Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Fact checking Gandhi on Guns: To Lie is to Lose

I like to fact check. I fact check the right, the left, and the center; whenever I see a fact that looks questionable I check it.

The right is lying, again, still; this time about Gandhi and guns. We cannot have a productive, honest discussion when people on one side refuse to tell the truth as a foundational premise of such a discussion.

Gandhi = Guns? Gandhi advocating a 'lock and load' policy? Gandhi as Rambo? No, emphatically NO.

But it is the most fun to bring the right to book, because they seem to make the most egregious errors, and to just plain make up shit far more often. The difference between honest error and deliberate deception is in the willingness to correct, and in the intention of the error.

I recently for example, caught a left leaning face book page promoting a quote from Thomas Jefferson, complete with date (1816) that was not a genuine statement, spoken or written, by Jefferson.  The definitive one-stop shopping, so to speak, for fact checking all quotes from Jefferson is  They not only track what quotes are genuine, they do an excellent job of tracking when and where and by whom the fake quotes originate.

So, I called this to their attention - and got a prompt response acknowledging that they knew the quote to be inaccurate, but that they had tried to paraphrase the content, several paragraphs long, from letters.  The letters did exist; I read them, and the paraphrase was somewhat expressive of that content, but still not a quote, and even as a paraphrase, there was some cherry-picking taking place.

The site's reaction was to inquire if I disagreed with their position, which the quote was used to support. My response, was 'No', in fact I agreed with them, I just felt that their paraphrase masquerading as a quote actually weakened a position that could stand better on its own merits.

They agreed to review and revise their face book poster. Reasonable people, they tried to be more accurate and representative. Most importantly, they acknowledged that being inaccurate weakened their position, and did not support it.

The opposite is the case with the right; they feel that so long as someone makes a statement even kind of / sort of connects to an event or person, that any amount of misrepresentation, any amount of alteration, is legitimate.  We saw this in the arguments supporting the illegal and misleading, deceptive and intrusive recordings done by James O'Keefe, who has made an infamous career of serial dishonesty.

With that in mind, it is another pleasure to debunk the right wingnuts and extremists bogus claims about the late, great Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and guns. Here are a few examples of dishonesty from the right:

Ouch gunners!
How does it feel
to be busted
lying about
Gandhi and guns?

From the Academy award winning biographical movie Gandhi, with Ben Kingsley, reprising Gandhi's actual speech.

What is true? What is the historic reality?

It's not this nonsense.

The video below is from the Academy award winning biographical movie Gandhi, with Ben Kingsley, reprising Gandhi's actual speech about non-violence, one of the best repudiations for the claim.that he was a pro-gun advocate or pro-violence in any way, no matter what the provocation.

So.....where did the gun quotes come from? It was a reference to the India Arms Act of 1878, and it came from a pamphlet written by Gandhi, urging Indians to fight alongside the British in WW I.
“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. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.”
And as anti-gun violence crusader Ladd Everitt noted, quoting K.P. Nayer, of the Calcutta 'Telegraph' about Gandhi's statements taken out of context, they were made as “an opportunity for a political struggle against the colonial rulers and for the repeal of the unjust Arms Act,” not “for more Indians to have access to guns.” Also noted historian of non-violence Peter Brock wrote about these comments - the FULL comments:
“[Gandhi] believed at that time (although he became more skeptical of this later on) that India could win equal partnership for itself within the British Empire if as large a number as possible of its able-bodied men volunteered to help the Empire, in one way or another, in times of need.”
But just in case there might still be any ambiguity in what Gandhi had to say about guns, in his autobiography, quoting a letter he wrote to the Viceroy of India during WW I:
“I would make India offer all her able-bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at its critical moment, and I know that India, by this very act, would become the most favoured partner in the Empire … I write this because I love the English nation, and I wish to evoke in every Indian the loyalty of Englishmen.”
And when it came to his own participation on the side of the English in WW I, Gandhi joined the ambulance corps in 1914, stating:
A rifle this hand will never fire.”
In that context, could the images of Gandhi advocating for more guns be more wrong? Could the right, the pro-gunners who promote this lie be more dishonest? There is nothing more obscene, more false than the notion that Gandhi was 'pro-gun', especially pro-gun for private gun ownership rather than a national military.  When a side of an argument lies like this, far more so than any bogus reference to Hitler and Nazis, they have a failed position - a position they resist correcting. The values party supports the value of lying and that the end justifies the means. Their lying is deliberate, their refusal to correct or revise proves it.

Gandhi = Guns? Gandhi advocates 'lock and load'? Gandhi as Rambo?

No, emphatically NO. Bad. Wrong.

To lie is to lose. The pro-gun / Gandhi advocates are epic failures, with a losing premise; they underline the end of the failing American gun culture.

To lie is to lose. What we do not gain in discussion, we will gain over time, as the lies they tell catch up to them, making them look the liars and cowards they are when they fail to tell the truth. The gun culture in America is not a permanent fixture; it is changing, evolving, towards consistency with the rest of the world, and towards sanity in the face of the gun violence statistics.

To lie is to lose. However much the pro-gunners push back against gun control, to the extent they lie, they are failing, they are losing, they are already defeated. The only solutions and the only direction we will ultimately head are towards truth and fact. The right, the pro-gunners, need to correct their side to have any effective role in the discussion on guns and gun control, and they need to do it NOW.


  1. You're MORE than welcome to come to my home and try to separate me from my guns, little dirtbag.
    Nothing would give me more pleasure than to send some Pb in your direction.

    1. Your invitations always seem to lack that promised address Karl.

      Please see the post published above all about you.

    2. karlschneider also included with his expression of wanting to send some lead in my direction this email:

      Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 18:44:54 -0600
      Subject: I found out where you live


      I've been advised to consider this as a possible threat, and am dealing with it appropriately.

    3. This article is full of supposition and theory based on third hand musings and does not contain any actual quotes from Gandhi condemning gun ownership. Pure schlock.

    4. Wrong 'Unknown'/karlschneider.

      The article is well researched and consistent with Gandhi's life actions and his life-long writings condemning violence other than necessary military violence in some wars.

      You just don not appear to be as well informed or well-researched on Gandhi.

    5. Guns owner are cowardly aggressive. Easy to thread somebody when you have a gun.

    6. Say what you want...try what you WILL NOT DISARM free Americans...if you want to be responsible for a bloody revolution... Just attempt to disarm free law abiding America...
      There is no " gun free society"....someone will always have the guns ..."anti gunners just want the government to be the only ones to have guns.. That's called Tyranny.. And the founders of America knew it that's why the second Amendment was ratified... the do you plan to disarm Americans who refuse your demands ...without using guns yourself?

    7. There is a difference between army and militia...
      And the founders used separate phrases for army and militia... Militia is armed individual citizens. And the Supreme court has verified that individual citizens are legally allowed to defend themselves with firearms... Any attempt by liberals to disarm law abiding Americans will be seen as an act of war against free constitutionally protected armed America... And response to such attempted disarmament will be met with the action warranted to people whose lives are being put in jeopardy by that same disarmament.

    8. It is true that militia and army were different, but related, terms and concepts; that doesn't make them by any stretch about personal private defense. Bearing arms was a military reference.

      It is also true and well documented that the militia was a branch of the army, an officially funded and recognized military auxiliary force, as distinct from the full time professional standing army, but part of the same. The intent was to minimize the cost of a standing army. (You would do well to check out the comments in that regard of our founding fathers like Elbridge Gerry, of the term Gerrymander fame, while he was serving in Congress, and directly addressing funding federal expenses.)

      If you doubt that the militia is part of that larger army, I suggest you review the role of the National Guard units which are fighting side by side with the rest of our armed forces in places like Afghanistan. THAT was the intention of the founding fathers, it was never, ever, in any capacity intended to refer to personal, private self-defense. As to being armed citizens, it is a matter of historic record that many militias held weapons for militia use, owned by the governmental entity, separate and distinct from private, personal weapons -- personal militia weapons was strictly only where a militia entity was attempting to form with standardized weapons and had not as yet done so.

      That is why no one brings their AR 15 to serve in the National Guard, which is the ONLY legally recognized militia.

      While the SCOTUS has affirmed a very LIMITED right to firearms for individual citizens, it is not legitimately one that is based in the 2A, but rather in an entirely separate body of common law.

      As to your bullshit about liberals disarming blah blah blah.....Americans can decide how they wish to limit personal firearms, and nothing in the 2A prohibits doing so -- even the Heller decision confirms that.

      As to your stupidity about armed resistance to the enactment of lawful restriction of gun ownership and gun use, I refer you to the Malheur incident in Oregon. You have zero likelihood of succeeding in resisting governmental agencies enforcing the law -- and you can give lip service to being law abiding all you like, but that doesn't make you such. Rather the Constitution was created as a response to rebels like you, to oppose and disarm them, not to affirm and encourage them.

      While the

    9. Hey WACKO ! I don't mind so much that LAW ABIDING and RESPONSIBLE citizens have guns, but sir,... it doesn't seem THAT YOU ARE EITHER OF THE TWO !! And by the way, there is a reason the United States doesn't appear in the Bible's book of revelations,... it could be because we destroyed ourselves,...

    10. Mr. Osorio, welcome to commenting on Penigma, and apologies for the delay in moderating your observation.

      If you are addressing me - dog gone - I'm female, not male. I offer that because it is unclear who you are addressing as 'sir' or Wacko in your comment.

      I would ask you please to clarify your comment, as it is confusing who or what you are referring to here.

      We (the USA)are not in the Bible for a very good reason - which is the USA postdates when the Bible was compiled, and frankly when it comes to future predictions, the Bible is a very poor source, and should be taken as spiritual guidance at best, never literally.

  2. DG, my suggestion is that you refer Karl to the FBI. He has clearly threatened you, including saying he'd take pleasure in shooting you AND that he knows where you live. He's obviously nuts. It's time to let the FBI deal with him and let them disarm him. I strongly recommend you refer him to law enforcement. Getting into an insult match with him both gives him more attention than he deserves and makes you look as silly as he looks.

    1. Not exactly. He invited DG to come to his house, he did not say he would come to DG's.
      Since we're on the subject of "truth", let's stay there.

    2. Actually Hoodkeep, what we know about Karl Schneider is that he has access to private planes (the means to travel without a weapon being detected), that he has ties to the state where I live, and that he has - beyond just this particular response - made threats previously to shoot those who promote gun control.
      So while you are looking at only the smaller picture here in the comment, taken out of that larger context.
      My response was to refer this to local law enforcement for professional evaluation, as well as discussing it with one of my co-bloggers who is a criminal attorney, well versed in assessing what is and is not a credible threat.
      Those who checked out BOTH the larger context and the specific comment agreed that it should be referred to the FBI, and the FBI concurred that it was of interest to them and should be taken seriously by me as an implied threat.
      You might want to consider that there is more information that pertains to 'the truth' than what you narrowly consider.
      Put another way, I have better (as in more complete) information than you do, so do my colleagues, and law enforcement including the FBI is better at threat assessment than you are, including making a judgement on what people do in relationship to what they say or are focused on doing..
      So truth should include YOU acknowledging that you are not very good at determining what is and is not truth.
      Two years out I'm pretty confident that old white crabby and flabby gun hugger Karl is not much of a worry any longer. So moot point. Especially as I have no intention of ever visiting Karl; that is more in the wheelhouse of the feds when it comes to making housecalls on extremists.

  3. I find it rather interesting that your "trump card" seems to be the "Academy award winning biographical movie Gandhi, with Ben Kingsley, reprising Gandhi's actual speech". As if, because it's ON FILM, that automatically makes every word, every innuendo and every voice inflection undoubtedly true. Apparently, that is not the case. If that were the case, why on earth would Gandhi have even brought the Indian Arms Control Act of 1878 up at all? This law forbade PRIVATE Indian ownership of guns. The British had recently fought off a major Indian rebellion (the mutiny of 1857) and were busy putting in place measures to ensure that the events of 1857 were never repeated. These measures included a major restructuring of administration and the colonial British Indian Army along with improvements in communications and transportation. Meanwhile the Indian masses were systematically being disarmed and the means of local firearm production destroyed, to ensure that they (the Indian masses) would never again have the means to rise in rebellion against their colonial masters. Towards this end the colonial government, under Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880), brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878); an act which, exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a "loyal" subject of the British Empire. No, he obviously didn't want to be "Rambo". He didn't even want to own or even touch a weapon at all. But he knew that an unarmed man is a "subject" while an armed man is "free". Yes, even Gandhi knew this. Bottom line, try to twist it however you choose, but the fact is Gandhi intentionally drew the Indian Arms Act into the discussion, an act which forbade PRIVATE ownership of weapons to Indians.

    Good day!

    1. You exaggerate what you call my 'trump card'; I used the video because it breaks up the reading, your attribution of intent is off. Equally, you are wrong about your interpretation of Gandhi which needs to be taken in the context; there is no indication that Gandhi EVER intended for Indians to have weapons to fight back against the British or anyone else in civil rebellion. That clearly is contrary to everything he believed in.

      You assertions are not making a convincing factual argument. I would suggest further reading.

