Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

spin

(17,493 posts)
1. Mahatma Gandhi had this to say about self defense and defense of family...
Sat Dec 31, 2011, 08:33 PM
Dec 2011
I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.
http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm


Gandhi’s Satyagraha and a Federated World Order

Glen T. Martin

Like most philosophers of nonviolent social change, Gandhi never repudiated all use of force. He believed it was morally acceptable and pragmatically important for Indian soldiers to fight on the side of the British in World War One.iii He declared that if one lacked the courage to stand against injustice by nonviolent means, one should acquire the force of arms. Worse than using force is cowardice – refusing to stand against injustice out of fear: "I have been repeating over and over again," he writes, "that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by nonviolently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor."iv For Gandhi, bodily life, as well as complex social life, occasionally required himsa. Ahimsa should not become a fetish that made practical functioning an impossibility.v

The perspective here should be clearly distinguished from the idea of violence as a "last resort," often appealed to by the defenders of violence as the final option when all else has failed, opening the door to militarized organized violence in defense of freedom or in revolutionary opposition to an oppressor. For Gandhi, nonviolence means an activation of a universal potential of our humanity, the realization of the deeper selfhood within us that we all share. Ahimsa, like satyagraha, means that ourselves and our institutions must be focused on clinging to the great Truth of our common humanity and our universal human situation.

If we do this, then any use of force will necessarily be premised on the minimum necessary to protect everyone involved. Under democratic government, a civilian police force could be trained in the minimum use of necessary force, protecting both the individual arrested and all bystanders. Gandhi stresses that the crucial element here is the intention behind the use of force. The necessary minimum use of force can never be militarized or directed toward intentional harm of a perceived "enemy." "The essence of violence," he declared, "is that there must be a violent intention behind the thought, word, or act, i.e., an intention to do harm to the opponent so-called."vi An individual defending his or her family or civilian police seeking to arrest a person might use the minimum necessary force with the non-attached love (agape) of the New Testament or the karma yoga of the Bhagavad Gita – that is, without hatred or malice that desires to inflict suffering on a perceived enemy....emphasis added

The concrete world in which we live requires that we deal effectively with dangerous institutions like militarized nation-states, dangerous forces like terrorism, and occasionally dangerous people. The task is to deal practically and justly with all these dangers without ourselves sinking into the cycle of violence and the corruption that it often entails. It requires not only personal clinging to truth but the conversion of our institutions to fundamental satyagraha as well. http://www.radford.edu/gmartin/Gandhi.and.Federation.art..htm


