PDA

View Full Version : India's Citizens Clamor for Gun Rights



Phrost
2nd February 10, 01:15 PM
<h2>New groups mobilize as Indians embrace the right to bear arms</h2>


http://www.willowtown.com/promo/moto%2015.jpegIn the land of Mahatma Gandhi, Indian gun owners are coming out of the shadows for the first time to mobilize, U.S.-style, against proposed new curbs on bearing arms.

When gunmen attacked 10 sites in Mumbai in November 2008, including two five-star hotels and a train station, Mumbai resident Kumar Verma sat at home glued to the television, feeling outraged and unsafe.

Before the end of December, Verma and his friends had applied for gun licenses. He read up on India's gun laws and joined the Web forum Indians for Guns. When he got his license seven months later, he bought a black, secondhand, snub-nose Smith & Wesson revolver with a walnut grip.

"I feel safe wearing it in my ankle holster every day," said Verma, 27, who runs a family business selling fire-protection systems. "I have a right to self-protection, because random street crime and terrorism have increased. The police cannot be there for everybody all the time. Now I am a believer in the right to keep and bear arms."

Verma said he plans to join the recently formed National Association for Gun Rights India to lobby against new gun controls that the government has proposed, blaming the proliferation of both licensed and illegal weapons for a rise in crime.

Although India's 1959 Arms Act gives citizens the legal right to own and carry guns, it is not a right enshrined in the country's constitution. Getting a license is a cumbersome process, and guns cannot be bought over the counter -- requirements that gun owners describe as hangovers from the colonial past, when the British rulers disarmed their Indian subjects to head off rebellion.


In December, the Ministry of Home Affairs proposed several amendments to the Arms Act that would make it even harder to acquire a gun license, restrict the number of people eligible for nationwide licenses and curtail the amount of ammunition a gun owner can amass.

An official said that the ministry has called for public input. But in the meantime, the proposals have given rise to a nascent gun rights movement modeled on the strategies of the United States' National Rifle Association and echoing its rhetoric of civil rights, dignity and self-protection.

"We are outraged. We are not murderers. Instead of going after real criminals, the government is indulging in window dressing by bringing in gun control laws that target law-abiding citizens who have licensed guns," said Abhijeet Singh, 37, a software engineer who started Indians for Guns and is the coordinator of the new gun rights association.

"We want to remove the stigma on licensed gun owners," Singh said. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, 87 percent of murders by firearms in India in 2007 involved illegally held guns.

There is no official tally of legal gun owners, but Singh cited a rough estimate of 4 million to 5 million.

Last week, the National Association for Gun Rights India began meeting with lawmakers and consulting lawyers in a bid to stall the proposals. The group's president is a 39-year-old lawmaker, Naveen Jindal, who studied at the University of Texas business school in Dallas. Inspired by American students' displays of patriotism, Jindal earlier launched a successful campaign for Indians' right to display the national flag outside their homes and offices.

Indian security experts appear dismissive of the group's efforts. "There is no place for a gun rights movement in India," said Julius Ribeiro, a former police officer who comments on security issues. "That kind of debate may work in America, but it will not work here, because laws are misused and guns can easily fall into the wrong hands. It can get dangerous in India."

Gun rights advocates respond -- using language familiar to Americans -- that guns are a deterrent to crime.

"An armed society is a polite society," said Rahoul Rai, a member of the campaign. He said the movement also reflects the rise of an Indian middle class that can "voice its fears about rising crime, interpret the constitution to articulate their rights to self-protection and bring like-minded people together through technology."

Shahid Ahmad, who runs a Web site called the Gun Geek , said the process of getting a gun license in India is so burdensome that it encourages corruption. To hasten the process, he said, many applicants ask politicians to put in a word in their favor, or attempt to bribe officials and police officers.

To illustrate the point, gun advocates refer to a 2008 incident in the state of Madhya Pradesh. The clamor for gun licenses was so high, according to news media, that officials tried to induce men with large families to participate in a vasectomy program by promising a license in return.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0013102079.html

Phrost
2nd February 10, 01:16 PM
"An armed society is a polite society". Man, where have I heard that before?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
2nd February 10, 01:30 PM
From a certain science fiction author whose political views you've copy-pasted because you're an impressionable twat.

Robot Jesus
2nd February 10, 01:46 PM
I can't find the exact quote but
"if you feel you must be armed, what does that say about how you feel about your countrymen"- some tiger from somewhere.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
2nd February 10, 01:48 PM
An armed society is walking on eggshells.

Kiko
2nd February 10, 01:53 PM
http://www.willowtown.com/promo/moto%2015.jpeg

I love this.

Phrost
2nd February 10, 03:27 PM
I can't find the exact quote but
"if you feel you must be armed, what does that say about how you feel about your countrymen"- some tiger from somewhere.

Double negatives notwithstanding: there isn't a single country on the planet in which a legally armed person wouldn't be safer than an unarmed person.

bob
2nd February 10, 03:30 PM
Just what India needs right now is for foreign gun control/gun advocates to turn their country into an ideological battleground over what is going to be, for most of them, the last of their fucking problems.

Phrost
2nd February 10, 03:32 PM
"'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

-Mohandas Ghandi.

Sun Wukong
2nd February 10, 03:45 PM
"An armed society is a polite society". Man, where have I heard that before?


You realize that India's problems have very little to do with being polite and have everything to do with massive proliferation of crime and corruption.

When I was in college I had a friend named Ranjit Warrior. After the first school year was over, he mentioned that he was in need of someone to take him shopping for his return trip home. During the trip, the subject of bringing home gifts to friends and family came up.

He corrected us on the spot by explaining that the things he was buying were NOT gifts for his family. They were to bribe the customs officials and police of his own country so that he could return home without being robbed, beaten up or thrown into jail. Before he first came to the US he had to bribe the clerk to even look at his documentation in order to validate his passport.

He told me openly that if you wanted to kill someone you could just pay the police to do it for you in the town he lived in. if you DO kill someone and get caught, you can pay the police to lose all the evidence or shoot a second person and pin the crime on that guy.

Look, I wouldn't step foot in India without a very good reason. The culture and government there is not at all like the US. The value of human life over there is extremely low.

Additionally the central government there is extremely weak and the police do not have the training and discipline ours do. Remember those terrorist attacks at that hotel and the reporters kept commenting on how the police were refusing to confront the terrorists directly with lethal force?