    2. Dhincc is exactly spot on. It has to do with the rebellion and the fact that the people were disarmed to make them less of a threat. This is Grandi's exact point. I truly pity you. Because you would stand against those who wish to ensure we remain free. The founding fathers said it clearly to protect against any enemy foreign or domestic. Don't look now but we have one in the whitehouse now.

    3. Gandhi only ever supported India fighting in wars, not private dire arms for defense.

      You have it entirely wrong as well; the 2A is entirely about armed resistance against foreign threats or against anti-government rebellion, not at all about private firearms for personal defense or hunting. That is why it is written the way it is. IF you read the constitution in its entirety it does NOT permit for the rebellion of anyone against the federal government. It was precisely because of that problem, examples such as Shay's rebellion, the Whiskey rebellion and the Pennemite-Yankee wars that the constitution was written to replace the original articles of confederation and perpetual unity which were too weak a federal entity.

      And you are totally wrong; we are not safe OR free with people being killed by so much gun violence. To quote a famous SCOTUS justice, the Constitution has never been a suicide pact. What threatens our freedom is apathy, and our low voter turnout, and the efforts on the right to engage in widespread voter suppression.

      Other countries with more strict gun regulation are perfectly free, and safer for it.

      We do NOT have a threat to our security or freedom in the White House; that is stupid and factually averse.

  4. And here's more:
    During World War I, Gandhi called for a repeal of the unpopular Indian Arms Act of 1878 that granted the government extensive powers to restrict the possession of arms. In his autobiography, Gandhi condemned this act in the strongest of words: “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

    Right to bear arms was also listed among Gandhi’s 11 demands presented to Lord Irwin before the famous Salt March of 1930. In his letter addressed to the Viceroy of India dated March 2, 1930 just before the commencement of mass civil disobedience, Gandhi, among other things, argued passionately for the right of citizens to bear arms:

    “And why do I regard the British rule as a curse?…It has reduced us politically to serfdom. It has sapped the foundations of our culture, and, by the policy of disarmament, it has degraded us spiritually. Lacking inward strength, we have been reduced by universal disarmament to a state bordering on cowardly helplessness.”

    Just ... FYI ...

  5. Nothing I have read indicated a desire by Gandhi for people to bear arms for self defense, rather he supported law, and law enforcement for that role. Nothing you have shown here shows that to be otherwise than for India's citizens to bear arms in the military sense, as in a national army.

    His later elaborations on that phrase, in addition to the historic legal meaning of the phrase 'bear arms', which has meant militarily rather than personally - you seem to omit as well that Gandhi was a lawyer by training.

    If you were as well read in the history of the 2nd Amendment as you are in having read apparently a single Gandhi biography, you would be familiar with that term in the context of legal usage in the British system in which Gandhi trained -- which I believe I noted in my post.

    If you need a further legal opinion, my co-blogger is also trained in both UK and US law.

  6. There is no right to armed self-defence in the Common law. The standard "black letter" statement of the law is:

    "A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."

    In all cases, the defendant does not have the right to determine what constitutes "reasonable force" because the defendant would always maintain they acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty. The jury, as ordinary members of the community, must decide the amount of force reasonable in the circumstances of each case. It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from imminent attack and may not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what they believed about the circumstances, even if mistaken. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force.

    Blackstone makes it clear that one cannot use too much force:

    "In the English law particularly it is held an excuse for breaches of the peace, nay even for homicide itself: but care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defence and prevention; for then the defender would himself become an aggressor."

    Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book the Third, Chapter the First: Of the Redress of Private Wrongs by the Mere Act of Parties p.3

    The doctrine in the US has become so perverted that one is allowed to use deadly force based solely upon fear, but that distortion of the doctrine has come from legislative change over the past 200 odd years.

    As for the term to bear arms, I refer you to the case of Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840), which was quoted in US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), and helps clarify the meaning of that decision:

    "To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark, that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides, "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive."

    1. On more than one occasion "reasonable force" has been the use of a firearm to defend against an invasion in one's home. In some states on the property itself. I do not own a gun, I also don't smoke or enjoy smoking.. However, I am against a lot of the bans, or proposed bans, limitations, or excessive legislation that have been proposed. I'm also opposed to the limitations on soda sales, and other similar limitations against consumers buying legal materials.

      I'm not a gun nut, I just believe that personal liberty and freedom extend so far as to infringe on someone's rights... you have know right against legal actions on another's property, or invasion of.

  7. Welcome tracker 1 and thank you for commenting on Penigma.

    Bans exist for good reason, in response to actual not imaginary problems. We ban smoking in some places because second hand smoke infringes on the rights -- and health -- of other people, and is not a choice which affects only the smoker. Further cigarettes are a unique product in the regard that like scheduled narcotics which we very strongly regulate and restrict, they are highly addictive - in other words they have a specific harm that is related to disabling the capacity for individual choice. We do not allow sales to minors of cigarettes or alcohol, for example, because the body, and particularly the brain of people in that age group are affected more negatively than adults, despite cigarettes remaining a legal product. We have ample evidence that the sales of products with sugar as every bit as much of a public health issue, and therefore very much in the proper province for government regulation. And now we are learning, increasingly, that sugar like nicotine and other things we regulate, is not only harmful, it is also highly addicting, particularly in how it affects the health of children.
    Shoot first laws authorize, without a comparative accountability, for private citizens with little or not training, no testing, no insurance to act in the same manner in public or on private property OTHER than their own, to act like law enforcement based on subjective feeling, not objective evidence. Further, as we have seen the further evolution of our understanding of rights, reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we as a nation helped draft - there is now an identified right to be safe, but no such innate right exists to be armed with lethal force.

    We currently have very stupid gun laws in this country which permit and even encourage our citizens to shoot each other, and which like the dangers of alcohol, tobacco, and sugar is particularly hazardous to our children --- more of them are shot and killed or injured several times over in the U.S. than in all other similarly developed countries in the world combined. That suggests that as an issue of public policy, our gun 'rights' are an abject failure, and therefore need to be changed.

    Liberty is the right to be alive, not to be impaired or intimidated by the actions of idiots with guns. The failure to properly use guns, like regulating alcohol and drunk driving, is driven by results, not some silly abstraction that is frankly total crap.

    Individual rights, as you very wrongly perceive them, do not come before our right as a nation of individuals to make sound public health and public safety decisions. That would be stupid; or, as is so often noted, the constitution is not a suicide pact.

    Take that as the constitution not guaranteeing the 'right' to a gun of all those people who blow themselves to hell with firearms every year, as a subset of our gun violence problem.

  8. Just because Gandhi said he would never fire a rifle, he never said he believed his rifle should be taken from him, nor did he say he believed rifles should be taken from others. As MLK pointed out, nonviolence does NOT mean abandonment of self-defense. JFK, MLK and Gandhi all believed in the principles of the 2nd Amendment. Gandhi understood that had his country not had gun control imposed by the British that his country would never have been enslaved. Gun control = power of people. And that is the only reason liberals want it.

    1. Armadillo Rancher, welcome to Penigma and thank you for your comment.

      Gandhi never owned a rifle, never wanted to own a rifle, never advocated for private weapons ownership, only for military weapons.

      MLK at one point DID own a firearm, and got rid of it, repudiating the use of it. So YES, both men believed strongly against private weapons and what you term self-defense, or personal violence, in favor of non-violence.

      NO, the people you cite believed in gun control, and that the 2nd Amendment referred to the militia mentioned at the beginning of the 2nd Amendment, and the other parts of the Constitution which directed the army and the militia to use force, as the full power and authority of the government to suppress the kind of use of guns that you call 'power of the people'. That is why we have never had a successful armed insurrection against government authority in this country.

      Gandhi NEVER suggested that the people of India should have used force, other than governmental military force, to resist the British at any point, nor did he believe a lack of weapons was responsible for enslavement.

      The notion that liberals oppose the power of the people is equally false and factually inaccurate. What progressives, liberals, moderates, centrists, and moderate conservatives ALL favor is a reduction in gun violence. It does not make anyone free, it only makes us violent, threatened, killed and injured.

      Our founding fathers were very clear that all change is through the ballot box, and no armed uprising was to be tolerated. It was why they changed from the original articles of confederation to our Constitution, and it was why they themselves used armed force to put down the uprisings of people who took up arms against the government.

      I suggest you better familiarize yourself with Shay's rebellion, the Whiskey rebellion, and other uprisings through the civil war to present. Your history is skewed and your facts are false, and your rational is nuts.

      And wrong.

      Sorry - that's just sloppy revisionist history that ignores everything that those individuals you cited wrote or did.

    2. MLK not only owned a gun, he also had armed supporters protecting him and his family. The only one that appears to be revising history is the liberal anti-gun crowd.

    3. MLK owned a gun ONLY BRIEFLY in the mid 1950's. That was BEFORE developing his philosophy of non-violence, and well before his ascendancy to such prominent leadership in the civil rights movement.

      His supporters also were NOT armed in protecting he and his family after that brief interval. Guns were NOT permitted in the King led movement.

      You are factually inaccurate; it is the gun-hugging violence-loving crowd that is trying to promote revisionist history.

      "Eventually, King gave up any hope of armed self-defense and embraced nonviolence more completely."

      The facts are not on your side; the truth is not your friend. Your only option is to lie, and when you lie you LOSE.

    4. Dog gone, it would be better for you to not post anything from biased media. Everyone knows huffington post is massively left-biased.

      For all we know, mlk sold off his gun for political reasons to remain politically credible to his cause.

      While we are at this silly arbitrary lying = losing as a poor attempt to shut your ears and go "lalalala" can I just remind you that anti-gun advocates also lie? Did you know there is NO 90% support from the american public to disarm? Did you know not every weapon is an assault rifle that can fire automatically? Did you know there are already background checks from psychological to legal status matters in place?

      Please, your biased and manipulative faction also lies and cheats to get to its political agenda. Thus, you believing their lies = your loss.

    5. Hello, dog gone. While I disagree with your stance on gun control, I respect your opinion on it for the most part, as you are entitled to it.
      But there are some issues that cave in your credibility on the matter.

      First, lets admit that both the left and right use manipulation and fact bending to achieve their political agenda. MLK, as far as we know, disowned his weapon. Therein lies however a prejudged motivation. Maybe we should be open to the idea that perhaps he did it to retain his political credibility as a renown pacifist...? Secondly, there are debated the left likes to use; such as "muh 90% support". Major antigun front Brady Campaign also has its shares of fact bending and claims that 90% of Americans support disarming. Which is simply not true. Another form of lying and deceit would be that the left loves to say that there arent enough background checks, when, infact, there are plenty of checks. Its very much impossible for anyone with so much as a misdemeanor or any history of depression to obtain a gun.

      That being said, i am not here to convince you that you are right or wrong. But simply remind you that the basis of your argument is also a double edged blade that hits your political affiliation. So amidst your argument that resembles closing your ears and shouting "lalala" I hope you consider the fact that your own faction of interests lies and cheats as well. Thus you believing their lies = your loss.

      Id also like to add that none of us like having our liberties imposed on. This country is a republic, not a democracy, that protects both majorities and minorities. Smoking bans, while I agree are harmful, is an infringement on individual liberty. And while some people may prefer pacifism, others would rather much fight for their life should a fatal situation occur. Liberals shouldnt even calls themselves so as the imposing ideals reach facism instead of true liberal ideals (classic liberalism).

      Also, huffington post is HEAVILY biased, and therefore not a good place to get facts and data, as they will be bent accordingly to the respective political affiliation's agenda. Much like fox news is to right wingers, I wouldnt trust their info.

    6. MLK was very clear and specific not only about disowning his own weapon, but why he did so, and why he encouraged his followers all to do so. There is no factual ambiguity or spin.

      As to sources, left or right, I use quotes from multiple media sources, left and right, foreign /international and domestic. The qualification and criteria I use in doing so is simple -- the information in the quote has to be clear, factual, and to have passed my own fact check. On that basis I reject your criticism, unless you care to show me an error of fact.

      We are a democracy. Your distinction between a democracy and a republic is meaningless. Go look in the dictionary, go look at the statements of our founding fathers, go look at basic political science textbooks.

      I multi-source, and not all sources are included in every post, due to issues with length. Again, if you have a point of fact to dispute, please present it. Otherwise, you have no valid criticism here.

      Smoking is a public health issue; so are guns. As such, so long as you live in a civilized society, you don't get to make up your own rules. If you don't like it, i can provide you a nice long list of other planets you might like to colonize. But if you live on this one, you abide by group decisions, not make up your own rules.

    7. Edward, I don't know what alternate reality you are living in that believes we have enough gun checks.

      Please, show me what gun checks James Holmes, the apparent shooter in Aurora Colorado went through. How about Adma Lanza? Anyone can go out and buy a firearm without a background check. ANYONE. That includes felons, the mentally ill and users of illegal drugs, as well as undocumented immigrants. It occurs daily; look at the crime stats.

      I don't trust any info, until and unless I fact check it through multiple sources, but geeze Edward, you have a tragic failure in what you believe to be fact. Your thinking is a big hot stinking mess.