Firearms have a place in a list of tools to be used for legitimate self defense. It may be quite possible that if a person has the training, the skill and the physical ability he/she may be able to stop an attack without the use of lethal force. Obviously this would be preferable. However there are circumstances in which there is little choice but to use lethal force such as a firearm. Fortunately in many such situations the attacker will run when he finds himself faced by an armed individual who is willing to resist.
The context for self-defense [View all] discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2011 OP
Mahatma Gandhi had this to say about self defense and defense of family... spin Dec 2011 #1
I have read this. discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2011 #3
But, you spin because he speaketh not about guns. Hoyt Jan 2012 #14
Ah, but Gandhi did speak about firearms... spin Jan 2012 #31
He did not speak of firearms in public -- The comments you improperly cite were about MILITARY arms Hoyt Jan 2012 #35
No - it covered all arms including guns, swords, bow and arrows hack89 Jan 2012 #41
Not anything in there from Gandhi, but nice try. Hoyt Jan 2012 #42
It was the law that Gandhi was condemning. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #43
But, not because he or any individual was "deprived" of guns. He was talking about British depriving Hoyt Jan 2012 #44
Read the damn law - the text is right there. You are wrong. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #45
I suggest you read what Gandhi was referring to when he made that comment. Hoyt Jan 2012 #47
Here let me help you a little. Hoyt Jan 2012 #48
The Arms Act specifically talks about civilian gun restrictions hack89 Jan 2012 #54
But, that is NOT WHAT Gandhi was talking about. Do some real research rather than relying on Hoyt Jan 2012 #59
So why is he talking about the Arms Act?nt hack89 Jan 2012 #60
There are none so blind... ;) n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #49
I can't tell if that's sarcasm or something else... Pacafishmate Jan 2012 #46
You are attempting to shift the debate to one involving carrying firearms in public... spin Jan 2012 #50
Here's another quote by Gandhi... SteveW Jan 2012 #51
Assuming they need dispatching. In any event, glad to have you protecting society with your guns. Hoyt Jan 2012 #52
"Playing Jesus?" A. L. Webber hired better actors for that. SteveW Jan 2012 #57
I was hoping you'd start the New Year off with some rationality on this. Hoyt Dec 2011 #2
I wasn't planning... discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2011 #4
He did. That's the part you can't stand. n/t DissedByBush Jan 2012 #6
Bravo! discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #7
Sure, the only "rational" ones are the 4% of population who can't venture out without a gun or two. Hoyt Jan 2012 #10
The rational folks... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #23
That view of "freedom" reminds me of right wingers "bombing Iraqis for peace." Hoyt Jan 2012 #37
When might you... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #39
"Start the New Year off with logic and common sense. " rl6214 Jan 2012 #9
No No No...having the means to defend yourself and loved ones is mean, hateful, and impolite. ileus Jan 2012 #5
You should learn better ways of "defending" yourself, if you really honestly think you need it. Hoyt Jan 2012 #11
That post should really have had a drink warning. ManiacJoe Jan 2012 #12
Such as, Hoyt? BiggJawn Jan 2012 #13
why limit yourself with an inferior response? ileus Jan 2012 #15
I don't think the 96% of people who walk outside without a gun see it as "inferior" response. Hoyt Jan 2012 #18
If you would, please... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #19
Just not good for society. I know you don't care, but it's a fact. Hoyt Jan 2012 #20
I am aware... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #22
No "fact" there unless you can somehow prove to us it is indeed a "fact" rl6214 Jan 2012 #33
I just don't think guys like this are what we need more of. . . . . . Hoyt Jan 2012 #40
Thank you for clarifying. ManiacJoe Jan 2012 #55
Ah, that old trick again -- they aren't a member of "gun culture" once they get caught in crime. Hoyt Jan 2012 #58
Sorry... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #61
You were probably "grandfathered in" or provided life-time membership upon first caressing a gun. Hoyt Jan 2012 #62
ALRIGHT! discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #63
I believe that it is the "Deny facts and lie about it" club. oneshooter Jan 2012 #64
Yay! discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #65
"caressing a gun" rl6214 Jan 2012 #68
What's not good for society one-eyed fat man Jan 2012 #69
That tells us that if the 4% go thru all that trouble to be able to carry rl6214 Jan 2012 #32
No, it indicates a small percentage of population is desperate to have a gun with them always. Hoyt Jan 2012 #66
"desperate"? rl6214 Jan 2012 #67
Okay... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #34
"That ought to tell you something about how rational public toting is." Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #56
Me, not as much, but ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #16
Maybe not your mom, but a lot of folks that age have no business carrying a gun. Hoyt Jan 2012 #21
To a point, I agree ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #26
Hopefully the "indirect" effects of gun proliferation will not screw others. Unfortunately it will. Hoyt Jan 2012 #27
..."indirect" effects of gun proliferation... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #28
More guns are like more chemical pollution. Gun proliferation = more guns available to wrong folks. Hoyt Jan 2012 #36
In answer - discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #38
You ignored... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #70
No matter how many times.... We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #71
Please elaborate. NT ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #29
Glad that I'm lactose intolerant rather than factose intolerant. Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #30
Tooting ruders toting. nt SteveW Jan 2012 #53
Well said, Happy New Year. rl6214 Jan 2012 #8
Thank you and surely the same to you and yours. :) discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #17
One never sees the claim that arsonists are emboldened by matches or lighters, friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #24
+1 :) n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #25
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The context for self-defe...»Reply #1