I think we should be realistic; US politics don't belong in Asian countries.

What I mean to say is, this is a US constitutional right. Not a birth right guaranteed to all people on the planet.

Phrost
2nd February 10, 03:46 PM
Sorry, life's just better with guns.

Zendetta
2nd February 10, 03:56 PM
Indiaaaa... FUCK YEAH!!!

Saw this yesterday, glad you posted about it. Meanwhile, my fair city of Oakland takes another step away from the Constitution and towards anarchy/policestate/apocalypse/whatever.

The plan before City Council is to restrict Gun Crime by restricting access to ammunition.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/01/BA9U1BR2EL.DTL

Yeah, that's right. Policy for our very, very violent city is coming straight out of a Chris Rock routine.

Never mind that that guns and ammo are already heavily restricted for law-abiding citizens in Oakland.

Never mind that the thugs are, of course, very well armed.

Never mind that the city put all but one gun shop out of business a decade ago... only to see gun crime skyrocket.

Typical Cali Liberal Bullshit.

So now our limp-dicked Mayor will try to redeem his reputation as an impotent has-been by intruding on Constitutional Rights in the name of an utterly meaningless gesture that will not reduce gun violence at all.

Fucking Hell.

But there are some encouraging sentiments in the comments to that article - not everyone has drunk the kool-aid.

Phrost
2nd February 10, 04:02 PM
http://www.bullshido.net/images/uhaul.jpg

Robot Jesus
2nd February 10, 04:10 PM
Double negatives notwithstanding: there isn't a single country on the planet in which a legally armed person wouldn't be safer than an unarmed person.


Double negatives notwithstanding: there isn't a single country on the planet in which a person who never left the house wouldn't be safer than a person who did.


I don't disagree with you entirely, I just think your fixation with being armed shows a very different world view then my own. One so vastly different I suspect we either live in different worlds or one of our perceptions has been vastly skewed my ideology; if not both of our perceptions.

I think that the addition of fire arms will actually worsen the corruption and police brutality. once the police loose their monopoly on fire arms more drastic measures will be needed to maintain their position.

if you ban guns in a healthy system, the system won't automatically turn to shit. and if you allow them the same will happen.

same goes for broken systems.

Phrost
2nd February 10, 04:20 PM
If you have a system/government that's already corrupt, firearms in the hands of the citizens level the playing field.

I don't see how any morally-sound argument could be made in support of keeping a population unarmed in such a circumstance. The only possible way of rationalizing it is to look at things from a dispassionate, statistical perspective in which you put greater importance on the number of deaths than you do on the amount of liberty.

Spade: The Real Snake
2nd February 10, 04:21 PM
Indiaaaa... FUCK YEAH!!!


Hey.
Faggot. (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55100)

Spade: The Real Snake
2nd February 10, 04:23 PM
I don't disagree with you entirely, I just think your fixation with being armed shows a very different world view then my own.

I don't think, for me, it is as much a fixation with being armed as it is a fixation on BEING ABLE to be armed.

Phrost
2nd February 10, 04:27 PM
It's nice to have more options than "flee in terror", "cower on the ground in submission", or "meet your death in a foolish, but brave manner".

And when you already have a corrupt government that doesn't respect the Rule of Law, ensuring they're the only people that are armed is pretty fucking stupid.

Zendetta
2nd February 10, 05:08 PM
http://www.bullshido.net/images/uhaul.jpg

LOL, here's the thing:

Saturday, I spent at the beach in sunny Santa Cruz.

Sunday, I spent snowboarding in Tahoe.

Last night I cooked a simple meal of fresh wild fish and organic vegetables after lifting weights; tonight I'll do something similiar after boxing.

California Fucking Rocks! Its the idiots I can do without, but I'd just be frustrated with a different but equally idiotic gang of retards in CowTown or my home state of South Crazylina.

For now I'll follow my dharma by helping liberals see that Guns Are Awesome.

Robot Jesus
2nd February 10, 06:23 PM
It's nice to have more options than "flee in terror", "cower on the ground in submission", or "meet your death in a foolish, but brave manner".

And when you already have a corrupt government that doesn't respect the Rule of Law, ensuring they're the only people that are armed is pretty fucking stupid.


my main thought is that allowing people to arm themselves wont do much good unless they also organize them selves around a leader charismatic enough to unify them, smart enough to win (either politically or militarily, they would be the same in this situation), enlightened enough to not be another tyrant.

and I would argue if they did that the guns would be an after thought.

Vieux Normand
2nd February 10, 06:25 PM
What I mean to say is, this is a US constitutional right. Not a birth right guaranteed to all people on the planet.

Nothing self-serving there...

HappyOldGuy
2nd February 10, 06:33 PM
"An armed society is a polite society". Man, where have I heard that before?
From a sci fi author you follow slavishly to the point of ignoring reason? Oh well, I suppose it could be worse. (http://www.scientology.org)

Phrost
2nd February 10, 07:39 PM
I don't follow Heinlein, I'm just constantly surprised to find that he and I agree on so many conclusions to which I've arrived on my own over the years.

I didn't read Starship Troopers until a few years ago. And I read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "Stranger in a Strange Land" just this past year.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
2nd February 10, 07:47 PM
Phrost once said that Atlas Shrugged should be required reading for all twenty-somethings.

Cullion
2nd February 10, 07:50 PM
If you've read it, then there's no problem. Have you read it ?

Phrost
2nd February 10, 07:54 PM
I stand by that statement; different people will take away different things from that book, even if it's just "christ, Rand was a shitty writer".

socratic
2nd February 10, 08:18 PM
Giving Indians guns will just mean there's 2 extra zeroes on the death count of the next race riot/purging.

"Hey, now I can shoot the Muslim women and children!"

Phrost
2nd February 10, 08:20 PM
Make sure the Muslims have guns too.

socratic
2nd February 10, 08:20 PM
-

socratic
2nd February 10, 08:21 PM
Make sure the Muslims have guns too.
You're not appreciating the ratio of Hindus-to-Muslims and vice versa in certain parts of India. This is why they get purged so easily.

Phrost
2nd February 10, 08:22 PM
So basically you're saying people are unable to refrain from murder when given access to tools that enable it?

Cullion
2nd February 10, 08:27 PM
Socratic's not really sure about brown people's restraint and he just wants what's best for them.

Phrost
2nd February 10, 08:39 PM
People are getting killed now. Denying people every reasonable means of defending themselves is simply unconscionable.

