil ) : 35.7 million

2. Non war Deaths due Govt action(tyranny actually) : 119.4 Millions

Which means govt tyranny actually killed 3 times the no. of people that were killed in wars( all of them which included ww1 & 2). The prominent countries were Soviet Union, Nazi Germany,PRC and Cambodia.

In the words of George Washington "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

[darshhan]

Here is the Amazon page on Professor Rudolph Rummel.

http://www.amazon.com/R.-J.-Rummel/e/B0 ... dp_epwbk_0

R.J. Rummel is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science. He has published twenty-four nonfiction books (one that received an award for being among the most referenced), six novels, and about 100 peer-reviewed professional articles; has received the Susan Strange Award of the International Studies Association in 1999 for having intellectually most challenged the field; and in 2003 was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Conflict Processes Section, American Political Science Association. He has been frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

See also "about R.J. Rummel www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PERSONAL.HTM, or his curriculum vita at www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/LONGVITA.HTM. His website is at www.hawaii.edu/powerkills, his daily blog is at http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/

[member_23686]

Right is not per se voluntary but the exercise of right is

Right is a unquestioned or unchallenged or guaranteed privelage and is protected by law

Mandatory precludes choice or exercise of will. It may even be coerced

there are towns in US with mandatory gun ownership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_ ... troversies

[member_23686]

^^^ the above town also claims of lowest crime rate in usa

[JwalaMukhi]

actually, when faced against the possibility of violent suppression of rights, it is only the barrel of the gun which is the protector of freedom. all other pontificating about "believing in something other than barrel of the gun" goes down the drain ones the tyrant or tyranny brings out the guns and tanks. at that point, it is ONLY the gun, the bullets, and whatever military supplies you can commandeer, that will save your liberties and freedoms.

OK, fair enough. A valid view point. But can it be demonstrated that view point is held by majority of the people and not some? Assuming, that majority holds that view point and is correct, then why is it not pursued correctly, but half-hearted measures as "protection of Rights".
The monopoly on violence will always rest with the government. Whether one likes it or not. The only way to end that monopoly is not through protection of rights but by mandatory conscriptions. One cannot expect, the government aka police force to have lesser fire power or equal fire power and expect to do its job. If the desire is to reduce the monopoly on violence by the government, then one has to raise "private militias" which is what the Swiss do by mandatory conscriptions.

One cannot raise warrior mindset among its populace by just giving a feeling of manliness to few who feel that they can keep some weapons with limited firepower. The cultivation of warrior mindset requires mandatory conscriptions. one cannot have it both ways, have half-hearted measures such as protection of rights, but at the same time expect police force or government to intervene and provide security with restricted/lower firepower. If there is any expectation that government provide security by default it means government will have monopoly on violence.

The half-hearted measures of protection of rights, only shifts the base-line of violence to unhealthy levels. If one depends on barrel of the gun one better do it correctly by mandatory process. It makes providing internal security by the government immensely difficult, as they have to use unnecessary deadly force, because the base-line of violence has clearly shifted. The best way is to let the private militias take care of security and disband any expectations of security from government/police.

[devesh]

doesn't matter how many people hold what view. reality is reality, sir. I'm sure there are people who don't like freedom of speech when it comes to certain kinds of speech, and therefore would like for that speech to be not protected by the constitution. but will that happen? NO, b/c it is a fundamental constitutional right and there is nothing anybody can do even if they don't agree with it. same applies to the 2nd amendment. unless you can get it struck from the constitution, it doesn't matter if you don't like it or even if the so called "majority" don't like it. it's set in stone.

the "desire" is not to take away the role of govt as one of the legitimate centers of violence. govt, by its very nature, has that power. the issue is to make sure that the govt is not the sole monopolizer of violence. the 2nd amendment allows for this. it makes sure that the private citizen also has the right to violence to defend himself and his "life, liberty, and happiness" if he feels unjustly victimized in a violent way.

and actually, the intent behind the 2nd amendment is not just "preemptive" but also a "helping hand" to the private citizens if they ever feel that the "attitude" of the govt has shifted so far that it has become a tyranny, and no longer represents the ideas of fair and equal justice to all. this aspect is never openly debated, even by the so called "right wing" or "nationalists". the 2nd amendment allows for REBELLION by private citizens if the conditions ever got so bad that the US Govt has ceased to govern with the consent of the majority, or if the govt has openly and brazenly decided to not care for the constitution and is either already or heading to a dictatorship.