    8. Says the person using the huffington post for fact certified data.

      I realize that you are only out for the argument, not the actual element of the argument itself since you clearly dismissed anything I said without so much as considering your opinion to be anywhere in between the right and wrong. I urge you, dog bone, to be open to the ideals of others and not just your own.

      There ARE background checks in place. Go get a simple misdemeanor and youll see you will have a hard time obtaining a gun. The only way felons can get a gun, is illegally, which will happen with or without your silly belief in control.

      In the world of politics, as an aspiring politician myself, there always is ambiguity behind motivations.

      Please, dog bone, I cannot express enough that your "multiple sources", like the biased huffington post, are subject to false and exaggerated claims. Your own lies=lose idea is pretty much splattered over your face right now. Recollect your spaghetti and try again.

    9. This is being said by the person who once used the huffington left-biased post as a source.

      Again, I like political science and aspire to be a politician. I know the distinction of a democratic nation from a republic. Which, clearly, you do not. We are NOT a democracy. We are NOT a rule of majority. We are a rule of law.

      Another thing id like to note is your clear lack of civilized discussion. You clearly lack proper etiquette and common courtesy to hold off your condeacending demeanor. Perhaps you are much too emotionally compromised to hold a factual and unbiased debate over an objective matter?

      Your biased multiple sources, such as your CNN and MSNBC, are, again, only made up facts by people pushing for their own agenda.

      Please, your wave-of-the-hand dismissals dont do you any favours.

      Go get a misdemeanor and then try to buy a gun, youll see it is impossible.

      And MLK was, by and large, a politician in his own right. Of course he will do such things to promote a certain figure... are you daft enough to believe anything a politician says?

      Again, dog bone, hold a serious discussion. Your grade school antics and holier-than-thou tone dont make you any more right than an extreme right winger.

    10. Edward, if you want to dispute any point, provide the fact that is in error. I quote a lot of different sources, including both left and right leaning ones. What matters is if the individual quote is factual and accurate. You have yet to show any instance where I am not factual. Therefore your beef with the Huff Po is ludicrous here.

      You may LIKE Pol Sci, but you are no Pol Sci scholar, nor are you very good apparently at using a dictionary.
      noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
      1.government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
      2.a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
      3.a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
      4.political or social equality; democratic spirit.
      5.the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

      Democracies operate by rule of law. If you would like to further expound on the topic, on which you are WRONG, I will be happy to turn over that part of this discussion to my co-bogger, Laci. He has a degree in Political Science from Exeter, a world ranked University - actually, part of a PPE, Philosophy of Logic, Political Science, and Economics.
      It is the degree most sought by politicians in the UK, on both sides of the political aisle, and as a qualifier for serving in Parliament. As a criminal attorney who holds law degrees from both Exeter and from a very good law school in the U.S., and who is licensed to practice law in multiple states in the U.S., and who I rely on as something of a 2A history scholar, I think you will find you are in fact in error.
      I am indeed irritated by you for failing to show that anything you list as a 'made up fact' is in error. If that is so, please cite the specific reference, and your proof that it is in error. Simply referencing CNN or MSNBC as being the basis for something being made up does not pass muster in an argument. I cite NO made up facts here.

      MLK was not a politician; he was never elected to political office, nor do I recall off the top of my head that he ever ran for office, both requirements to be a politician. Further he cooperated and worked with elected officials from both parties, supported individual candidates from both parties, and generally tried not to take a highly partisan position. So, yes, when someone puts his life on the line, and his family's life on the line in pursuit of something, and in the case of getting rid of his gun takes action that is consistent with his words, I do believe him - as should you. If your argument goes that MLK was a politician, that fails; he was a civil rights activist. If your argument is that everything any politician says is a lie then again, you are factually wrong; everything a politician says has to be fact checked, but that does not make every statement false. Rather it means clearly that some are false, some are true, and some are a mix of true and false. So NO, your assertion is wrong and poorly reasoned.
      No grade school antics, but I will own a presumption of superiority, given the poor level of factual content in your statements.

    11. James Holmes bought his guns at a retail store => background check. Lanza killed his mother for her guns. She passed a background check, had a two week waiting period, and registered the AR-15. She had to get state licenses for the handguns, in Connecticut with the 4th most restrictive gun laws.

      Cho passed a background when he purchased the guns he used. He would not have passed the check if federal reporting laws were enforced. President Bush signed a law strengthening enforcement of those reporting laws in January 2008.

      Harris and Klebold weren't old enough to buy handguns. The person who illegally bought them for them passed a background check.

    12. Al - welcome to penigma, and thank you for your comment. You are corrrect about Holmes; however given his known mental health issues at the time, he should NOT have been able to pass a background check. Rather his mental health condition should have been reported, and he should have been in the data base for such a check. We don't require that names be put in that data base; it is voluntary for states, and more than 30 states have not submitted any names of convicted felons, drug users, or those who are mentally ill and dangerous. Likewise Cho was a person who was known to be mentally ill and dangerous, and SHOULD have been in the system but was not -- VA is now better about it, but most states are not. Ditto Jared Loughner, who you should have included in this list -- AZ is now better, but still lax, in such reporting, as a result of that mass shooting. And NO, reporting has not significantly improved and will not do so until it is mandatory.
      And that won't make enough of a difference until ALL sales, not just FFL sales, require a background check.

      That loophole in reporting those who are dangerous came from NRA lobbying.
      Lanza's mother was a nutcase herself, in so far as she was a paranoid anti-government survivalist gun fanatic. She did NOT keep the firearms she legally purchased safe and secure from her son, who had at best mental health issues. THAT should be illegal, but the ammosexuals don't want such requirements for secure firearms. At the time of the Sandy Hook shooting, Connecticut was NOT the 4th most restrictive gun law state. They are so as a result of that avoidable shooting.

      That is largely ONLY the law because of NRA lobbying.

      That leaves us with Columbine. We don't have adequately strong regulation against straw purchases either --and again, blame the NRA.

      So your point is?

      I think the argument you are attempting to make in your comment has been unsuccessful, but just to be clear, please articulate it more specifically.

    13. "Please, show me what gun checks James Holmes, the apparent shooter in Aurora Colorado went through."
      Now you admit that he and many others passed background, but can't understand why I answered your question? There is something terribly wrong with you.

      "That loophole in reporting those who are dangerous came from NRA lobbying."

      In the real world, the NRA lobbies for better reporting laws. They were a major proponent of the 2008 federal law I mentioned.

      "The new law authorizes up to $1.3 billion in federal grants so states can improve their tracking of people who shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. But it took years for support to build, even though the measure had the backing of the National Rifle Association.
      "'We've tried to get this done in federal legislation since the mid-90s. But it was opposed by the mental health lobbies. They felt it was unfair to stigmatize that person and put him into the federal system,' NRA spokesman Wayne Lapierre told ABC News."

      My mistake, it Connecticut was the state with the fifth most restrictive gun laws in 2011:

      Now it's number 2:

      "[B]uying a gun for someone who is prohibited is a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000,"

      In case you still can't or won't understand the point:
      You are full of it. I don't know if you're ignorant or dishonest, but you're clearly a distributor of disinformation.

    14. Not a distributor of misinformation at all, Al.

      You seem to be a bit off though. The NRA made the option NOT to report one for individual states - and then in state after state lobbied not to fund reporting.

      The NRA lobbying pushed through restricting reporting drug users to one year in the data base, even though drug use is a concern with firearm purchases.

      The NRA lobbied, and pushed through making it enormously easier for the dangerously mentally ill to get their gun rights back, WITHOUT a professional review to determine if they were suddenly now sane and safe.

      The NRA has lobbied for violent criminals to get their gun rights back, and those criminals have been seven times more likely to commit more violence with those guns.

      And the NRA has attempted - so far successfully - to obstruct the very popular gun checks at gun shows and private sales, where most gun purchases occur, also has obstructed efforts in many states to require mandatory safe and secure storage.

      The NRA has funded and promoted opposition to the UN arms treat that attempts to stop criminal arms deals as well, by grossly distorting the popular understanding of what the treaty entails.

      There is NOTHING the NRA has done since the 1970s that promotes anything other than selling more guns and to keeping us all less safe -- to scare people so they can sell more guns.

      The NRA is nothing more than one big front for the gun manufacturers. The NRA doesn't even remotely reflect even the preferences in gun control of their own members.

      Gun control works, gun control keeps us all safer -- the NRA does not.

    15. I don't have time to go through all those lies and half-truths point by point and it obviously wouldn't matter, but I noticed not a single one of them is referenced. Don't bother; I know the URL for the Huffington Post. Have a nice, fact-free life.

    16. I'd be happy to reference my claims about the NRA, and do so without refernce to the HuffPo.

      Nothing I've written is other than fully true and factually accurate.

      states not submitting records:

      NRA lobbied for dangerous criminal gun rights with disastrous consequences

      NRA and dangerously mentally ill getting guns

      Those are just a few, for openers. To fully source all of the issues in question would be too long for a comment, but I suggest you read the other articles on this topic on Penigma.

      You have a nice fact-free life --- you're the one not being factual.

      The only source you quoted was the idiot Wayn La Pierre, who is NOT a credible source.

  9. Hello Dog Gone,

    I arrived here, as I was investigating the voracity of the referred statement attributed to Ghandi; the man who presided over the annexation of his own country with over a million deaths - and counting. In this, I equate him with Pol Pot: an unshakeable ideology, and not to be confused with a peacemaker. Such aggressive Pacifism, (the rage of Karma), with a vow of self-deprivation of a flagellating Pope, meant a mature autonomous egalitarian society could never be realized. And I'm glad you concurred. Such a person could never have intimated arming his country for peace,to police their own and their neighbor's lives as did the Sikhs, but solely for the arming of Indians for British Interests and his future political gain afterwards. Such a person was disarming as I'm sure Stalin was charming. They stand next to Mohammad who also thought humans were disposable for the greater good with the same tastes of touching young girl's flesh for a sense of life. Their minds were deficient on earth.

    Kind regards.

    1. Not even close a child can see.

      Gandhi had nothing in common with the Sikhs, and his sole advocacy for guns was for the military -- and even then he preferred not.

    2. Nice job a child can see. Dog Gone, Thanks for demonstrating the either inept or intentional ignorance.

  10. All change should ideally come from the ballot box. However, it is clear to me that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington to name but a few, approved private citizens being armed, just in case those in power were no longer to be swayed by the ballot box. The bogey man was and still is centralized big power of any kind; fed by apathy, until eventually as Thomas Jefferson said “The government you elect is the government you deserve.”; all frontrunners having come up through the ranks largely ignored by the common folk, until it it too late.
    Does it really matter if those who are oppressing us are from the left or the right, domestic or foreign, like in India's case? If the power abusers are domestic, they may use the military against their own people - a horrible but common historic occurrence. Who should we call on then?
    I live in Arizona, where many people own guns; the overwhelming majority of which you never see, because people have no desire to frighten anyone or behave irresponsibly.
    Even if there were no Second Amendment, why would you want only those in power to have armed options? No guns ever being ever used for violence is the desired state of affairs, I agree, but don't take away only the peoples' guns and leave them in the hands of the powers that be.
    Thank you for reading,


    1. Welcome David, and apologies for being slow to moderate your comment - we occasionally take a night off from blog monitoring.

      No, if you read the Constitution, it is perfectly clear that our Founding Fathers, ESPECIALLY the ones you named, did not feel that way.
      I want the people in power to have access to an armed military and to armed law enforcement, as the duly authorized bodies of people to deal with threats.
      I do NOT emphatically want civilians, lawful or unlawful, to be engaged in an arms race with those duly authorized users of force. One of the reasons I don't want that is that every firearm or other weapon starts out as a legal one; the primary way that they have fallen into the hands of criminals is they were sold, not stolen -- and if they were stolen, it is because they were not kept secure. This is true as well for the majority of young people who use firearms to commit suicide (mostly male).
      We are not safer and we are certainly not in any way more free because of guns, as we can see from similar developed countries with representative government and less gun violence.
      Maybe having fewer guns would improve our turnout at the ballot box -- while we are higher on gun ownership and gun violence, we are LOWER in comparison to voter participation.
      Part of the problem with guns, and those who think having them gives them some sort of violent recourse against the government is - apparently - NOT participating in elections.
      More strict controls of gun ownership would probably help increase those numbers, with more people actually TRYING the ballot box for a change.

    2. David,

      Based on what do you make this statement? Did Washington, Madison or Jefferson support the Whiskey Rebellion, or even the right of those who participated, to rebel?

      The clear answer is "no", they most certainly did not.