A gun is a great tool for bridging some of the difference in strength between a minority and majority.

Scrapper
2nd February 10, 09:38 PM
Nothing solves the problems of the gestalt quite like taking options away from the individuals therein! Generalizations about hypothetical misuse of firearms by others as a basis for banning them robs those people of the ability to make the choice for themselves. It doesn't matter where they live. Or what color they are.

Most anti-gun people forget that most pro-gun people value self-determination over survivability. Seriously. I think that the average Indian should have the ability to chose to fight a corrupt system, or criminal, or whatever if they feel they have to. But then again, so should everyone.

To quote Harry Callahan, "I don't mind the shooting, as long as the right people get shot." Of course...sometimes the wrong people get shot too...but that's already happening, isn't it?

Wounded Ronin
2nd February 10, 09:42 PM
Phrost once said that Atlas Shrugged should be required reading for all twenty-somethings.

I thought that forcing someone to read through an entire Ayn Rand book was an enhanced interrogation technique.

Phrost
2nd February 10, 09:43 PM
Nothing solves the problems of the gestalt quite like taking options away from the individuals therein! Generalizations about hypothetical misuse of firearms by others as a basis for banning them robs those people of the ability to make the choice for themselves. It doesn't matter where they live. Or what color they are.

Most anti-gun people forget that most pro-gun people value self-determination over survivability. Seriously. I think that the average Indian should have the ability to chose to fight a corrupt system, or criminal, or whatever if they feel they have to. But then again, so should everyone.

To quote Harry Callahan, "I don't mind the shooting, as long as the right people get shot." Of course...sometimes the wrong people get shot too...but that's already happening, isn't it?


Yeah.

It is what it's always been: an argument between people who want everyone to live under the comforting skirt of the State, as a replacement for mommy and daddy; and people who'd rather live on their own terms and merits.

Voluntary individualism vs. compulsory collectivism.

Scrapper
2nd February 10, 09:46 PM
Except the fact that the government skirt sucks and ain't all that safe...

Sun Wukong
2nd February 10, 09:49 PM
Nothing self-serving there...


Spend a lot of time in 3rd world countries? Let me tell you, being well armed sure seems to have made Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq into lovely countries where nothing ever goes wrong, everyone is polite 24 hours a day and nobody ever bothers their neighbors.


How the fuck is that supposed to be self serving? Yeeeeaaaaah. You caught me though. I forgot to mention that I'm running a press gang armed with pistols that traffics young able bodied men from India to work in my spice mines on planet Arrakis

So long as those damned Atreides don't show up and start trying to arm the populace with the weirding way my life is going to be fucking awesome.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 09:51 PM
Fuck axioms.

Phrost
2nd February 10, 09:52 PM
Spend a lot of time in 3rd world countries? Let me tell you, being well armed sure seems to have made Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq into lovely countries were nothing ever goes wrong, everyone is polite 24 hours a day and nobody ever bothers their neighbors.

Spend a lot of time in repressive regimes? Let me tell you, having the population disarmed sure seems to have made Iran, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia lovely countries where everyone is safe 24 hours a day and nobody is tortured for expressing dissent.

We can both do this, but neither of us should because it's fucking stupid, unproductive, and irrelevant.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 10:06 PM
Firefights break out often in the, completely armed, Afghani mountain gun artisian villages.

But to be fair, they have banned the production of any heavy artillery.


They are also never raided by warlords.

Sun Wukong
2nd February 10, 10:41 PM
Spend a lot of time in repressive regimes? Let me tell you, having the population disarmed sure seems to have made Iran, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia lovely countries where everyone is safe 24 hours a day and nobody is tortured for expressing dissent.

We can both do this, but neither of us should because it's fucking stupid, unproductive, and irrelevant.

People still go to Cuba for vacation regularly. I just saw a poster in Canada advertising travel there.

And no, it's not irrelevant.

America's government is extremely strong. We culturally believe in the rule of law and we have grown reliant on our system of laws to insure justice.

In the US, if somebody breeches a contract with you, you don't stick a gun up their nose and demand they stick to the agreement; you take them to court. If someone steals from you, you call a cop. If you buy a gun, you go through a waiting period while the government runs a background check on you.

In a poor population with a weak government and a tendency toward anarchy, proliferation of firearms usually only insures safety and security for the people who can afford to buy more guns than everyone else. People settle their disputes with their weapons, not by going to the police. These armed people gather into groups, and eventually you've got warlords running the show.

In the US, the less money and education you have, the more likely you are to commit a crime.

Our population is about 300 million people, our GDP is about 14.2 trillion dollars.

The population of India was reported at about 1.1 Billion, which is probably a conservative estimate. Their GDP is 1.2 trillion dollars. Due to the culture of corruption and lack of discipline within government officials, combined with their bulging population, managing India is extremely difficult for them.

I remember listening to a discussion about the use of police states as legitimate form of government by poor countries. They have little other way to enforce the law, so they are forced to make highly restrictive rules that apply to everyone.

Compare it to a bar room in a poor blue collar community. The more liquoured up the locals get or alternately as more and more people arrive, the more difficulty the staff have keeping order. As the night wears on the likely hood of fights, violence and rioting accelerates.

If the staff has a bouncer that can spot trouble people and toss them out whenever the need arises, the likelihood of major problems goes significantly downwar.

Now imagine that your bouncer started shaking down random people for money and began accepting gratuities from people in exchange for letting them stay no matter how riotous they became.

Now repeal all gun control laws and let them arm themselves to their hearts content while drinking alcohol. In this scenario, a minor problem is a drunken asshole with a gun; a major problem is a group of drunken assholes with many guns and deep enough pockets to pay off every bouncer in town.

This is probably how the government of India see's this situation.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 10:47 PM
Didn't many towns in the old west required you to check your six-shooter with the sherif?

Or is that a western trope?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
2nd February 10, 10:47 PM
If you've read it, then there's no problem. Have you read it ?

Part of it. I don't make it a habit to finish terrible books.

Scrapper
2nd February 10, 10:48 PM
Sun,

Why don't you just say, "They aren't ready for that much freedom."

I'm not saying the scenario you laid out wasn't possible, but you are not-so-subtly ENDORSING repression and a police state. You approach it with reason and tact, but you appear to have basically said:

"It is probable that those people aren't evolved enough as a society, nor are they responsible enough as individuals to own guns."

