Political Crossfire Forums

[Lucky Luke]

Quote: One of Gandhi's arguments when recruiting Indians to join the army was not too well received by the British. "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India," Gandhi claimed, "history will look upon the act of 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 If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity."
http://www.tibetwrites.org/articles/jamyang_norbu/jn08.html



A golden opportunity indeed, what are you waiting for young gun lovers?

:-D
:-D

[Knight]

What is the point of this? You didn't give your opinion on it. This is nothing but bait from you to gun owners/supporters. :gdgf:

[Aqualung]

:lol:

This thread is amusing.

[Wolverine]

Very.

[Onevote]

Since your post has no opinion. Can we assume you are just trolling here?

This should be locked!

[Wolverine]

And the fire's of bannation should be unleashed.

[Lucky Luke]

Knight wrote: What is the point of this? You didn't give your opinion on it. This is nothing but bait from you to gun owners/supporters. :gdgf:
My opinion is clear why using a quote out of it's context?

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Wolverine wrote: And the fire's of bannation should be unleashed.

What are you waiting for is the question.

:-D
:-D

[mathurin]

i'll bite

how is it out of context, he is basically telling them "if we want to learn the use of arms so we can throw the british out, a great way is to join the british army and let the british teach us"
people use ghandi as some kind of super peaceful guy, but i bet if he had armed forces then he wouldnt have resorted to all the crap he did



the only line of your own "what are you waiting for young gun lovers"
implies we should join the army, fortunatly we live in different circumstances, we have access to our own guns, so we can learn the use of arms without giving up 4 years and our free will (sorry, but the military just isnt for me, i cant take orders without thinking) we are just lucky we threw the damn british out before they could deny us arms

[Lucky Luke]

mathurin wrote: i'll bite

how is it out of context, he is basically telling them "if we want to learn the use of arms so we can throw the british out, a great way is to join the british army and let the british teach us"
people use ghandi as some kind of super peaceful guy, but i bet if he had armed forces then he wouldnt have resorted to all the crap he did

the only line of your own "what are you waiting for young gun lovers"
implies we should join the army, fortunatly we live in different circumstances, we have access to our own guns, so we can learn the use of arms without giving up 4 years and our free will (sorry, but the military just isnt for me, i cant take orders without thinking) we are just lucky we threw the damn british out before they could deny us arms

Gandhi was for people to use non violent means first and foremost, and as we can all read he had an easy answer to people moaning about the fact that they could not be firearm trained in case of an armed insurrection.

Some people here are moaning the same way, you don't need a gun at home to be ready to fight for what you believe in. There are many ways to get firearm trained, the state guard is the easy answer to an unlikely problem in the US.

BTW if you can't take orders without thinking, you won't be able to join any rebellion Mathurin.
:-D
:-D

[perdidochas]

Lucky Luke wrote: mathurin wrote: i'll bite

how is it out of context, he is basically telling them "if we want to learn the use of arms so we can throw the british out, a great way is to join the british army and let the british teach us"
people use ghandi as some kind of super peaceful guy, but i bet if he had armed forces then he wouldnt have resorted to all the crap he did

the only line of your own "what are you waiting for young gun lovers"
implies we should join the army, fortunatly we live in different circumstances, we have access to our own guns, so we can learn the use of arms without giving up 4 years and our free will (sorry, but the military just isnt for me, i cant take orders without thinking) we are just lucky we threw the damn british out before they could deny us arms

Gandhi was for people to use non violent means first and foremost, and as we can all read he had an easy answer to people moaning about the fact that they could not be firearm trained in case of an armed insurrection.

Some people here are moaning the same way, you don't need a gun at home to be ready to fight for what you believe in. There are many ways to get firearm trained, the state guard is the easy answer to an unlikely problem in the US.

BTW if you can't take orders without thinking, you won't be able to join any rebellion Mathurin.
:-D
:-D

Gandhi was a great man, and in his case, non-violence worked. Against basically civilized people, non-violence is the best way to get things done politically. However, had Gandhi been dealing with people less civilized than the British, he would have been ruthlessly and violently dealt with, and he would be known as a failure, rather than as the great Indian leader. Pacifism demands that you deal with basically decent people. It won't work against ruthless people. Stalin or Hitler would have laughed at the use of passive resistance and civil disobedience, as they were quashing it with armed force.

[Lucky Luke]

perdidochas wrote:
Gandhi was a great man, and in his case, non-violence worked. Against basically civilized people, non-violence is the best way to get things done politically. However, had Gandhi been dealing with people less civilized than the British, he would have been ruthlessly and violently dealt with, and he would be known as a failure, rather than as the great Indian leader. Pacifism demands that you deal with basically decent people. It won't work against ruthless people. Stalin or Hitler would have laughed at the use of passive resistance and civil disobedience, as they were quashing it with armed force.

Gandhi was assassinated, by a gunman Perdidochas and the German people were very civilised, they just thought that it was a good idea for political party members to be armed.

American people are very civilised and decent people.

:-D
:-D

[perdidochas]

Lucky Luke wrote: perdidochas wrote:
Gandhi was a great man, and in his case, non-violence worked. Against basically civilized people, non-violence is the best way to get things done politically. However, had Gandhi been dealing with people less civilized than the British, he would have been ruthlessly and violently dealt with, and he would be known as a failure, rather than as the great Indian leader. Pacifism demands that you deal with basically decent people. It won't work against ruthless people. Stalin or Hitler would have laughed at the use of passive resistance and civil disobedience, as they were quashing it with armed force.

Gandhi was assassinated, by a gunman Perdidochas and the German people were very civilised, they just thought that it was a good idea for political party members to be armed.

American people are very civilised and decent people.


At this time, yes. There are no guarantees that it will remain this way.

[Lucky Luke]

perdidochas wrote:

Gandhi was assassinated, by a gunman Perdidochas and the German people were very civilised, they just thought that it was a good idea for political party members to be armed.

American people are very civilised and decent people.


At this time, yes. There are no guarantees that it will remain this way.[/quote]

A good guarantee would be that all political parties remain unarmed not like in Germany before Hitler got to power.

:-D
:-D

[perdidochas]

Lucky Luke wrote: perdidochas wrote:

Gandhi was assassinated, by a gunman Perdidochas and the German people were very civilised, they just thought that it was a good idea for political party members to be armed.

American people are very civilised and decent people.


At this time, yes. There are no guarantees that it will remain this way.

A good guarantee would be that all political parties remain unarmed not like in Germany before Hitler got to power.[/quote]

If a political party would start using armed force, that would be considered a crime (and rightfully so).

[Lucky Luke]

perdidochas wrote:

If a political party would start using armed force, that would be considered a crime (and rightfully so).

Armed protests would be considered as using armed force.

:-D
:-D

[perdidochas]

Lucky Luke wrote: perdidochas wrote:

If a political party would start using armed force, that would be considered a crime (and rightfully so).

Armed protests would be considered as using armed force.

:-D
:-D

I agree.