      This is an invention of gun advocates, that somehow the concept of throwing off the yoke of English tyranny, where colonists had no vote and no representation, is equivalent to opposing a government you simply don't like and cannot change at the ballot box. Certainly, if the US government were one which was in truth dictatorial, where you had no representation, then you might have a case, but it is not. Attempting to conflate a lack of agreement in politics with degradation, military occupation and repression is willfully engaging in sophistry, sophistry to justify hatred and if you so chose, violence. No one, certainly not Washington, would have EVER agreed you had such a right, just because you don't like the duly elected government. We are no where near close to a situation where you lack representation, so your justification is invalid. Furthermore, a good analysis of Madison and Jefferson make it fairly plain that the US enshrined a right to bear arms quite simply so it did not have to foot the bill for a standing army. Beyond that, that right, to bear arms, has been lawfully and Constitutionally limited by conservative and progressive jurists alike when, for example, they said people couldn't own canons. Your supposition that Washington ( put these rights in place to preserve the ability of the people to overthrow tyranny is, therefore, antiquated, inaccurate with the times, and militarily absurd. Consequently, it reflects only justification for venom, and has nothing to do with good policy whatsoever.

    3. Dog gone. If you claim that any pro-gun statement based off the 2nd amendment is not the intention of the forefathers, I ask that you take a second and realize that there's more to support a pro-gun stance than there is any other claim you'd like to say for anti-gun. I want you to elaborate to me, against what they wrote as a right that not be infringed, how they felt exactly since others seem to not get it right?

      What's this about -I- wanting the people in power to have access to an armed military and armed law enforcement? Are you sure you're not saying only YOU get the power to say that is how it should be?

      You do not empathetically want civilians to own guns because you clearly haven't any clue to what other people live like. I am sure you think everyone lives in a middle class urban area that feels safe, but that is simply not the case. If you cannot understand the opposition, what right have you to say they have no right to speak for themselves without knowing what their predicament is?

      Most guns start off as legal firearms, I agree. Much like how the current administration "legally" purchased TONS of weapons and shipped them to Mexico, where many unlawful people now have firearms to put the defenseless population on their knees? Are you SURE only the government should have any right to weapons? That being said, would you take away the guns from the civilians who ousted the Templar Cartel from their city? Have you any right to say they have no right to defend their home from unlawful and evil entities? I ask that you not derail from addressing that question like you did my last post about your sources being no less credible than the fake quotes used by your pro-gun counterparts.

      No, you are factually wrong; Fact: Five out of six gun-possessing felons obtained handguns from the secondary market and by theft, and “[the] criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal(illegal) transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.”

      I could say the same that we are not safer and we certainly not in any way more free because of gun control, as we can see from similar developed countries with representative government and MORE violent crime. I have a hearty guffaw at this one, as the actual VIOLENT crime numbers rose after they enacted gun bans.

      How exactly would having less guns make more ballot counts exactly? And we aren't here for "maybe" claims. People want facts and proof. Not speculation. I digress though, how exactly would lowering gun ownership relate to improved vote counts? That's just arbitrary nonsense. Please, give me the numbers from an UNBIASED source and not CNN or Huffington post, thank you.

    4. Penigma, your article was just a provocative lambaste that yells "fake" and "out of context" all the while proving the opposite at best. I am all for preventing misconceptions, misquotings and falsified data. But please, have a seat there and let me remind you that; The ACTUAL Arms Act 1978 is a gun ban. Plain. And. Simple. Gandhi spoke against it. Plain. And. Simple. Consume that information as you may, but that's more on progun than it is against it.

      As for the Whiskey Rebellion deal... Jefferson may or may not have supported the an armed rebellion, but he sure did repeal the laws that encouraged the rebellion in the first place. Mostly because of his pro-people stance against Hamilton's pro-federalist(govt.). What gun advocates have to say about the Founding Fathers' idea on guns aside, the founding of the country couldn't have been done without armed citizens.

      Antiquated, archaic or, simply, old, or not, the people have the right to bear arms and it shan't be infringed because, if that is the case, then your right to make your claims here and now as per your freedom of speech, must simply be antiquated and old as well and not at all with the times. Because, obviously, people only died back then and no one is mugged, raped or burglarized today.
      Can you give me a credible and UNBIASED source for this "didn't want to pay the army bills" conjecture? and what of this Washington being opposed to having him armed? Now you are starting to sound like the people you've been arguing this whole time.
      What about canons? Be realistic, we aren't talking about the modern day equivalent--missiles.

      Your faith in government functions being uncorrupted is wishful at best. You could look up on their attempts to subdue the people's votes so the people wont have a say in ballot boxes anyways. Such as when Rick Perry changed a law where only people with picture ID's could vote to counter fraud. The number on fraudulent votes resulted on the year of the then election was an astonishing 86. That law left millions, mostly the older generation, out of voting.

      I would like to remind you again, we are NOT a democratic nation. We are a Republic. We do not believe in rule of majority or your feelings. We believe in the law. The law states that you are able to have a speedy trial subjected to your peers, you are able to rant on about guns as you are now with freedom of speech, we are able to own our guns to protect our livelihoods, and we are able to tell military factions that they cannot stay in our homes. Please tell me how anything on the Bill of Rights is in any way archaic besides the paper and ink it is made of? If we start knocking some down, as the govt. does already, the others will be too, as the Bill of Rights will lose its credibility, and, thus, your right to speak freely.

      I will be looking forward to your responses. :)

    5. The blog is Penigma, named for my blogging partner and blog founder, Penigma. I'm Dog Gone, managing editor.

      Gandhi spoke against denying native residents of India participation in the army during war. He was very clear and unambiguous on that point. He believed that non-violence and no guns privately was the correct path in situations other than war.

      He was confident that in dealing with the British, non-violence would be effective. He did not believe that it would be effective with the Nazis, which was part of why he wanted native Indians to support the British against the Nazis. Not hard to understand; he saw the Germans in WW I, and especially the Nazis as a far worse colonial power than the British - which they were..

      Gandhi spoke against the Gun Act of 1978? He died in 1948. I believe you mean the act of 1878, I've read it, and I've read the work of Gandhi.

      "An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to Arms, Ammunition and Military Stores.

      WHEREAS it is expedient to consolidate and amend the law relating to arms, ammunition and military stores; It is enacted as follows:-"

      India had its share of uprisings, internecine battles between factions, and other problems, such that armed rebellion was a serious problem for the British. Gandhi, like MLK, evolved his practice and philosophy of non-violence over time. In 1878, he was nine years old. You need to look at his mature work, and his work in total -- he did not support guns for personal defense, and he did not support the use of guns in his efforts for civil rights and governmental change. He ONLY supported guns in the context of the military.

      NO Founding Fathers advocated for armed rebellion against the U.S. Government. It is clear in the history, it is clear in the Constitution itself. They only found justification in any armed rebellion against the UK due to lack of representation in government. And Jefferson could not repeal laws; that took a change by Congress, and the laws relating to whiskey being taxed have been in place, state and local, across the history of our government more than they have not been in place, so your point about repeal is moot. The founding of the country took place because of some armed citizens - only about a third of the residents of the colonies supported revolution at the time, and fewer of those actually fought in the revolution - but it occurred far more because of the role of mercenaries and foreign support, and the fact that England had other activity going on where their military was more needed, not because we were so great with our guns.
      The people have a right to join a militia, there is and never has been an innate right to guns. That is why the 2A begins with the words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
      The laws across the colonies before the American Revolution, and the laws AFTER the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights relating to private gun ownership and the concept of personal self-defense against crimes like theft and burglary, assault including rape, etc. were all variations on the common law of England, which required a mandatory duty to retreat if it were at all possible. There was no guarantee of private firearms. Firearms for militias were mostly owned BY the militias, and were not in most cases private property at all, but rather kept in militia armories. That was because militias functioned poorly with a mixed lot of firearms contrasted with good quality firearms that were the same.
      When the revolution started, I also refer you to the number of firearms that were obtained by raids on BRITISH armories. Most people did not have guns, and what they did have were not useful for fighting a war. Continued in part 2

    6. I do not have blind faith in government being uncorrupted, but I do have faith that corruption, looking at American history and world history, generally resolves those problems over time. Voter suppression is oddly the same political policy advocated by those who most argue for lax gun laws.
      We ARE a democratic nation. You can try to make a false distinction all you like, but the number of references in our history by our government and our leaders to being a democracy are clear. Democracies and Republics both believe in law. Again, you make a foolish distinction that is no valid distinction whatsoever.

      1.government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
      2.a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
      3.a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

      You are free under the 2A to join a militia, and the militia is free to purchase and maintain arms. As of the 1903 Militia Act, that would be exclusively the National Guard.

      An ultra-conservative SCOTUS went against more than 200 years of precedent regarding the 2A; I would argue that at least some of those Justices are corrupt, and that for that reason, those decisions will either eventually be overturned or so modified as to lose their present effect.

      You have not been factual, and you clearly are not widely read on either the history of the 2A, or the competing ideas on the usefulness of a full-time standing army for national defense versus a non-professional part time militia during the time of the Founding Fathers, both in the U.S. and the U.K. Clearly the standing army theory has won.

      You might be entertained by a post written by another of the Penigma blog bloggers, this one about the role of the militia in the UK in the late18th and early 19th century:

    7. TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13
      § 311. Militia: composition and classes
      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are—
      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

      Are you say "the people" means "the militia" in all of the constitution or just the one part you wish it did?

    8. It's really amusing to watch people who have no knowledge of how law works quote things they really don't understand. This is easily refuted by showing it to be an ignorant comment.

      The notion of an "unorganised militia" should clue you in that this might not be a body with any legal rights. In fact, it is a legal fiction used to keep the concept of the militia being an universal obligation, which it never really was anyway. This is pointed out in something which is usually incompletely quoted and taken out of context, George Mason's speech from 3 Elliot's Debates 425-26:

      " I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government. If there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia would be what they are. But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by different people. We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered."

      End part 1

    9. Begin part 2

      The Sedentary, reserve, inactive, unorganised, general (or other term indicating INACTIVITY) Militia, has always been unorganized and untrained

      Active Militias, that is THE organised, enrolled, embodied, active (or other term signifying active) Militia, can be supplemented if necessary by the ballot (selection by lot)–in other words drafted from the Unorganised militia draft pool.

      The term “unorganized” did not begin to emerge until the 1830s and 1840s, when a massive wave of opposition destroyed the compulsory militia system. Nobody wanted to serve in the militia. State governors and legislators wanted to be able to accommodate this desire, but they were bound by the 1792 Uniform Militia Act, which stated that every white male aged 18-45 would be in the militia.

      Militia service was so unpopular that Delaware abolished its militia system altogether in 1831. Massachusetts eliminated compulsory service in 1840, followed by Maine, Ohio, Vermont in 1844, Connecticut and New York in 1846, Missouri in 1847, and New Hampshire in 1851. Indiana classified its militia according to age in 1840, and exempted all but the young men from service. New Jersey withdrew the right to imprison a man for failure to pay a militia fine in 1844; Iowa did the same in 1846, Michigan in 1850, and California in 1856.” – Mahon, John K, The History of the Militia and the National Guard, p. 83

      The term “unorganized militia” was kept in use in subsequent decades as a statutory “reminder” that the state could still obligate its citizens to perform military duty, should it ever want them to. Eventually, U.S. law in the early twentieth century picked up this same usage for the same reason: by creating the “unorganized militia,” the United States could guarantee usage of this manpower for military purposes, should the (remote) need ever arise.

      The Militia was never a truly universal service. It died a death from a lack of interest in participation as was pointed out by Joseph Story, in Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890:

      "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."

    10. To merely quote 10 USC §311 shows a decided ignorance of how this section of the US Code works since the sedentary, reserve, inactive, unorganised, general (or other term indicating INACTIVITY) Militia has always been under the purview of the states. One needs to go to the various states' call out provisions to see that this is a reserve body--it is akin to having a draft card.

      Here are a couple of examples, Alabama Code - Section 31-2-48:

      The Governor shall, when ordering out the unorganized militia, designate the number. He may order them out either by call for volunteers or draft. The unorganized militia may be attached to the several organizations of the National Guard or Naval Militia, or organized into separate divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, companies or detachments as the Governor may deem best for service. He shall appoint the commissioned officers and warrant officers in the same manner as provided in this chapter for the appointment of officers and warrant officers of the National Guard and Naval Militia.

      Indiana Code - Section 10-16-6-2: Classes of militia is more specific about how their unorganised or Sedentary militia is to be applied:

      The militia shall be divided into two (2) classes, the sedentary militia and the national guard, as follows:
      (1) The sedentary militia consists of all persons subject to bear arms under the Constitution of the State of Indiana who do not belong to the national guard.
      (2) The national guard consists of those able-bodied citizens between the proper ages as established by this article who may be enrolled, organized, and mustered into the service of the state as provided in this article. The organized militia of the state constitutes and shall be known as the Indiana national guard.
      As added by P.L.2-2003, SEC.7.

      The law also makes it clear that:
      (a) The Indiana national guard consists of those units:
      (1) specified by:
      (A) the Secretary of the Army; and
      (B) the Secretary of the Air Force; and
      (2) approved by the governor.

      The Alabama law isn't as clear that one needs to actually be enrolled, but they are allocated as the governor deems them necessary.

      The Unorganised militia is something of a conceit to say that there is the possibility of universal militia service with the unorganised militia serving as a draft pool should the organised militia not have enough manpower.