Or at the least, that is how it looks to me.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 10:53 PM
So according to you, guns are magic civilizer sticks

Spade: The Real Snake
2nd February 10, 11:00 PM
Didn't many towns in the old west required you to check your six-shooter with the sherif?

Or is that a western trope?

Not from the town's citizens but from unknown people entering town.
Many of the townfolk's residents were deputies, as well.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 11:02 PM
Why were these people robbed of their freedom to protect themselves?

Scrapper
2nd February 10, 11:07 PM
So according to you, guns are magic civilizer sticks

What do you mean?

I bet you can't find me saying anything to that effect anywhere here or on Bullshido.

You WILL find me saying that guns are NOT magic swords that only kill dragons. Many places. You will find me pointing out that every time a someone is killed with a firearm a choice has been made by the executor of the action. You will find me stridently defending EVERY person's right to make the choice for themselves. You will find me saying that guns are inanimate objects and applying value judgments to them is intellectual dishonesty.

But you won't find me saying that guns magically civilize any one or thing.

I want to address what Sun DID say... to ensure I understand his context, and to debate it properly. If you want to discuss something I've said, pick something I've actually said, please.

Scrapper
2nd February 10, 11:09 PM
Why were these people robbed of their freedom to protect themselves?

Because the average frontier lawman was often just a hired gunman who liked to stack the odds in his favor as much as possible.

Bill Hickock and Wyatt Earp were as often on one side of the law as they were the other.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 11:14 PM
So you are saying, in a society, the right to kill outweighs any other right?

That is my interpretation of your statement.


(you will naturally specify with the proviso "to protect liberty" or something.)

Scrapper
2nd February 10, 11:17 PM
So you are saying, in a society, the right to kill outweighs any other right?

That is my interpretation of your statement.


(you will naturally specify with the proviso "to protect liberty" or something.)

Too easy.

The right to kill ENSURES the other rights.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 11:19 PM
Barbarism ensures civility.

jvjim
2nd February 10, 11:22 PM
Ian thinks national governments are barbaric.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 11:24 PM
Did you just confuse me with TLH?

Scrapper
2nd February 10, 11:24 PM
Semantics.

One man's barbarism is another man's self-defense.

I can use several definitions of "barbarism" to make your statement either true or false with equal facility.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 11:56 PM
People confuse the right and the need.

Scrapper
2nd February 10, 11:58 PM
People confuse the right and the need.

On that we agree.

TheMightyMcClaw
3rd February 10, 12:00 AM
So according to you, guns are magic civilizer sticks

Civility!
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/currentstudents/moduledocs/pgmodules/is/whatisinternationalsecurity/child_soldier.jpg

EuropIan
3rd February 10, 12:10 AM
no no, firearms are clearly a part of the Civilization tech tree.

That boy is definitely more civilized

Sun Wukong
3rd February 10, 08:36 AM
Sun,

Why don't you just say, "They aren't ready for that much freedom."

I'm not saying the scenario you laid out wasn't possible, but you are not-so-subtly ENDORSING repression and a police state. You approach it with reason and tact, but you appear to have basically said:

"It is probable that those people aren't evolved enough as a society, nor are they responsible enough as individuals to own guns."

Or at the least, that is how it looks to me.


Saddam Hussein's rule was not righteous or benevolent; it was effective though.

Is Iraq better off with the "freedom" we've given them?

Also, I just don't think India's government has the resources to handle over seeing and enforcing laws in an armed society.

Phrost
3rd February 10, 09:11 AM
Saddam Hussein's rule was not righteous or benevolent; it was effective though.

Is Iraq better off with the "freedom" we've given them?

Also, I just don't think India's government has the resources to handle over seeing and enforcing laws in an armed society.

Yes, Iraq is better off now than it was under Hussein. If you do not believe this then you're more of a willing slave-to-the-state than I'd have guessed.

You realize Stalin and Mussolini were Hussein's role-models, right?

Sun Wukong
3rd February 10, 09:54 AM
Yes, Iraq is better off now than it was under Hussein. If you do not believe this then you're more of a willing slave-to-the-state than I'd have guessed.


Willing slave to the state? Good lord man, you need to stop taking yourself so god damn seriously. That is a little over dramatic. There are inherent problems with running a country. As a government becomes weak, there is a necessity of moving toward a police state to maintain order and stay in power.

The more wealthy and powerful your nation becomes, the more you must move away from being a police state. Take China for instance, 30 years ago under pure communism they were struggling; people were branded capitalists (then an insult) for wearing blue jeans. They relaxed the rules to allow more freedom and began the slow trek of acquiring power and economic might.

Now, young people in China openly scoff at the goverment and make jokes at their expense. The government can not possibly quiet all their critics within the nation and soon they will have to either make a dramatic move back to police state-hood or relax rules further to allow their culture to continue flourishing. however, they must gain some additional respect from their people if they are to further relax freedoms because the more they loosen their grip, the more it becomes obvious their non-democratic rulership does little for the people.

When a government is strong and wealthy such as the US or UK, people have a tendency to rely on it in increasing ways. The more they rely on it, the stronger the government becomes but the worse the economy becomes.

These things are cyclical.

There is NO perfect system of government. Human beings have been on this planet for a really long god damn time. Democracy is relatively new but communism, facism and nationalism are not. In fact, those things are old hat and you can clearly identify those government styles in nearly every great civilization going back to hammurabi.

I do NOT believe that returning people to the "do as thou wilt" phase of developement is some how the missing evolutionary gap to Utopia.



You realize Stalin and Mussolini were Hussein's role-models, right?

And there are lessons to learn from these men as well as from good men.

Mussolini was torn apart in the streets by his own people, but the architecture of his rise to power was a brilliant display of using people's weaknesses to gain power over them. He wielded wedge issues like a light sabre and grand militaristic rhetoric vaulted him to heroic status among some. If you weren't so busy protecting your own interests, you'd see Mussolini's handiwork given life much more clearly in our own country than in Iraq.

Commodore Pipes
3rd February 10, 12:52 PM
So you are saying, in a society, the right to kill outweighs any other right?

That is my interpretation of your statement.


(you will naturally specify with the proviso "to protect liberty" or something.)

C'mon man, really?

There is no 'right' to kill. You shoot someone, the police still investigate. The DA still can bring charges. You do have a right to own a firearm, and since the kind isn't specified, yes, you can own weapons that are really only designed to be used against humans. But don't equate that with a right to kill. Were you even serious?