also, the existence or not of a "private militia" is not a qualifier. repeated rulings by the Supreme Court and the interpretation of the founders themselves has shown that the aspect of "right of the people to bear arms" is the overriding objective here. the "well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" is seen as the "goal" or "objective" to be achieved in case the people need to take recourse to that action. so the "well regulated militia" is not a prerequisite to the "right to bear arms," instead the "right to bear arms" is seen as the basic requirement for a "well regulated militia". and a "well regulated militia" is the ultimate recourse when all else has failed and govt truly is a tyranny or dictatorship.

[JwalaMukhi]

Well, as stated earlier, nothing is set in stone. It does immensely matter what the majority thinks. Because there can and probably will be efforts to redefine the base-line of violence that society accepts. This redrawing of base-line could effectively render the rights toothless. One may be surprised, that such efforts might sometimes work and it certainly is not set in stone as one may like to believe.
Here is one instance where it failed, but it might not fail again.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-1 ... ssure.html

Connecticut has a measure, sometimes referred to as the “turn in your neighbor” law, that lets state police obtain a warrant to confiscate firearms from anyone posing an imminent risk of harming someone. Police obtained nearly 300 warrants and seized more than 2,000 guns in 10 years after the law was passed in 1999, according to a state Office of Legislative Research report.

Still, gun-control advocates couldn’t pass the ban on high- capacity magazines.

Gallo said she counted a majority of the 45-member Judiciary Committee in favor of the bill.

“I’m not sure that’s something that we want to do in this economic environment,” he told lawmakers. “I don’t think we want to lose any business, whether it’s five employees or 30 employees or Colt Firearms, which has 1,000 union jobs.”

[devesh]

aah...so, we're not really in a debate here. certainly, the question of Govt's monopolizing violence is not a concern too, as you gleefully point out with words like "toothless", "might not fail again", etc. so what is the end state once the rights are rendered "toothless? govt sole arbiter and user of violence, obviously. and private citizens completely stripped of any reason for armed defense of self and property, obviously. is this something to look forward to? perhaps, an example closer to home needs to be considered? after all, while discussing the Amrikans, we all like to gleefully rub our hands together about how their govt is increasingly trying to stamp constitutional freedoms...the example I gave of Aurangzeb was for a specific reason: to remind Indians a bit of our own history to ponder and consider.

[JwalaMukhi]

Sorry, I thought you just agreed that government will always have monopoly on violence, there is nothing to prevent that. Only the base-line of violence in society is altered by the existing mechanism.

Do not need to copy half-assed measures from elsewhere into Desh. Especially, one that has not been vetted thoroughly. As stated earlier, one does not manufacture manliness in populace by mere declaration of rights. It requires mandated conscriptions and such...

[johneeG]

Sorry, I thought you just agreed that government will always have monopoly on violence, there is nothing to prevent that. Only the base-line of violence in society is altered by the existing mechanism.

Do not need to copy half-assed measures from elsewhere into Desh. Especially, one that has not been vetted thoroughly. As stated earlier, one does not manufacture manliness in populace by mere declaration of rights. It requires mandated conscriptions and such...

It is not a question of manufacturing 'manliness'. It is a simple matter of allowing people access to certain tools. For example: Internet. Internet as a tool allows you to air your views and to provide/seek information. In the absence of internet, the paid media(or Govt controlled media) will have the monopoly on information and opinions. Paid media(or Govt controlled media) may still have the upper hand in information flow and opinion making or maybe not. The presence of internet provides a competition and alternative to the paid media(or Govt controlled media). The more paid media(or Govt controlled media) fails, the more the internet will replace it as the alternative as source of information and a place to air opinions. If the mainstream media does its job, then the internet will just be another competitor. Regardless, the presence of the internet keeps the mainstream media on its toes. Further, internet allows people to bypass the mainstream media if ever there is a need for such a thing. In the absence of internet, no amount of 'manliness' will suffice. Even if someone replicates the feat of Bhagat Singh, there is still no guarantee that his/her views will reach public. This becomes especially true when the media is in cahoots with the rulers or when the media is owned by rulers or rulers are owned by media.