    11. The bottom line is that if you are going to make the argument that being a part of the "unorganised militia" in some way gives you rights, then pant shitting, draft dodging Ted Nugent should be considered a Viet Nam era veteran since he was subject to the draft (and given various deferments).

    12. And BTW:
      "if you are going to make the argument that being a part of the 'unorganised militia' in some way gives you rights"

      I made no such argument. I gave the current law to prove that "As of the 1903 Militia Act, that would be exclusively the National Guard." is false, and asked what dog gone thought "the people" meant in the constitution. Go burn your strawmen in private.

    13. We the people in the constitution refer to we the people as a nation. Clearly the 2A refers to the defense of the territory of that nation, and any clear historic reading of the laws existing at the time of the founding of the nation make it clear that there was a very separate set of laws relating to personal defense that was not included under the 2A,

    14. No strawmen, you made made a dumb comment, Mr. Brautigam, and can't backpedal from it.

      The syntax of the Second Amendment states the purpose for which it was intended, and even if the word "people" exists in the second half, that is irrelevant to its actual application to ensure the efficacy of a long deceased institution.

      In fact, to say that the first part of the Second Amendment is no longer germane to the Amendment is to admit that the Amendment no longer serves a purpose. The first part acts as a sunset clause.


    15. BTW, Mr. Brautigam, the relevant constitutional section in this matter is Article I, Section 8, Clause 16–which is the relevant section of the Constitution ("The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia"), not the Second Amendment.

    16. BTW, please read this before making any further comments, Mr. Brautigam,

      It explains the Legal Basis of the National Guard.

  11. Melon, I'm Penigma. My suggestion is read the tag lines, but let's not get too bound up in that.

    First, absolute bans were unconstitutional since the time of People v. Kruikshanks when SCOTUS found that no state could pass a law, nor could Congress, which would prevent the creation of militia. So, I doubt, VERY SERIOUSLY, anything passed since is in fact a total ban on gun ownership. Several cases since supported that handguns (or more correctly shotguns) not meeting the definition of "the type in common use" by such potential militia were eligible to be banned (1938 case iirc) because they served no military purpose.

    However, the recent Heller and McDonald decisions clearly have thrown out the 1938 case defining instead the basic right to bear arms clause of the second amendment as stand alone. I don't agree with separating it from the first clause, but there you go, SCOTUS did and so that's the Constitutional definition as it stands now. Consequently, there's no more real issue here around whether firearms may be owned, and no real issue around whether certain types of arms may be banned (as both Heller and McDonald supported). The question is, what is reasonable?

    You may feel high capacity magazines and assault rifles are reasonable.

    I believe they are needless.

    I also believe that our culture of gun-love promotes violence and the statistics bear that out.

    Furthermore, the likes of Ghandi and Dr. King advocated non-violent response to violence, they lived it, the preached it, they DIED with it. What they may or may not have said in private life is barely, if at all, relevant. We do not throw away the words of Abraham Lincoln in his 2nd Inaugural Address or in the Gettysburg Address simply because in private he cursed Jefferson Davis. We elevate their ideas above the person, we admire the thought, while accepting the thinker is human.

    As regards our government, we are a democratically elected Republic. We do not allow for tyranny of the majority UNLESS it is done by Constitutional Amendment so you need to be careful about what you claim. Your statements belie a somewhat more shallow understanding of civics than you might like and certainly do not comport with someone who should be lecturing others on how our government was defined or functions.

    I await your replies

    1. "Several cases since supported that handguns (or more correctly shotguns) not meeting the definition of "the type in common use" by such potential militia were eligible to be banned (1938 case iirc) because they served no military purpose."

      That case (United States v. Miller, 1939) upheld the 1934 National Firearms Act partly on the belief that short barreled shotguns were not militia weapons. The 1934 NFA placed severe regulations on shotguns with barrels shorter than 18", rifles with barrels shorter than 16", machine guns, silencers, and some other assorted weapons. The Court essentially declared that none of these are valid military weapons, so they're not covered by the Second Amendment.

      Neither the Heller nor the McDonald cases changed that nonsense.They were about total bans on handguns. Handguns have never been declared by courts to have no use to a militia, like the weapons prefered by militaries have.

    2. Alas, that is not a valid reading of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). To refute it, I will give you Justice William O. Douglas’s comment in the dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972) . Justice Douglas was a member of SCOTUS when Miller was decided:

      "There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.

      The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”

      “The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179."

      I don't know your qualifications to make a legal opinion, but I do Justice Douglas's since he was one of the longest seated Supreme Court justices (I am a lawyer as well) . And give he was actually on the Court at the time of Miller, it would be safe to assume he knows what he is talking about.

    3. Where's the part about handguns not being in common use by the militia? Where's the part about shotguns, not just short barreled shotguns, not being in common use by the militia?

      Those were your claims. Nothing you quoted contradicts anything I said; The second paragraph confirms part of what I said, and none of it backs your original claims. I find it difficult to believe you're a lawyer.

    4. You seem to have a hard time understanding the Engllish language:

      The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”

      Is that simple enough for you to understand?

    5. Mr.Brautigam, you are a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    6. One further comment, you are arguing not with me, but one of the longest sitting Supreme Court Justices, who was on the Court at the time of Miller--WHAT are YOUR qualifications for disputing his opinion?

    7. Al, let's not get too worked up over my (personal) mistake. First, I said CERTAIN TYPES of handguns (wrong on my part) and shotguns (again certain types, namely, short barreled), could be prohibited from shipment (and therefore ownership). I did not say handguns generally or shotguns generally could be banned. Nor did I or do I believe that the 1939 case said they could be banned. Let's move on, it's a specious argument and a side light to the point, the point is that it is no longer the issue at hand. The issue at hand is what is a reasonable limit? The McDonald Decision (and Heller as well) both suggest SCOTUS is fine with states having certain limits and further it says those limits are ok only up to the point that they would improperly impair the rights of civilians to defend themselves or to hunt. (improperly is my word). We argued for several weeks about what is necessary for self-defense and you ultimately agreed that you could very reasonably defend yourself without a machine gun and could not provide a sound justification for allowing people to own high capacity weapons nor really a good one for allowing them to own high fire rate weapons. Consequently, I suggest that in facts stats CAN ban such weapons and Connecticut has done so. I don't think any challenge to the Connecticut law will pass SCOTUS, even this highly conservative one, will overturn that law.

  12. I found your article while researching for Gandhi's stand on gun control. I don't think I have that response after reading it. Your article assumes people from the right think that he was a gun toting, NRA card holding guy. Agree, the right is extreme, but your article projects extreme left. Gandhi thought the people should be able to defend themselves with arms, he personally did not want to carry or use. That is all.

    Your belief in high capacity magazines is akin to my belief in a 400 horsepower Chevy. I personally don't want one but if someone else does, he has the right. Those things kill people too!

  13. Javier Ortiz, welcome to Penigma and thank you for your comment.

    When I decided to write this post, it was because I found extensive articles and blog posts and other far right wing media claims (video and radio) that denied what Gandhi really said and did, using that inaccurate denial to support an aggressive gun culture and gun legisatlion.

    So I went through a pretty thorough look at Gandhi's work, from his own speeches and writing to interviews to the work of his most well-regarded biographers..

    Gandhi did not believe that everyone was capable of following his own philosophy of non-violence to the ultimate degree that he did, which included things like his legendary hunger strikes, but he believed that with the exception of war, non-violence was the solution, not violence, to the maximum one could perfect following his ideology.

    No where -- let me emphasize this -- NO WHERE, other than referring to army service, did I find even a single reference that supports private gun ownership for personal violence in self-defense. The influence of the thinking and leadership of Gandhi continued AFTER freedom from the British Empire with the autonomous people of India passing similar anti-gun laws in 1959 and 1962, and again in 1987 the nation made the process for an exemption that allows a firearm for personal defense, restricted to those who have a professional need for one, to be even more restrictive.

    So this is about being factual, not fraudulent. The right is - and not for the first time - being fraudulent. Call it left, but I'm being factual, true to what Gandhi wrote, said and stood for, and true to what the people of India actually did in response to his leadership and example as larger context.

    The difference between a Chevy and high capacity magazines is two: the magazines were designed to make killing efficient, and the primary purpose for such a device; the Chevy was not, it is transportation, and it is not my wish or opposition that makes high capacity magazines properly suitable to a ban, it is the decision of some of our highest courts. I would refer you to the finding in October 2011 in the D.C. Assault Weapons decision which applied to large capacity magazines:
    "It also concluded that “the evidence demonstrates a ban on assault weapons is likely to promote the Government’s interest in crime control in the densely populated urban area that is the District of Columbia.” The court reached the same conclusion about banning magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Those magazines increase the dangers of semiautomatic guns: they result in more shots fired, people wounded and wounds per person. The appeals court’s ruling is careful and convincing on this heated topic. "

    Your argument fails logic, it is a false equivalency.

  14. Iavier,

    I will use a bit different reply than DG, though I did at first consider using her first reply (that of false equivalency). Guns aren't cars, they have an expressly different purpose and high capacity magazines are useful only in one of the key purposes of guns, namely, efficient killing - not self-defense, not hunting, not sporting (except to thrill junkies and then their benefit doesn't outweigh their cost). DG's reply is more thorough and eloquent than mine would have been.

    Instead, let's discuss this from two other angles.

    First, while you may want to call her "extreme left" let's be clear here. Extreme left of what? The US populace? Hardly (at least on this issue). She (and I for that matter) is not advocating banning firearms as those on the extreme left would do. She is not advocating (as far as I know) banning handguns, I see those like I see 400 hp cars (to borrow your metaphor), I don't think they're a good idea, I don't want one, but I'm at least ambivalent to their presence. I think they make us less safe, but in the interest of putting a reasonable line somewhere, I do not support banning them.

    And there's the rub and point, my (and her) position is supported by more than half of the adults in the United States (namely banning high capacity magazines and potentially assault weapons). We are far from outside the mainstream. Instead, it is those who advocate for zero restrictions who are.

    And so, on to point #2:

    Tangential question first: Do you believe, as a "libertarian" that people should be allowed to vote without presenting ID's?

    Do you believe people should be allowed to own machine-guns, such as the M-60 or M-249? (incidentally Javier, I spent 12 years in the Army, I know and am not at all "afraid" of firearms - I'm qualified on more than my share). So, that's the question, do you support letting people own machine-guns? I could have asked cannons, but I want to keep the discussion reasonable rather than inflammatory.

    I ask because it certainly can be argued that machine-guns are like 400 hp cars, I don't want one, but so long as someone doesn't hurt anyone with it, following your "libertarian" view why not?

    The rhetorical question gets an answer though I'd be interested in yours. The answer is that we do not see a good and proper purpose for such weapons which outweighs the danger such weapons present if they are in the possession of someone who is mentally unstable or otherwise intent on criminal activity which has a high likelihood of bringing them into contact with others.

    And there's your reason why people do not support high capacity magazines. They serve no good nor proper purpose which outweighs their cost. 400 hp cars do not present a cost to society which is manifestly disproportionate to their benefit. The danger they present is infinitesimal first, and many people enjoy the "thrill" of acceleration. Yes, many people enjoy the "thrill" of firing automatic weapons, but their risk is NOT infinitesimal. So, the costs to society vastly outweigh the benefits. Incidentally, to a TRUE libertarian, a club of which I most certainly am a member, THAT is the measure of whether a liberty may be intruded upon, nothing more, nothing less. It's why gay marriage is legal and constitutional, there is no harm to society in it by itself, and there is no good and proper purpose served by stripping that right (to marry those they love) from people.

    I wonder, Javier, how you feel about gay marriage bans, or voter ID laws. both of which fail the libertarian test.

  15. How do you make such a huge leap? You have got to be using a Pogo stick, more likely a jet pack. Gandhi says “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. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.” So, he is for sure saying disarming citizens in masses is bad, this is a statement directly against gun control. He says " If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.” If he is for gun control than why would he want the ban withdrawn? Seems he would be in a utopia with no guns allowed. Your strongest peace of evidence is that he was quoted in saying “A rifle this hand will never fire.” For that to be evidence that he was for gun control is to state that anytime someone else refuses to do something on morals, that they expect everyone else to share the same morals. That is just not a true statement. Just because he didn't want a gun, does not mean he would want no one to have a gun. I applaud your ability to make huge leaps, and I must say that you have got to have a great jet pack, but at best you show Gandhi was inconsistent about guns. There is no world that your evidence shows Gandhi was for gun control.

    1. Buy a vowel, get a clue --- Gandhi was writing, in context, specifically about arms for military defense, not for personal defense. The ENTIRE body of Gandhi's life was non-violence. His exception for military arms - -and THEN only because of the recalcitrance by the Axis forces of Hitler and Japan to respond to the approach of non-violence appealing to a higher decency.

      Gandhi was abundantly clear that he opposed guns and he opposed the violence that guns facilitated, throughout his entire life. The SOLE exception was for world war I.