SFGOON
3rd February 10, 01:03 PM
. If you do not believe this then you're more of a willing slave-to-the-state than I'd have guessed.


OMG TLH H4X0r3D!!!!

Scrapper
3rd February 10, 01:09 PM
Willing slave to the state? Good lord man, you need to stop taking yourself so god damn seriously. That is a little over dramatic. There are inherent problems with running a country. As a government becomes weak, there is a necessity of moving toward a police state to maintain order and stay in power.

The more wealthy and powerful your nation becomes, the more you must move away from being a police state. Take China for instance, 30 years ago under pure communism they were struggling; people were branded capitalists (then an insult) for wearing blue jeans. They relaxed the rules to allow more freedom and began the slow trek of acquiring power and economic might.

Now, young people in China openly scoff at the goverment and make jokes at their expense. The government can not possibly quiet all their critics within the nation and soon they will have to either make a dramatic move back to police state-hood or relax rules further to allow their culture to continue flourishing. however, they must gain some additional respect from their people if they are to further relax freedoms because the more they loosen their grip, the more it becomes obvious their non-democratic rulership does little for the people.

When a government is strong and wealthy such as the US or UK, people have a tendency to rely on it in increasing ways. The more they rely on it, the stronger the government becomes but the worse the economy becomes.

These things are cyclical.

I have a degree in Economics you know, surely you understand that I took political science classes rigth?

There is NO perfect system of government. Human beings have been on this planet for a really long god damn time. Democracy is relatively new but communism, facism and nationalism are not. In fact, those things are old hat and you can clearly identify those government styles in nearly every great civilization going back to hammurabi.

I do NOT believe that returning people to the "do as thou wilt" phase of developement is some how the missing evolutionary gap to Utopia.



And there are lessons to learn from these men as well as from good men.

Mussolini was torn apart in the streets by his own people, but the architecture of his rise to power was a brilliant display of using people's weaknesses to gain power over them. He wielded wedge issues like a light sabre and grand militaristic rhetoric vaulted him to heroic status among some. If you weren't so busy protecting your own interests, you'd see Mussolini's handiwork given life much more clearly in our own country than in Iraq.

So some societies NEED to be repressed? Until they are wealthy and stable enough to conform to rule of law (predicated on the assumption that wealthy people have more to lose and are more likely to toe the line) some form of rigid, institutional oversight is necessary to ensure stability? Do I understand you correctly? (With all respect, I just want to make sure I'm arguing the correct point here!!)

Believe it or not, I understand that paradigm, but I still reject it. Both of our philosophies/models involve the repression and persecution of the innocent, but in mine, the innocent have recourse to choose/resist.

I understand that police-states have been successful in stabilizing wobbly societies, but they are never remembered fondly in history, and rarely last long in the modern world without going far beyond what is necessary for order. There is an element of terror and atrocity that is necessary for a repressive-style regime to have any staying power, and that is unacceptable to me.

Sun Wukong
3rd February 10, 01:40 PM
Sun,

Why don't you just say, "They aren't ready for that much freedom."

I'm not saying the scenario you laid out wasn't possible, but you are not-so-subtly ENDORSING repression and a police state. You approach it with reason and tact, but you appear to have basically said:

"It is probable that those people aren't evolved enough as a society, nor are they responsible enough as individuals to own guns."

Or at the least, that is how it looks to me.


I'm not making individual attacks on Indians, just because they are Indians. I'm no racist.

I don't think the government could easily enforce their laws and I believe it would produce a destabilizing effect. I also believe in soveriegnty of an individual nation to provide it's own answers to it's problems.

Their government doesn't seem to think it's a good idea and I'd have to wonder what their police would have to say on the subject.

I'm not opposed to police states, they are a tool and a means to an end. Is making guns illegal a form of repression? How about making tanks and bombs illegal? What about a privately owned army with full weapons acquisition rights? Why are they illegal? Answer: because the US government lacks the facilities to deal with a rogue tank owner or bomber in an effective way but a guy with a gun is a relatively easy mark for the police to handle.

The analogy sticks well in my opinion to India but does not apply well to a modern nation with a strong society. There is a matter of scope that is significant.

Commodore Pipes
3rd February 10, 01:52 PM
I'm not making individual attacks on Indians, just because they are Indians. I'm no racist.

I don't think the government could easily enforce their laws and I believe it would produce a destabilizing effect. I also believe in soveriegnty of an individual nation to provide it's own answers to it's problems.

Their government doesn't seem to think it's a good idea and I'd have to wonder what their police would have to say on the subject.

I'm not opposed to police states, they are a tool and a means to an end. Is making guns illegal a form of repression? How about making tanks and bombs illegal? What about a privately owned army with full weapons acquisition rights? Why are they illegal? Answer: because the US government lacks the facilities to deal with a rogue tank owner or bomber in an effective way but a guy with a gun is a relatively easy mark for the police to handle.

The analogy sticks well in my opinion to India but does not apply well to a modern nation with a strong society. There is a matter of scope that is significant.

So, in other words, reducing the instance of a potentially destablizing element like a firearm is preferable to instituting the potentially much more repressive controls a government would require to safely accomodate such a destablizing element? To expand on one of your examples, the controls that the police would require to apply their legal duty in protection of valid laws in the case of a criminal with a tank (things like police department rocket launchers, tanks, gunships, etc) would be potentially more harmful to long-term liberty and stability than simply banning private ownership of tanks?

That's a pretty interesting point I haven't considered. Or have I completely missed/twisted the point you were trying to make?

EvilSteve
3rd February 10, 02:05 PM
Okay, so if people should always have the right to own weaponry, specifically guns, for the purpose of defending themselves, should groups or countries have the same right? For instance, should every country be allowed to possess a nuclear arsenal, since that would effectively protect them from being invaded by a superpower, and probably most of their neighbors as well?

If the answer is no, then where do you draw the line? Sure, we can all say that Bob next door probably shouldn't be given a missile tank, and that maybe some survivalist group somewhere probably shouldn't be allowed to stockpile Davy Crockett guns, but should a private citizen, regardless of nationality, be allowed to possess a fully automatic M-4? What if that citizen is a Baathist who will use it to kill U.S. servicemen - i.e. defend his country from foreign invaders?

EuropIan
3rd February 10, 02:08 PM
C'mon man, really?

