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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: The context for self-defense [View all]spin
(17,493 posts)31. Ah, but Gandhi did speak about firearms...
I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits. One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look back upon the Act depriving the 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 If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity.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voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.'
-- Gandhi, Mohandas K. "Mahatma", An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, tr. Mahadev Desai, Part V., Ch. XXVII
This was during World War I. The "Arms Act" to which Gandhi refers was the Indian Arms Act of 1878, which, through its provisions granting the goverment unlimited arbitrary power to forbid possession of any and all arms by anyone or everyone, in practice meant nearly complete disarmament of the population.
This quotation should not be taken as a denial of Gandhi's lifelong emphasis on the paramount importance of Ahimsa (avoiding harm). It can however be taken as a clear statement that denying people the right to possess arms for their own defense is inconsistent with belief in Ahimsa, which permits the use of force, even deadly force, in defense of self or others. And this quotation cannot be taken to show that Gandhi liked arms or approved of their use -- he would view his personal feelings on such matters as utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the government should forbid their possession....emphasis added
http://www.anesi.com/q0055.htm
Ahimsa
Ahinsa ... is a term meaning to do no harm (literally: the avoidance of violence hinsa). The word is derived from the Sanskrit root hins to strike; hinsa is injury or harm, a-hinsa is the opposite of this, i.e. non harming or nonviolence.[1] [2]
It is an important tenet of the Indian religions (Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism). Ahinsa means kindness and non-violence towards all living things including non-human animals; it respects living beings as a unity, the belief that all living things are connected. Indian leader Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi strongly believed in this principle.[3] Avoidance of verbal and physical violence is also a part of this principle, although ahinsa recognizes self-defense when necessary, as a sign of a strong spirit. It is closely connected with the notion that all kinds of violence entail negative karmic consequences.
***snip***
Self-defense, criminal law, and war
Hindu scriptures and law books support the use of violence in self-defense against an armed attacker.[34] They make it clear that criminals are not protected by the rule of ahinsa.[35] They have no misgivings about the death penalty; their position is that evil-doers who deserve death should be killed, and that a king in particular is obliged to punish criminals and should not hesitate to kill them, even if they happen to be his own brothers and sons.[36]
According to some interpretations, the concept of ahinsa as expounded in the scriptures and law books is not meant to imply pacifism; war is seen as a normal part of life and the natural duty of the warriors.[37] In the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita Krishna refutes the pacifist ideas of Arjuna and uses various arguments to convince him that he must fight and kill in the impending battle. According to this interpretation of the scriptures, face-to-face combat is highly meritorious and fighters who die in battle go to heaven.[38] The apparent conflict between pacifistic interpretations of Ahimsa and the just war prescribed by the Gita has been resolved by some individuals by resorting to allegorical readings. Some of which are based on Theosophical interpretations and were notably represented by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi,[39] who made clear throughout his life and his own commentary on the Gita that it was "an allegory in which the battlefield is the soul and Arjuna, man's higher impulses struggling against evil."[40]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa[./div]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
He did not speak of firearms in public -- The comments you improperly cite were about MILITARY arms
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#35
But, not because he or any individual was "deprived" of guns. He was talking about British depriving
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#44
But, that is NOT WHAT Gandhi was talking about. Do some real research rather than relying on
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#59
You are attempting to shift the debate to one involving carrying firearms in public...
spin
Jan 2012
#50
Assuming they need dispatching. In any event, glad to have you protecting society with your guns.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#52
Sure, the only "rational" ones are the 4% of population who can't venture out without a gun or two.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#10
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
I don't think the 96% of people who walk outside without a gun see it as "inferior" response.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#18
Ah, that old trick again -- they aren't a member of "gun culture" once they get caught in crime.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#58
You were probably "grandfathered in" or provided life-time membership upon first caressing a gun.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#62
No, it indicates a small percentage of population is desperate to have a gun with them always.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#66
Hopefully the "indirect" effects of gun proliferation will not screw others. Unfortunately it will.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#27
More guns are like more chemical pollution. Gun proliferation = more guns available to wrong folks.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#36
One never sees the claim that arsonists are emboldened by matches or lighters,
friendly_iconoclast
Jan 2012
#24