      From Wikipedia:

      "Gandhi attempted to practise nonviolence and truth in all situations, and advocated that others do the same."

      re WW I:

      In April 1918, during the latter part of World War I, the Viceroy invited Gandhi to a War Conference in Delhi.[52] Perhaps to show his support for the Empire and help his case for India's independence,[53] Gandhi agreed to actively recruit Indians for the war effort.[54] In contrast to the Zulu War of 1906 and the outbreak of World War I in 1914, when he recruited volunteers for the Ambulance Corps, this time Gandhi attempted to recruit combatants. In a June 1918 leaflet entitled "Appeal for Enlistment", Gandhi wrote "To bring about such a state of things we should have the ability to defend ourselves, that is, the ability to bear arms and to use them...If we want to learn the use of arms with the greatest possible despatch, it is our duty to enlist ourselves in the army."[55] He did, however, stipulate in a letter to the Viceroy's private secretary that he "personally will not kill or injure anybody, friend or foe."[56]

      That seems pretty clear.

      By the time WW II rolled around, he wasn't even supporting THAT taking up of arms by citizens of India:

      "Gandhi initially favoured offering "nonviolent moral support" to the British effort when World War II broke out in 1939, but the Congressional leaders were offended by the unilateral inclusion of India in the war without consultation of the people's representatives. All Congressmen resigned from office.[98] After long deliberations, Gandhi declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom while that freedom was denied to India itself. As the war progressed, Gandhi intensified his demand for independence, calling for the British to Quit India in a speech at Gowalia Tank Maidan. This was Gandhi's and the Congress Party's most definitive revolt aimed at securing the British exit from India.[99]"

      I'm not riding a pogo stick, but you sir are clearly riding a hobby horse, and chasing your tail in circles rather than pursuing facts or truth.

      Gandhi was sure as hell ANTI-GUNS.

      And well he should have been, since he was assassinated with one.


    Unfortunately for you and your completely irrational leap off a building as a means to not have your irrational ideological premise shown to be wrong; Gandhi very much supported the right to bear arms. I am not left, I am not right however your Gandhi meme at the top championing truth is comical when you ignore Gandhi's truth. If the right to self defense had been protected in the first place, his movement wouldn't have been necessary.

    1. You are factually false.

      Gandhi pioneered his concept of peaceful protest rather than violent self-defense over a long period of time, beginning in Africa.

      He NEVER supported individual arms, only arms and arms training for India for military use.

      This was supported by his writing, his speeches, his entire personal philosophy, including his decision to be non-violent in his war service driving an ambulance.

      I have no idea who the heck 'Faux Manchu' is - an apparent reference to the fictional character created by Sax Rohmer, Fu Manchu.

      But in all cases, Gandhi was very clear that he was speaking of military self-defense of a nation -- much the way the militia reference as the premise for the 2A was written in the U.S., NOT individual personal defense.

      Thanks for your comment David Longfellow, but this proves nothing. Your Cornell reference is based ENTIRELY on taking statements by Gandhi out of their larger context, and therefore misrepresenting his historic position.

  17. The practice of law exists to distort common sense.

    1. Nonsense. The practice of law exists to at least attempt t codify our laws, which are achieved by a form of consensus, and then to act on them. Sometimes the process is more successfully crafted than others in implementing the intent, but that is not the fault of law or law practice as entities or institutions.

  18. What a JOKE. The author is an anti-gun LOON and every time someone shows clear evidence that he is wrong, he turns to his own brainwashing as "evidence" that Ghandi just would NEVER support gun ownership by citizens.

    "Everything I have read... blah, blah, blah, confirms that I am right and you are wrong." LOL!

    Leave him to his own little world where he makes sense in his own mind while anyone with the ability to read can see that he is an imbecile.

    1. Incorrect Gregory Miller.
      Let's start with your first claim - that I am an anti-gun loon.

      I'm not anti-gun, I'm a gun owner and proficient. I'm fact based.
      My two colleagues on this blog are fact based fire-arms proficient gun owners as well, both ex-military.

      One of them has also worked as a private citizen, post military service, negotiating military weapons contracts, and probably knows more about firearms in a depth of detail far beyond anything you possess; and yet we agree on the need to solve our gun violence problems here on this blog. We hold no antipathy to guns, we object to a stupid lack of appropriate regulation of lethal weapons as a public health issue. Two of my family members, also both ex-military, hold FFLs.

      NO one has shown 'evidence' I am wrong, instead they have done a poor job of trying to cherry pick information, and done it badly, while ignoring the totality of Gandhi's life work against violence as a solution to anything - including personal responses to crime. That suggests you are weak at research, weak at proper argumentation, intellectually dishonest, and don't really grasp fully what constitutes evidence.

      Next, I'm not a 'he', I'm a she -- so far, you are consistently wrong on all points. Shame on sloppy you. That's an epic fail.

      Lastly, I'm apparently serious enough that you need to bluster and bumble, which would suggest that you feel threatened by me and by the facts; they scare you. Clearly, recent current events of more mass shootings and attempted mass shootings must scare you as well, because they demonstrate that our gun culture is a failed one, and are likely to result in action. Because the gun culture is a failure, you're scared witless, and try desperate and ludicrous claims to prop it up, which include trying to hijack figures like Gandhi and Martin Luther King who DESPISED your failed gun culture. It's laughable, it is pathetic, it is the mark of the losing side.
      And yes, I know MLK BRIEFLY owned a gun for protection, but the significant fact is that he considered that gun and then got rid of it because he, like Gandhi, and specifically following Gandhi's example, recognized it as inconsistent with his non-violent philosophy.

      THAT is what you miss and which makes you look ridiculous, and a failed thinker, and you look the lunatic - and a coward.

      So you should be scared, you are on the wrong side of history, and your side is losing, losing BADLY. You have no facts, no rational arguments, and history is already condemning you and those like you.

    2. Lets go down a rabbit hole... If its so easy to see, common sense, and plain as day in text - why is there debate on the subject? If guns are so bad and dont protect us... Why does the government have so many? Why do they sah theh use them to protect us? You dont see a need for high capacity magazines, but does that mean that no one has the need for 'high capacity magazines' (which btw if we are 'fact checking', high capacity is relitive to the weapon. It also does little to slow a shooter down, especially if that reload is a new york reload. Plus, even bolt action can be unbelievably fast - just ask JFK)? Why does this dicussion always lead to name calling and childish behavior? Have you ever realized your condeming an inatimate object instead of further analyzing to find a root cause?

      Like them or not, guns got us here. Guns exist. They will always exist. They will continue to shape our future. In case you havent noticed, gun control doesnt seem to work on criminals. It does however work to control people... That dont have guns. If guns werent intended to be a part of this country, i dont think they would have been put into the constitution. Guns = freedom. Disagree? Just try and take someones gun...

    3. Lets go down a rabbit hole... If its so easy to see, common sense, and plain as day in text - why is there debate on the subject? If guns are so bad and dont protect us... Why does the government have so many? Why do they sah theh use them to protect us? You dont see a need for high capacity magazines, but does that mean that no one has the need for 'high capacity magazines' (which btw if we are 'fact checking', high capacity is relitive to the weapon. It also does little to slow a shooter down, especially if that reload is a new york reload. Plus, even bolt action can be unbelievably fast - just ask JFK)? Why does this dicussion always lead to name calling and childish behavior? Have you ever realized your condeming an inatimate object instead of further analyzing to find a root cause?

      Like them or not, guns got us here. Guns exist. They will always exist. They will continue to shape our future. In case you havent noticed, gun control doesnt seem to work on criminals. It does however work to control people... That dont have guns. If guns werent intended to be a part of this country, i dont think they would have been put into the constitution. Guns = freedom. Disagree? Just try and take someones gun...

    4. Corey S, first, this is not a rabbit hole, and the discussion should be on topic. That topic is that Gandhi was against self-defense; he was for passive non-violence where people did NOT actively defend themselves. His one caveat was quite clearly and specifically war.

      But let's indulge you for a moment. There is not really a debate any more than creationism deserves to be taken seriously - it doesn't. A debate means there is rational argument and fact based discussion from both sides. There is a controversy, yes. But there is really no rational debate. The facts do not support the pro-gun side.
      A government has guns because the government has the community, state, or national authorization for the use of force and the designated responsibility for the use of force, both for the shared (rather than individual) defense, and for law enforcement. The individual does not.The two do not equate, that is a specious argument. If your argument held then you would be justifying as well the private holding of tanks, bombers, nukes, war submarines, etc. -- that would be ridiculous. You make a logical failing, a logical fallacy, referred to as a false equivalency. THAT is why you are not engaging in a debate; your logic fails. You are engaging in controversy -- you don't like the results of logic, so you resist them.

      High capacity magazines exist for one reason - greater lethality. You can kill more people before you stop. It is an established fact that stopping to reload has been a key factor in stopping a number of shootings. Congresswoman Gabby Giffords shooter was tackled by a 64 year old woman when he stopped firing to reload. James Holmes the Aurora shooter would have killed and wounded far more people if his large capacity drum magazine --I believe it held over 100 rounds, - jammed, after which he left the theater.

      It has nothing to do with 'liking' guns. I'm proficient in hand gun use; my two colleagues, both ex-military, one not only a combat vet but worked on military arms procurement. We KNOW guns, we know how to use guns, we have enjoyed target shooting guns. We understand guns and it has nothing to do with like or dislike. This is one more false assumption on your part, that those who advocate gun control simply dislike guns.
      And what kind of crap is "guns got us here"? That's rubbish.
      Continued in separate comment due to space limitations.

      Guns exist, in the numbers we have, and in the relatively lax ownership and transfer for one reason and one reason only. That shared authority for the status quo. We can change that status quo any damn time we want. That status quo exists on consensus. We can change it like we changed the consensus on slavery, on phasing out a reliance on militias in favor of standing armies and professional law enforcement, on women's rights like voting, on gay marriage, on prohibition, on abortion, on age of consent or age of voting -- and on guns. And when we do (and the consensus appears to exist overwhelmingly for gun control, like universal background checks) we can change guns too.

    5. CoreyS, you go on to say that gun control does not work on criminals. That is factually false. Every gun starts out a legal gun; every gun that falls into the hands of criminals had to get their from a legal purchaser. Stopping those transfers is the goal of gun control - and we can do it.

      There is ZERO evidence that ANY gun ownership. much less more gun ownership or more gun carrying reduces crime. ZERO.

      There is substantial evidence that gun control reduces gun violence, ranging from homicides, to suicides, to accidents, to wounding. And there is the factor of guns being used to threaten where they don't actually kill or wound.

      In suicides there is an extremely well established knowledge, from hard factual research, that there is very limited suicide substitution of method. In a couple of cases, even closing off a bridge that was popular for people jumping off resulted in fewer suicides, in spite of another bridge over the same body of water just a few blocks away. In the UK, the phasing out of a certain variety of gas stove and oven used by people to kill themselves by gas resulted in a steep decline in not only that kind of suicides but suicides generally. In other countries, gun control has greatly reduced gun suicides, and most people have not substituted other means. Suicide rates overall declined. The desire to commit suicide is one where people can get help and no longer want to kill themselves, if the means to the impulse is not readily available. Suicides are a huge factor in our overall gun violence number.

    6. And my final comment to you Corey S is this:

      As to criminals, if we have greater/stricter accountability to how we transfer guns legally, we do not eliminate every gun from the possession by criminals, but we make it harder to get them. Research shows that many of the guns in the hands of criminals guns used in crimes, came from family and friends, not stolen guns sold on the street. If we track gun transfers, then we can hold responsible those who let their legally obtained guns be used in crimes, or fall into the hands of criminals.

      In cities and states with strict gun control, the majority of guns recovered in crimes come from SOMEWHERE ELSE with lax gun control.

      And let us continue with the crap logic that makes this a controversy but not a debate. Guns are not ordinary tools like hammers, or screw drivers, etc. In point of fact there was just an attack at a Native American tribal center recently in Canada, where the assailant used a hammer. None of the victims died; but 10 were injured. They were able to overcome the assailant -- and he did die. Had he committed the attack with a firearm, a ranged weapon, and not a hammer, the results would be many more deaths, and possibly only an assailant death if he committed suicide.

      Your ignorance on guns in the Constitution and early American history underlines why this is not a debate but instead a controversy without facts or logic on one side - YOUR side. Anyone who is a good student of history is aware that to bear arms was a term that was used exclusively for military service not personal weapons for individual self-defense. Anyone who is a good student of history is aware that the 2A was written entirely as a compromise over those amending the Constitution who favored a militia basis for self defense versus a standing army -- mostly on the basis of relative costs, not anything related to rights to rebel. In point of fact the Constitution was drafted to replace the articles of confederation and perpetual unity precisely BECAUSE putting down rebellion -- for which militias were used -- was not adequately empowered. That was a response to events like Shay's rebellion and the Yankee - Pennamite wars, an internal multi-state shooting war over territory that was eventually awarded mostly to within Pennsylvania borders (aka the Pennamites). A stronger national/federal government was necessary. But there was a huge conflict over militias versus a standing professional army. Elbridge Gerry for example, the 5th vice president of the USA, was a huge supporter of militias, for cost reasons for example. While others, notably George Washington our first president, thought most militias were not very good or useful, and wanted a designated professional military, both army and navy. So the 2A was a compromise to get the whole Constitution passed. PERIOD.