There is no 'right' to kill. You shoot someone, the police still investigate. The DA still can bring charges. You do have a right to own a firearm, and since the kind isn't specified, yes, you can own weapons that are really only designed to be used against humans. But don't equate that with a right to kill. Were you even serious?
Read Scrapper's post about defending the right to kill with firearms.

So yes, it was a serious question.

Commodore Pipes
3rd February 10, 02:21 PM
Read Scrapper's post about defending the right to kill with firearms.

So yes, it was a serious question.

Oh, okay. Sorry about that. I see what you were responding to - the whole 'right to make the choice, even if it is the wrong choice' part. In my mind I got it confused with the talk of western gun society, which wasn't as free as a lot of people think it was, and demanded accountability for violence much more than is protrayed in popular fiction. In my brain it got all jumbled up into a sexy, sweaty mess of half-dressed ideas.

In that case, well, I would make the distinction that again, 'right' isn't the correct word, but yes, I think that a citizenry generally should have access to the means to protect itself from criminals of all stripes, and that description might include the government.

Commodore Pipes
3rd February 10, 02:26 PM
... and that maybe some survivalist group somewhere probably shouldn't be allowed to stockpile Davy Crockett guns,

Hey, what's a Davy Crockett gun?

Kein Haar
3rd February 10, 02:26 PM
Do you know how many wives/daughters would get a cap in they ass?

EuropIan
3rd February 10, 02:39 PM
Have armed citizens ever made your job easier or more difficult, Kein?

Scrapper
3rd February 10, 03:04 PM
Okay, so if people should always have the right to own weaponry, specifically guns, for the purpose of defending themselves, should groups or countries have the same right? For instance, should every country be allowed to possess a nuclear arsenal, since that would effectively protect them from being invaded by a superpower, and probably most of their neighbors as well?

If the answer is no, then where do you draw the line? Sure, we can all say that Bob next door probably shouldn't be given a missile tank, and that maybe some survivalist group somewhere probably shouldn't be allowed to stockpile Davy Crockett guns, but should a private citizen, regardless of nationality, be allowed to possess a fully automatic M-4? What if that citizen is a Baathist who will use it to kill U.S. servicemen - i.e. defend his country from foreign invaders?


For me, the line is drawn at competence. I have no issues with my neighbor having am automatic rifle, provided he has demonstrated competence with the technology. Training and certification has never bothered me. I don't object to driver's licenses, gun licenses or any other reasonable safety/competence requirements for these things.

EuropIan
3rd February 10, 03:15 PM
I am all for gun licenses and certification.

Kein Haar
3rd February 10, 03:32 PM
Have armed citizens ever made your job easier or more difficult, Kein?

It has really been a moot point. Has never really hurt nor helped in personal experience.

Within the past couple years, someone took a shot at a burglar, though. We were all sad that he missed.

I would ask that question to a pig in a city with a high volume of calls in a gun-friendly state.

We have relatively low volume, and we are not gun friendly.

EuropIan
3rd February 10, 03:40 PM
p.s. would you like a jetpack and a net gun? To go along with your devil may care attitude.

Phrost
3rd February 10, 03:58 PM
I don't know what's confusing about this: if someone's trying to kill you, you have the right to stop them at all cost, even if that includes killing them.

EvilSteve
3rd February 10, 04:00 PM
For me, the line is drawn at competence. I have no issues with my neighbor having am automatic rifle, provided he has demonstrated competence with the technology. Training and certification has never bothered me. I don't object to driver's licenses, gun licenses or any other reasonable safety/competence requirements for these things.

Fully agree, and frankly think we should have competency tests for gun ownership rather than the overly restrictive gun laws and registration fees we have now.

Although what I'm getting at here is not to espouse a particular view on who should be able to own a gun, but rather to acknowledge that the ethical solution here (everyone who is physically/mentally competent to use a gun has the right to own one) is sometimes less pragmatic than the less ethical "keep guns away from anyone who doesn't like me" especially when trying to govern what is essentially a conquered country (Iraq). I think that's what SW is getting at. It's an ugly aspect of this whole discussion, but also probably valid. Here in the U.S. it is essential to our democratic process that we extend all rights even and especially to those who oppose us. In the rest of the world, maybe that doesn't work so well because they haven't figured out how not to be backward fucktards.

EvilSteve
3rd February 10, 04:02 PM
Hey, what's a Davy Crockett gun?
This:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg/450px-Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg

It's a recoilless rifle with a nuclear warhead on it.

EDIT: This has to be one of the most ridiculous and awesome looking weapons evar.

EuropIan
3rd February 10, 04:06 PM
by backward fucktards you mean different social norms that place the value of violence as a means of coercion higher than in, say, the US.

EvilSteve
3rd February 10, 04:12 PM
by backward fucktards you mean different social norms that place the value of violence as a means of coercion higher than in, say, the US.

Yep, that's part of it. However, it could also be that they are normally no more prone to violence than we are, but would still be moved to violence if we were to, say, try to separate church and state. Or institute women's rights. Or gay rights. Or universal suffrage. You don't have to be a violent person to be moved to violence by something you find particularly odious.

Vieux Normand
3rd February 10, 04:52 PM
A good 70-plus percent of the fights I've had to break up, working in Toronto and Vancouver nightclubs, have involved individuals whose families come from the Deccan peninsula or areas adjacent to it. Either that part of the planet has a lot of cultures which don't stress emotional self-restraint...or they do but can't (or won't) control their young men.

Is this a reason to deny them guns? Hell no. The problem has a two-pronged solution:

1) Give them all the guns they want.

2) Don't let them enter your country, wherever that may be.

For those already in your country, offer them free guns...which they can pick up at their families' place of origin. Those not into guns or violence can stay...until their first violent outburst.

socratic
3rd February 10, 06:20 PM
So basically you're saying people are unable to refrain from murder when given access to tools that enable it?
No, you fucking moron, I'm saying that they're going to murder the Muslims given the chance and given guns they'll just get better at it, and even arming the Muslims won't stop the Hindus (who vastly outnumber them) doing it.


People are getting killed now. Denying people every reasonable means of defending themselves is simply unconscionable.

A gun is a great tool for bridging some of the difference in strength between a minority and majority.
Not if the majority has guns as well. Are you seriously this stupid? Your brain switched off as soon as you heard 'guns'. Go get a towel and then come back to the discussion.


