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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
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 #43