      There was an entire separate body of state and local laws regulating personal firearms other than militia weapons and use for self-defense.

      So when you are as competent a student of US gun law history as I am -- or as my colleague Laci is -- then you have a debate. Right now you just have a poor grasp of fact and logic, which makes this not a debate.

    7. And here is the reality of my response to your crap notion of freedom or your bluster about how no one can take your guns. No attempted stand off of anyone possessing a gun on one side and lawful authority on the other has resulted in a win for the possessor of the guns. Between the military, with tanks, drones, an air force, snipers, trained troops, and far higher powered guns than most private gun owners have, if there is a consensus, then there damn well will be taking of guns from those who are not qualified to own them under stricter gun law provisions. But from what I have seen, that bullshit bravado relatively rarely results in much of a fight.

      There was a successful gun buy back in Australia which effectively ended their history of mass shooting; because there was a consensus about that gun regulation. People did not fight it, they largely cooperated. And they are still free, people still own some guns, they still hunt, etc. The world did not end, and none of the pro-gun dire predictions happened. Ditto the UK.
      Gun control is not perfect, nothing will end violence 100%, but we can reduce it dramatically from where it is now. And that makes EVERYONE, gun owner or not gun owner, SAFER because of getting guns OUT of the hands of those who should not have them. And THAT is a lot different than taking everyone's guns.

      But the reality is that fewer and fewer people are choosing to own guns, with more and more guns in the hands of a smaller number of people. And THAT changes a lot in favor of gun control consensus.

      And as to your claims about childishness and name calling, in addition to being poorly reasoned and even more poorly factually well researched, I found your comment to lack substantive content, or logical rigor, but also to be more than a bit condescending as well as founded on false assumptions about your opposition in the controversy.

    8. Thats the problem with anti-gunners. You refuse to see another side. Its your way or the highway and thats thankfully not the america i live in! If your reason for gun bans are to save lives, why arent we banning hammers, knives, and cars? All which kill far more then guns. Is it because they have other uses and not everyone uses them to harm? Seems that can be applied to guns too.

      I would have liked to have a discussion with you, but you want to dictate how the conversation should go. Thats the problem in general - we are a free state not dictatorship and you want to take that. All because you 'think' you know better. Its sad you cant open your eyes and see how broad this is. You blame objects instead of the people.

    9. Corey,

      Do you realize I own firearms (ok, a firearm), do you know what I did last weekend, I went to the gun range. Your "anti-gunner" nonsense is just self-justification to pigeon-hole.

      The reason hammers and knives aren't under scrutiny is that they so very rarely are able to be used to kill 5 or 10 people at the same time, and with ease.

      No one here, on this site, has advocated banning firearms, but "that's the problem with you gun loonz", you want to turn the debate into something it isn't. You want to suggest that because a hammer can be used to kill, it is somehow equally as lethal and dangerous as a firearm. If you believe that, please start carrying a hammer for self-defense.

      The point here is this, high capacity firearms, firearms which shoot one bullet each time and as rapidly as you can pull the trigger, are far beyond that which is needed for your self-defense. Reasonable restrictions on those firearms are both constitutional AND SANE.

      Thinking a firearm in every room will solve all of society's ills, is not. More likely it will lead, as it did in the past, to far more accidental deaths and deaths due to people simply losing their temper and lashing out, but instead of with a hammer, which someone might well be able to run from, with a gun.

      As to blaming objects instead of people, you do realize that trite old argument is meaningless, right? You do realize that the point has always been not that people aren't the actors in violence, but rather how easy do you want to make it for them to act? Following your logic, we should no ban bombs on planes because after all, it's not the bomb, it's the person setting it off.

  19. So Ghandi doesn't oppose gun control except for where he clearly objected to gun control.

    Now who is the liar?

    "The point here is this, high capacity firearms, firearms which shoot one bullet each time and as rapidly as you can pull the trigger, are far beyond that which is needed for your self-defense. Reasonable restrictions on those firearms are both constitutional AND SANE."

    In what world is that "far beyond that which is needed for self defense"?

    On, that's right. In your fabricated, straw-man universe.

    "As to blaming objects instead of people, you do realize that trite old argument is meaningless, right?"

    Trite and meaningless you say?

    When was the last time you blamed a spoon for making a person fat?
    When was the last time you blamed Ford for drunk drivers?

    But go ahead and keep regurgitating your fallacious nonsese.

    We all recognize it for the trite, meaningless crap that it is.

    1. No contradiction on my part whatsoever, nonsense, or whatever euphemism you want to use.

      Gandhi was very clear that there were some instances where his peaceful resistance was not able to succeed, which was where there was no moral or ethical conscience to which to appeal.

      His example of that was Hitler and the Nazis. In those instances, such as war in opposition to evil that could not be addressed by non-violent resistance, he absolutely supported national defense involving guns used by authorized state sources, like armies - or in some instances law enforcement.

      Gandhi NEVER supported private violence, especially not for individual self defense. He was very clear about that.

      In the real world of the private citizen, it is NOT necessary or appropriate to have any kind of military weaponry for self defense. Not high capacity firearms; there is a clear line of distinction, in both self defense and in hunting, between what is necessary for those uses as distinct from that used by the military intended against another military entity. If you failed to understand that concept, then you are working waaaay to hard at being obtuse.

      We DO blame Ford for many vehicular deaths and injuries; that is why, per capita, and per mile driven, vehicles have become safer. It is one of the best possible solutions to treat gun deaths and injuries (and threats) as a public health issue, the same way we treat vehicle use and vehicle design. That is why we see auto deaths going lower than gun deaths as a trend.

      To paraphrase the excellent words of Eddie Izzard, the Brit comedian, guns do kill people. That is why people who are trying to kill someone don't just yell bang and throw a bullet at someone.

      But if you don't believe guns are responsible for killing people, you just go ahead and yell bang and throw a bullet or two. Guns are an essential element of killing people in gun violence, without which, no gun deaths, injuries or crimes involving threats would occur.

      You sir or madam are an idiot, a singularly uninformed idiot, who lacks the capacity for logic and reason.

      And that makes YOU the one full of crap.

  20. Un(common)sense,

    No, it's not hardly anything like "just my own" strawman, or that it's needed that which is needed for self defense"?

    In fact, I'm happy to have that debate with you here, at any point.

    Fact, the instances where a high capacity weapon is needed for self-defense are so rare that the NRA couldn't find one when their subject matter expert(SME) was questioned before Congress on the point. Their SME was a woman who used a 12 gauge shotgun to shoot two assailants, both of whom died at the scene.

    As a gun owner, and frankly, a comparative expert on firearms, I can say with certainty that there are many firearms which provide you the ability to secure yourself and your home and which aren't high rate of fire/high capacity weapons.

    Furthermore, it's not "just my opinion" (or anything like it), that it's adequate. California and Connecticut have enacted exactly these kinds of limits and these limits have not been successfully challenged before SCOTUS in the years since they were implemented. Is it POSSIBLE they will be challenged successfully, sure, but not likely, not likely at all, even in front of this very conservative SCOTUS, because SCOTUS understands that states DO have the right to limit the types of firearms you may carry/own. Those are types NEEDED, reasonably, (and that word is important btw, that word reasonable) to defend yourself or hunt. Neither do you NEED a .50 Barrett nor do you need a machine gun to defend yourself or to hunt. Neither do you REASONABLY need a weapon with 30 rounds (or 20 or even 12), to defend your home. Can it possibly happen, sure, but the issue is benefit vs. cost. Your extremely outside the probability scenario doesn't justify the cost of life. It fails that check and so fails the reasonableness standard THIS SCOTUS put forward under both Heller and McDonald. You have no REASONABLE need for it. So, it's constitutional and for that matte, makes good sense to enhance overall public safety (and so meets the 14th Amendment standard) because these firearms are simply used FAR more often for criminal conduct than they are used to save lives.

    So, if you want to have that argument, I'm game. to put things in context, I'm a 12 year veteran who has fired more kinds of weapons than 99.9% of the civilian populace. I'm literate in ballistics and criminal history and data so please PLEASE! Really, I double-dog dare ya :), try to debate this with me. I 've beaten many and not been yet beaten by any (I'd give one guy a tie, at best). So, try for the tie, see if you've got the chops. Please.

  21. I cannot stand people like you that do nothing but bash people that associate with the "right" and republicans. You think that just because some of them are crazy, they all are. That is not a good way to think my friend. I for one do not believe in political parties. they do nothing but cause arguments and the splitting up of our country. There are liars on both sides, so you can't praise one while slandering the other. You are what is wrong with this country. you are so close- minded and arrogant that you think you're always right and all republicans are evil. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    1. I don't think all Republicans are evil; I was raised in a Republican household and I still have family members who consider themselves at least nominally so.
      That said, the majority of those I have known for years feel - strongly - that the right and Republicans have moved so far to the right, and become so extreme, that they are no longer sane or reasonable. THOSE are the people who are the liars - the extremists, and those are the people who have divided the country. THOSE are also the people who have attempted to purge the GOP of anyone who does not embrace their dishonest and insane position in a way that the Dems have never done.
      So unless you are willing to address that, and acknowledge that very pivotal and fundamental difference between the left and the right, YOU are the one who is wrong and who is the problem, and it is YOU who should be ashamed of yourself. I'm going to sit back and watch all of the news interviews that show moderate republicans who insist that rather than vote for Trump or any of the other extremist candidates (which include Cruz and Rubio), they will vote for Hillary -- this in spite of being Republican voters for 20 years or more.
      You might want to check out the interviews done by the BBC (American reporters)to that effect; very compelling. It is a position shared by right wing sources like the Nat Review, that the right is going to jump ship.
      And please don't try to tell me the right hasn't gone to the far right, as a part of the political spectrum. Moderates now tend to self-identify as independents since the party LEFT THEM; they weren't the ones who left the GOP. UNTIL NOW.

  22. Drugs were outlawed, in fact our government has spent well over a trillion dollars prosecuting a "war on drugs" for decades, the result? Drugs are far cheaper, of much higher quality and far more readily available than before the "war" began.
    Ask the Armenians, European Jews, Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, Ugandans and Nicaraguans how gun control, in all cases "implemented for their protection," worked out for them. First they round up your guns, then they round up the people. More people died at the hands of their own governments than were killed in WWI and WWII combined. Some scholars estimate the number massacred at over 100 million. Don't think it could happen here? The US government rounded up and interred American citizens in WWII. How many native Americans died at the hands of the US government?
    There's a very old joke about a man bringing a knife to a gun fight. if you're the one with the knife because your government took your gun away, it's not so funny.
    When only the government has the right to bear arms it's called a police state.
    Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    1. Prevy, guns have been more tightly regulated than they are in the USA, successfully, unlike your drug analogy, in every comparable developed country.

      All of your examples are equally flawed. For example, the Holocaust had nothing to do with guns or the lack of them. Rather there were too few Jews as a segment of population for any number of firearms to have made a difference - as just one example of your flawed reasoning.

      Private gun ownership would have zero effect on any of the examples you provided. If you believe otherwise, you are a fool, and more to the point a very poor student of history.

      You have yet to learn history, much less attempt to teach others.

  23. Bless your heart DG.
    You have clearly spent a disgusting amount of time researching this topic, and molding the information to help prove your closed-minded opinion. I say "opinion" because anyone who believes whole heartedly a nation is better off disarmed, wouldn't know history and/or facts if it kicked you square in the teeth.

    It's not the gun that kills. It's the lack of respect and value of human life. The only thing worse is someone who values and respects life so little, that he/she would want an entire nation to be helpless against their own government...let alone both foreign and domestic criminals who prey on the helpless.

    It's not the governments job, it's not the military's job, it's not law enforcement's job (I've been all three) and it sure as hell isn't YOUR job to tell any free man or woman WHERE, HOW, and IF they can defend themselves. Who gives a crap what Ghandi said, who cares what MLK said, this topic and American born freedom isn't up for debate. TRUE,law abiding, American citizens who own firearms will not be disarmed. Who's going to do the disarming? It sure as hell won't be keyboard warriors like yourself. The military and law enforcement are predominantly red blooded American volunteers, who believe in each other's personal freedom's as Americans...they won't be following or giving that order. So enjoy sipping your wine, and dreaming of a communist or socialist America without guns...cuz that dream is as close as you'll ever come to it. Too many freedom loving Americans who have always been quiet (unlike yourself) will no longer be quiet when shit hits the fan...and the noise we make will be alot louder than the clicking of your keyboard

    ...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands

    1. I have spent an adequate time researching the topic to separate fact from fiction. Gandhi opposed personal firearms for self-defense, but supported national armed military.

      It is quite evident that nations that have restricted guns much more than the USA have been every bit as free, safer, have less gun crime, and have no need to be armed against their own governments either.

      You have not in fact read history apparently, since your claims are not substantiated by it.

      Those who promote guns apparently feel it is necessary to make up shit to try to justify their failed logic and failed gun policies.