Yes, Iraq is better off now than it was under Hussein. If you do not believe this then you're more of a willing slave-to-the-state than I'd have guessed.

You realize Stalin and Mussolini were Hussein's role-models, right?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....


HAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Whoo, boy. Do you want to ask the people who died in the last suicide bombing how much better their country is without Saddam Hussein?


I don't know what's confusing about this: if someone's trying to kill you, you have the right to stop them at all cost, even if that includes killing them.
No one is confused about this. What you don't understand is that having guns around will not make it easier to stay alive in the more volatile parts of India.

socratic
3rd February 10, 06:27 PM
Look, I've spoken time and time again about guns, with pretty much everyone. I'm not ANTI civilians arming themselves, I think people probably should have the right to bear arms.

What I am arguing against is this fucking moronic idea that gun-nuts everywhere (and Phrost particularly) has which is that guns are somehow a magic bandaid that will cure all social ills and make sure no one ever gets murdered again. Thinking this, Mr Ham-Fist then goes and applies the magic bandaid of American-style gun laws to everywhere and everything, even if in doing so he commits massive cultural anachronism.

The point is that giving Indians guns won't make anything better and has every chance of making everything a lot worse. I don't see how arming the minority AND the majority somehow makes the minority safer.

Weapons by themselves do not make for polite societies, as much as Phrost would like to think so.

Sometimes I think Phrost and people like him must live in a cartoon world, where the only measurement of worth is how much 'freedom' you have, where Cuba is a much worse place to live than Sudan because the Sudanese have total freedom from the state.

Cullion
3rd February 10, 06:28 PM
I'm glad to see your spelling and grammar is coming on, but I still think you should shut up until you're old enough to buy alcohol in every state of the US.

socratic
3rd February 10, 06:37 PM
I'm glad to see your spelling and grammar is coming on, but I still think you should shut up until you're old enough to buy alcohol in every state of the US.
I am old enough to buy alcohol in every state of the US.

Cullion, did you just ask me A/S/L?

Commodore Pipes
3rd February 10, 07:02 PM
What I am arguing against is this fucking moronic idea that gun-nuts everywhere (and Phrost particularly) has which is that guns are somehow a magic bandaid that will cure all social ills and make sure no one ever gets murdered again. Thinking this, Mr Ham-Fist then goes and applies the magic bandaid of American-style gun laws to everywhere and everything, even if in doing so he commits massive cultural anachronism.


Disclaimer: I'm pretty drunk right now, so I might make even less sense than I normally do.

Okay. I don't think anyone is arguing that gun ownership automatically prevents crime. All they do is give you an equal or superior means to counter violence committed against your person. You might lose or you might win. But why, as the innocent party in this scenario, should you be constrained to use lumber or rocks or kitchen knives to defend yourself? yeah, it's simplisitic, I admit, but I'm drunk and I think it's still valid.


The point is that giving Indians guns won't make anything better and has every chance of making everything a lot worse. I don't see how arming the minority AND the majority somehow makes the minority safer.

Weapons by themselves do not make for polite societies, as much as Phrost would like to think so.


Sure, that's true, but keeping weapons away from the Bosnians sure didn't help them either. I know it isn't a 1-1 corollary because those were states and not individual citizens, but I think it's applicable. The ethnic Serbs and Croats didn't seem to give two fucking shits about the arms embargo, while the Bosniaks were the only ones left unarmed.

socratic
3rd February 10, 07:20 PM
Disclaimer: I'm pretty drunk right now, so I might make even less sense than I normally do.

Okay. I don't think anyone is arguing that gun ownership automatically prevents crime. All they do is give you an equal or superior means to counter violence committed against your person. You might lose or you might win. But why, as the innocent party in this scenario, should you be constrained to use lumber or rocks or kitchen knives to defend yourself? yeah, it's simplisitic, I admit, but I'm drunk and I think it's still valid. I suppose they do make you safer in the sense that you can have (at best) equal firepower as whoever's trying to kill you. That won't be all that much of a deterrent however in situations (like in india) where you're massively outnumbered by people who really really want to kill you.

The argument people tend to put forward is that being armed will deter attack but I suspect it isn't as cut-and-dry as that. There's a lot more factors in whether or not you get purged or something beyond "Does he have a gun?". Like, "Does he have a house? Can we set it on fire?", "Do we have guns?", "Are there more of us?", "Do we have better guns?"

Sure, that's true, but keeping weapons away from the Bosnians sure didn't help them either. I know it isn't a 1-1 corollary because those were states and not individual citizens, but I think it's applicable. The ethnic Serbs and Croats didn't seem to give two fucking shits about the arms embargo, while the Bosniaks were the only ones left unarmed.
Didn't the Bosnians have Jihadis on their side?

Maybe there'd be a lot more Bosnians alive today if they were well-armed. I wonder if maybe a lot would still be dead though against an equally-armed and more-numerous force that would be the Croats and the Serbs.

Commodore Pipes
3rd February 10, 07:28 PM
I don't know. The Bonsiaks had the plurality at 43% of the population; still outnumbered by the croats and serbs together, but outnumbering either group individually.

socratic
3rd February 10, 07:32 PM
I don't know. The Bonsiaks had the plurality at 43% of the population; still outnumbered by the croats and serbs together, but outnumbering either group individually.
Huh.

Wow, guns really would have helped them.

Or a proper international response. Reason number 5 billion why the UN doesn't work: Peacekeepers can only return fire if fired upon. You could get civilian brains on your blue beret and not shoot the mofos.

Didn't the Bosniaks have Jihadis on their side?

Commodore Pipes
3rd February 10, 07:49 PM
Huh.

Didn't the Bosniaks have Jihadis on their side?

Honestly, I don't remember. They are ethnically muslim, and what's his face, Wes Clark, claimed during his primary campaign that he already defeated al queida in Bosnia. On the other hand, I've heard that US intelligence groups used loopholes and backdoor tactics to arm the bosniaks, which makes me think that jihadists didn't make up a signinficant number of the resistance, or else we armed al queida at some point, which is possible, given our history.

socratic
3rd February 10, 08:11 PM
Actually now that I think about it I'm pretty sure Al Queda was funneling Jihadis from Pakistan and Afghanistan into Bosnia.

That said just 'cause you have some Jihadis doesn't mean you're well-defended.