The above argument also applies to guns vs Govt. The private citizens have a tool called guns at their disposal to protect themselves when the Govt fails in its job. Govt may still have the upper hand on the force. But, if the govt. fails to do the job, then it will be replaced by the private citizens(organized or disorganized). Guns are a tool to this end. So, obviously, the govt.s will be against this option. If the govt does its job, then the citizens will see no reason to own a firearm, unless as a hobby. Without guns, even the most 'manliest' of the citizens becomes helpless in the face of a threat that is more powerful(politically, physically, technically, socially, economically,...etc).

Of course, the right to bear a firearm must be accompanied by a proper training to use that weapon...not just technical training, but also social and moral one. Perhaps a gita lesson...the eternal debate between violence vs non-violence and when violence becomes justified... and when non-violence itself becomes an accomplice to violence...

[Rony]

Gun Control After Newtown

The US homicide rate is roughly four times that of comparable societies in Western Europe, and Latin America’s homicide rates are even higher than in the US (and dramatically higher than Asian countries at roughly the same income level). What accounts for staggeringly high rates in the US and Latin America?

American violence is rooted in history. The US and Latin American countries are all “conquest” societies, in which Europeans ruled over multi-racial societies. In many of these countries, including the US, the European conquerors and their descendants nearly wiped out the indigenous populations, partly through disease, but also through war, starvation, death marches, and forced labor.

In the US and many Latin American countries, slaveholding fueled mass violence as well. The slaves – and generations of their descendants – were routinely murdered.

The US also developed a particular populist belief that gun ownership constitutes a vital protection against government tyranny. The US was born in a citizens’ revolt against British imperial power. The right of citizens to organize militias to fight government tyranny was therefore a founding idea of the new country, enshrined in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which declares that, because a country needs a well-regulated militia, the people have the right to bear arms.

Since citizens’ militias are anachronistic, gun owners now use the second amendment merely to defend individual gun ownership, as if that somehow offers protection against tyranny. A reckless, right-wing Supreme Court has agreed with them. As a result, gun ownership has become perversely linked to freedom in the vast gun-owning American sub-culture.

But, instead of protection of freedom, Americans nowadays are getting massive bloodshed and fear. The claim that gun ownership ensures freedom is especially absurd, given that most of the world’s vibrant democracies have long since cracked down on private gun ownership. No tyrant has risen in Australia since Howard’s gun-control reforms.

Simply put, freedom in the twenty-first century does not depend on unregulated gun ownership. Indeed, America’s gun culture is a threat to freedom, after the murder of a president, senator, and other public leaders, and countless assassination attempts against public officials over recent decades.

The shooting in Newtown was not only especially horrific and heartbreaking, but is also part of an increasingly common pattern – a specific kind of murder-suicide that has been carefully studied by psychologists and psychiatrists. Loners, often with paranoid tendencies, commit these heinous acts as part of their own suicide. They use carefully planned and staged mass murders of innocents in order to take revenge on society and to glorify themselves as they take their own lives.The perpetrators are not hardened criminals; many have no previous criminal record. They are pathetic, deranged, and often have struggled with mental instability for much of their lives. They need help – and society needs to keep guns out of their reach.

[pentaiah]

actually, when faced against the possibility of violent suppression of rights, it is only the barrel of the gun which is the protector of freedom. all other pontificating about "believing in something other than barrel of the gun" goes down the drain ones the tyrant or tyranny brings out the guns and tanks. at that point, it is ONLY the gun, the bullets, and whatever military supplies you can commandeer, that will save your liberties and freedoms.

Seems like Naxals Vision being quoted.

even better Maoz quote

Every Communist must grasp the truth; "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

[devesh]

if that is what Naxals believe in, then they at least have some common sense!! they might be fighting for a flawed ideology, but at least they know the basics of how to protect that ideology in the face of violent hostility. same cannot be said of many of us though: we think flowery words of sweetness and grand pontificating on "nuanced approach to politics" will somehow deter those elements which don't hesitate to go for overwhelming physical violence to impose their writ...

[prashanth]

Post-shooting, US schoolkids get armoured bags-TOI