      True patriots, military or otherwise, support civilian control of the armed forces - and of civilian legal authority as well. That means that if state or local governments enact that kind of successful gun restriction, they will enforce it.

      You seem to confuse the sound of your own farts with your fantasy opposition. In that regard you and those like you are not unlike the fools recently at the Malheur sanctuary in Oregon who made a sloppy mess and a whiny whimper, but nothing more. The same can be said pretty much of every other swaggering failure from your side blustering about how big a noise you are.

      You are not.

  24. Patriot, having a republic means that if a law is passed, you obey it, or you oppose it peacefully. A patriot isn't someone who believes in violent resistance, over guns, about laws you don't know and don't understand, because you want your guns. Think about that, Patriot, you want to kill people, people like me, because we don't agree with your position, about guns. That's not democracy, it sure isn't respect for a Republic. You're a fraud, you're not advocating for the republic, you're advocating against it. You're putting yourself above the law and you don't give a damn what anyone else thinks and that's the only "give a damn" that matters to you. You wouldn't know a socialist if it bit you in the ass or are you not paying for Social Security or Medicare? Are you old enough to receive either, if so, you're a socialist.... Gasp!

    Now, back to reality, Patriot. Your hate speech and threats are meaningless. I urge you to go to Connecticut and protest where they passed laws banning high capacity magazines. If you think all of these police or soldiers (like me) are going to stand up with you, why didn't they in California where they passed similar laws?

    The point is, these laws already exist, if you think they're unconstitutional, that's your right obviously but it appears many others don't. Do they not have that right to disagree with you? (You say they don't) And if they disagree with you, do they not have the right to pass laws LIMITING the kinds of weapons YOU can have and to see such laws enforced just like laws against murder? You say they don't, but SCOTUS, Congress, and 240 years of history in AMERICA say they do. You know, that Republic thingie you seem to want to thump your chest about but really don’t understand, says they do. You’re not a patriot, fella, you’re a fraud. What you’ve really said is, “I think the constitution says something it doesn’t and I’ll shoot you if you try to take my military-looking gun away, not because I’m right, but, because like slave holders in the south, I want what I want, and I don’t give a damn what anyone else thinks.”) That's what I heard.

  25. I can't take this article seriously when it acts like people aligned with their particular view (left leaning) only misquote by mistake while anyone who opposes their view is intentionally looking for ways to mislead. There are many people on both sides who intentionally mislead.

    I was trying to search for a resource to fact check the Ghandi quote, guess I will keep looking because I didn't see anything here other than saying to other people were wrong.

  26. Dear Unknown, perhaps you'd like to back up your point? I certainly don't think AANYONE affiliated with this blog ever said the left never purposefully distorts or misquotes nor do I in any way believe that. Certainly Ms. Clinton does and has, as has Bernie Sanders, just to name a couple. Where I might draw a distinction is in whether it is considered "ok". The left, by and large, considers dishonesty in the press to be wrong and doesn't excuse it with "well the other side does it, so it's ok." I certainly see a comment like, "Trump is worse" but that's not saying "it's ok", but rather, it's really saying, "are you serious (on the right) about your complaint given how VERY MUCH FURTHER your side of the aisle, your candidates, and especially the majority of your party are willing to go?" In fact, I often think the willingness of the left to admit to fault is seen as a weakness by those on the right.

    As I said to a conservative friend recently, "I don't think you can accept the idea of journalistic impartiality because you can't understand that it can exist and so won't practice it." In short, you ask/demand others not to sin, but rather than working against your own bias, you embrace it, even applaud it, because you think there is no other way. Those of us who aren't willing to sacrifice integrity for a rather fleeting victory, hate when we err and try to make up for it rather than excuse it.

    So, care to put your money where your mouth is and show me where anyone on this blog is purposefully misstating things?

  27. Mr. Osorio,

    First, I'm a gun owner, second I'm a veteran of the Army, so I'd guess I'm likely very much as literate as 99% of the public on firearms.

    Second, if saying Ghandi wasn't a proponent of firearms for self-defense is wacko in your eyes while in the same breath claiming that the Bible doesn't refer to the non-righteous, if all that seems right to you consider a couple of things:

    1. Ghandi's life was constantly under threat, direct threat, from both Muslims and Hindus because he tried to broker peace. Yet, he, like Christ walked around advocating for NON-violence in his response to those threats. He insisted on not being armed and as far as I am aware insisted his travelling companions do so as well. His belief was that if someone truly wanted to kill him, they would succeed but it would be a damned poor example for him to advocate for non-violence but then carry a gun.

    Second, Christ said, "If your neighbor strikes you, turn your other cheek so that he may strike that one also." He also said, "Go, and tell your neighbors, beat your swords into plowshares." and last he said, "There two commandments, the first is to love your God with your whole mind your whole body and your whole soul, and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. There are no greater than these two." I would ask you if the reason we should be "damned" is because we accept homosexuality as not a choice, or whether it's because we're the world's largest armaments manufacturer, have the most armed citizens, are the world's largest arms trader, have a citizenry that hates people like Muslims, Jews, Arabs, Mexicans, blacks, liberals, Catholics, Chinese, Vietnamese, and the list goes on, and whether finally, calling someone you do not know, nor really know anything about a Wacko is "loving your neighbor"? And then I'd ask you, who exactly is damned? Who is the Pharisee among us? Who is turning their sword into a plowshare? Contemplate that, then get back to me.

  28. The grammar in this article is deplorable. This is the only comment I have ever left on a click bait site. Also, this article contains many affirmations that Ghandi made a pro military remark, at the bare minimum. "The sentence" itself also supplies a small context.

    1. Not "click bait", and Gandhi was very clear that he supported armies with guns, but never supported them for individual protection -- or protest.

      So you point is moot, easy money.

  29. You failed to establish in any way that Gandhi was against the right for a free people to bear arms. I just returned from visiting 6 cities in India... While he may never have wished to fire one himself. He recognized the importance of the rights of citizens to protect and arm themselves. Your assertions are not backed up by facts... but heresay that you are trying to manipulate to dilute his simple words. No... he is not Rambo... some other gun nut... YES he was for an armed citizenry.

    1. You are incorrect Jason Borean; over and over Gandhi made it clear that he was against arming individuals for self-protection and only and exclusively for armies carrying weapons to defend entire nations. In particular he wanted the people of India to join with the armies of the UK to do their part.
      NOWHERE does Gandhi indicate otherwise.
      YOU are the one trying to alter his message, not me. Shame on you. That dishonors the man who made it clear that he would not approve of violence even to defending his wife or daughters from harm -- and that was what he asked of those who embraced his teaching.


    . . . it came from a pamphlet written by Gandhi, urging Indians to fight alongside the British in WW I.

    “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. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.”

    “A rifle this hand will never fire.” – OK, Gandhi was personally a pacifist, and refused to carry, and possibly even learn to use, a rifle. I respect that he has the courage of his conviction.

    “Gandhi = Guns? Gandhi advocates 'lock and load'? Gandhi as Rambo? No, emphatically NO. Bad. Wrong.”

    You ask a lot of “could” questions, make some unsupported statements, and then present the above statement as a truth supported by facts. You presented NO facts to support those statements.

    In fact, if you read your own quote of Ghandhi that starts off this Comment, it is clear he:

    * Looked upon the “act of depriving a whole nation” (not a government or an army, but a whole nation) to be the blackest of many black deeds committed by the British in India.

    * That he thought it a good thing for the Indian people to learn the use of firearms. Though he specifies the “middle classes”, which sounds like he didn’t want the lower classes to have the same knowledge.

    * That he believed the ban on possessing arms being withdrawn was very desirable. Again, no mention of governmental or military only possession, just possession of arms, which usually means everybody.

    To lie is to lose? Then you’re a loser.

    1. Chris Plambeck, welcome to Penigma, and my apologies for not having moderated your comment sooner. It was simply missed as a new comment on an older post.

      Now to address the points you raise, Gandhi spoke in multiple places and on multiple occasions about his concerns that India did not possess their own armed forces. When he wrote about depriving a nation, he was clearly, in that quote and in other things he said and wrote, referring to India being treated as less than a nation, and as a conquered territory. His goal was always nationalistic. He was never ever ever referring to personal firearms, a concept of which he was quite passionate in opposing. He saw that disarming of any military as treating India like untrustworthy children as a nation by a paternalistic UK. Because India was a composite of individual territories and jurisdictions, and not a nation at all when it was conquered by the Brits, this would be clearer. Rather pre-UK Conquest, it existed as the Mysore Kingdom, a Sikh Empire and the Maratha Empire. Those were gradually annexed and dominated by first the East India Company and then eventually the British government.

      It was the British "Raj" that MADE India a nation, and that they had not been a single nation prior. And the Brit rule only came after the Indian Rebellion of 1857. The concept of India as a single nation didn't begin to occur until the 20th century - in large part driven by Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. The ING began in the late 19th century but did not really become influential in the sense of Indians perceiving themselves as a single nation until well into the 20th, and that was far from universal when Gandhi wrote what he did circa WW I.

      No, what Gandhi wrote about guns was entirely in response to Brit military versus any India military, and his desire for at least a dependent Indian military if not an independent one, to further the goal of nationalism. To try to subvert that historic context to support individual gun ownership is a massive fail.

      You can only rationally look at the use of the term nation in that context, not the context you wish to apply to it because it dishonestly serves the bias you prefer.

      Gandhi has been used by the pro-gun as a supporter of personal firearms as distinct from military use and issue. The ability to use firearms for military purposes was his sole interest in having training for the Indian people. That he specified middle classes was not snobbery of any kind on his part but rather this awareness that only those with at least moderate levels of education would be qualified and capable of serving in such armed forces. If you read to any extent his observations on classes in India that too would be clearer. What Gandhi sought was their own armed forces for India, and THAT was the ban he sought to lift.
      And in particular he was concerned after WW I, and again in WWII where he served as an ambulance driver, that if India were forced to rely on the Brits as their sole armed force protection, when wider international conflict, like the World Wars, broke out, India would be left relatively helpless as Brit military might was shifted elsewhere. And in fact in Asia that DID become a problem in the early days of WW II against the Japanese.

      So, NO, I'm not a loser at all. You aren't a loser by lying here, but you have lost this round through being less informed. I would strongly suggest you put more of your interest in this topic into looking at what Gandhi was seeking in terms of independence and self rule, and nationalism for India in the context of the first half of the 20th century, and in particular at his efforts with that goal in mind to uniting the disparate elements of India through his non-violent protest.

  31. Chris,

    Your points aren't conclusive, also, it's fine to say "you've lost", less so to start calling names. Bring it up a notch.

    Bottom line is that DGs points weren't refuted by your comments, here's why:

    1. When Ghandi spoke about depriving a nation of arms, his point was that the Indian nation should agree to fight with the Brits, if they did not have arms to do so, they could not.
    2. The middle class fighting alongside the Brits establishes willingness to support the Commonwealth, much more so than the poor doing so because the poor can always be paid to fight, but for the middle-class, it's evidenciary of support of the idea of the Commonwealth itself.
    3. His failure to mention something in a way you prefer doesn't indicate support for the opposite, that's unproven. Saying removing the ban on arming the Indian nation may be simply the way of saying the same thing as the government or the military and nothing says otherwise.

    1. Exactly Pen. There was no "nation" of India; there was at best the single colony of India under the British rule, and that single entity had existed for less than 60 years as a colony when Gandhi began working towards a nation. A colony is not a nation. India as a colony still had a lot of competing governmental infrastructure, not to mention the divisions by religion and tribal organization. Even under the British rule, some of the principalities governed by Rajas were pretty separate and independent of UK governance.

      To claim a man who abhorred weapons, not only firearms, but who was an ardent supporter of nationalism supported private firearm ownership or possession is simply broadly inconsistent with the facts. The pro-gunners are at best badly ignorant, and at worst just too desperate to be honest when they try to subvert Gandhi to their cause as a supporter of private firearms.
      I have yet to meet one of those pro-gunners who had even the foggiest clue as to how the Brits came to take over India, or the role of the 1857 rebellion or the Sepoy rebellion, which was triggered by tallow (beef fat offended the Hindus, pork offended the Muslims) when the new Enfield P-53 rifle was issued to Indian soldier in the Brit military in India. Similarly they are consistently clueless when I bring up the Black Hole of Calcutta in the 18th century, and the longer history of conflicts between the British military and their Anglo-Indian members of that military.

      Further in that context, the class aspect of Gandhi's statement becomes clear, based on who did and did not serve, particularly in the British Indian cavalry of the 18th and 19th century.

      So yes, who the Brits allowed to be armed, and who they did not had a very distinctive class component based on who was part of both their military and their Indian administration. Gandhi was arguing for greater trust of people across classes, especially expanding to the middle class where use of military arms was concerned.

      Anyone who honestly does serious research, not selective cherry picking research to misrepresent the totality as well as the specific position of Gandhi would never honestly claim he supported personal weapons, not just firearms. NEVER. Because the facts simply do not support such an assertion.

      And what bothers me the most is that it is not only re Gandhi that the pro-gunners to this but on other claims as well. However staying on topic, I will restrict the discussion to Gandhi.