Commodore Pipes
3rd February 10, 08:16 PM
Yeah, it's gotten a little off topic. But now at least I feel sober enough to drive home from work, so... SCORE.

Ajamil
4th February 10, 03:24 AM
Look, I wouldn't step foot in India without a very good reason. The culture and government there is not at all like the US. The value of human life over there is extremely low.

Additionally the central government there is extremely weak and the police do not have the training and discipline ours do. Remember those terrorist attacks at that hotel and the reporters kept commenting on how the police were refusing to confront the terrorists directly with lethal force?
Funny, my month in India had none of this. Granted there were times I was in a large group, and I'm a rich white American (although you'd think that would up the reasons for bothering me if mugging or kidnapping). Worse thing I got was local kids laughing and throwing stuff at me, and some rikshaws overpricing. I suppose I was never in downtown backalleys of Mumbai either, but I was in the largest shopping area in Calcutta (it was also bombed once).

The govts. are weak (there are several, India has states too), but local village rule is present, and many are small enough that simple social mores keep the peace more often than not. In fact, I bet TLH would like it a lot.

Now, if you're an asshole, certainly - you're going to get in trouble. Local villages couldn't care less about some foreigner - especially if their taxidriver happens to hit some villager, then run away (happened to my temple president), and mobs can form quick. Police are also corrupt, agreed - but it's so widespread as to almost be an accepted way of life there (the taxidriver's boss was demanding my temple president pay for half the trip - the part before the driver hit a villager).

Most of this can be avoided the same way you avoid getting mugged in New York - don't be an asshole to the locals, pay attention, don't go off on your own down some hard to see alley. Definitely have a guide.

Giving Indians guns will just mean there's 2 extra zeroes on the death count of the next race riot/purging.

"Hey, now I can shoot the Muslim women and children!"
And when they rioted without guns they bludgeoned and burned each other to death. Guns won't change anything but how fast they go down and the ability to hide in your house and defend your family.

I'm all for India getting guns and making it a constitutional right. The culture might finally learn punctuality, although their tempers and their dramatic tendencies might cause some problems. No more than here, though.

socratic
4th February 10, 04:09 AM
And when they rioted without guns they bludgeoned and burned each other to death. Guns won't change anything but how fast they go down and the ability to hide in your house and defend your family. I bolded that part because it's important to note that you yourself admitted this. This is the part I'm most interested in. The part that follows the bold is a point I hadn't considered well enough I don't think. Still, in the situations that DID have significant casualties hiding behind your furniture and shooting whoever comes in the door may not work so well when there's 50 000 of them and they've got guns too.

You're a better India-watcher than I am, so I'll gladly defer to your insight, but let me remind you of this: Following Operation Blue Star, arson was a popular means of purging Sihks. Staying inside with yer gunz doesn't work when they burn your house down then set you on fire (or shoot you, if we're saying they've all got guns) when you come out.

I'm all for India getting guns and making it a constitutional right. The culture might finally learn punctuality, although their tempers and their dramatic tendencies might cause some problems. No more than here, though.
I wonder if maybe it'll make what powder-kegs there are much bigger. No doubt muggings and whatnot might start going a different way, but the race riots...

I don't think you can teach anyone who believes in rebirth punctuality. I saw a good TED talk about the role of myths and myth-making in the formation of the nation and nationalism and whatnot. The Indian speaker compared the Gymnosophist (no doubt a samnyasin) and Alexander the Great; one believed in endless cyclical life, the other a single linear life. One was trying to do nothing and the other wanted to do as much of everything as quickly as possible. If you honestly don't think you're ever going to run out of time punctuality might not be a big deal for you.

Ajamil
4th February 10, 05:08 AM
I bolded that part because it's important to note that you yourself admitted this. This is the part I'm most interested in. The part that follows the bold is a point I hadn't considered well enough I don't think. Still, in the situations that DID have significant casualties hiding behind your furniture and shooting whoever comes in the door may not work so well when there's 50 000 of them and they've got guns too.My point was simply people will find ways to kill each other - not having a gun won't stop them. The interesting thing is that India already hasgun rights, so this isn't really whether their govt. is figuring out whether their citizens can own a gun or not, it's whether owning a gun is a national right - something none but the Indians can determine. Though personally I can root and holler for anyone getting more guaranteed protection from a govt.


You're a better India-watcher than I am, so I'll gladly defer to your insight,Ugh, don't do that.


Following Operation Blue Star, arson was a popular means of purging Sihks. Staying inside with yer gunz doesn't work when they burn your house down then set you on fire (or shoot you, if we're saying they've all got guns) when you come out.Never heard of this, new thread expansion?


I wonder if maybe it'll make what powder-kegs there are much bigger. No doubt muggings and whatnot might start going a different way, but the race riots...The race/culture riots will be bad. I won't try to dance away from that, it's too sad. My thought is more on the accidental shootings though. Someone mentioned before that a lot of women and daughters'll get shot; I wonder how many of those will be self-inflicted from hysterical theatrics gone wrong.


I don't think you can teach anyone who believes in rebirth punctuality. Heh, "I'll get around to it."

socratic
4th February 10, 06:08 AM
My point was simply people will find ways to kill each other - not having a gun won't stop them. The interesting thing is that India already hasgun rights, so this isn't really whether their govt. is figuring out whether their citizens can own a gun or not, it's whether owning a gun is a national right - something none but the Indians can determine. Though personally I can root and holler for anyone getting more guaranteed protection from a govt. Say what? They've already GOT t3h gunz!? Problem solved!


Ugh, don't do that. Me: Some light reading and a semester in university. You: A religion.


Never heard of this, new thread expansion? Do you know about Operation Blue Star? Terrorist Sihk started launching attacks from Golden Temple in Amritsar. Military operation by Indian gov, killed heaps of civilians, fucked up the temple big time. As a sign of good will female PM says "No, I won't fire Sihk bodyguards." Sihk bodyguards assassinate her. Hindus go crazy, start killing Sihk civilians. Heard many stories about burning houses/cars/people. Lots of arson.


The race/culture riots will be bad. I won't try to dance away from that, it's too sad. My thought is more on the accidental shootings though. Someone mentioned before that a lot of women and daughters'll get shot; I wonder how many of those will be self-inflicted from hysterical theatrics gone wrong. I'm less worried about women and children being killed accidentally as I am MORE women and children being killed DELIBERATELY.


Heh, "I'll get around to it." "Before or after your atman transmigrates, you bastard!?"