Dear Kumar 2x786
The 1st Amendment to USA's Constitution specifies that there can be no democracy without Free Speech. Today Americans have taken freedom of speech to bizarre lengths. As consequence pf the First Amendment the USA got a Freedom of Information Act in 1967.
India got its Freedom of Information Act (RTI Act) in 2005. India's first baby steps to democracy started with the passage of RTI Act
The 2nd Amendment to USA's Constitution empowers all Americans to possess and use non-military weapons (all kinds of weapons upto semi-automatic weapons with burst fire capability) in an essentially UNREGISTERED manner. In addition US citizens with a clean record (Sanjay Dutt would not qualify being a past drug user) can possess and transfer LICENCED/REGISTERED fully automatic weapons under the National FireArms Act 1934 (brought to stop gangsters like Al Capone using machine guns) similar to India's Arms Act
This amendment was necessary to defend Free Speech and democracy by explicitly permitting US citizens to raise armed militias to remove tyrannical governments. India as the world's largest democracy will eventually get such a clause too.
Today in India, RTI activists are being murdered in hundreds. RTI activists are spreading democracy and free speech hence it is necessary that they be allowed to arm themselves with automatic weapons also.
The Govt of Gujarat has suppressed and trampled the democratic rights of Muslims in Gularat.They are not allowed to become members of the ruling party there, they are not given tickets to stand for election. The State Police does not come to their aid when they are attacked by lumpens of the ruling party. Hence also the minorities, in Gujarat and everywhere (like Hindus in Punjab) need at least unregulated semi-automatic weapons to protect themselves and ensure a free state and overthrow their tyrannical government if ever required.
Please also keep in mind that India (like the USA) is a Federation of Free States. As a citizen I am not defending India, I am defending my own State FIRST.
IAC does not defend Sanjay Dutt. IAC is explaining its own policy for a rational Free Arms Policy in light of USA's Constitution on which our own is heavily based.
At an emotional level, citizens and especially the liberals and fairer sex, have instinctive opposition to Arms policy. But the practicalities will eventually cause them alsoi to realise that there is no other way to preserve democracy against a corrupt and tyranical government which rules on the basis of force of arms. The US which earned freedom from the British through force of arms and preserved their entire territory in the process has enshrined it in their Constitution India. India which bartered away its territories by non-violence and appeasement of banias to get a moth eaten land can no longer make the same mistake if India is to survive as a nation.
It is quite foolish to expect that India will be defended by an army of only lathi wielding Swayam Sewaks against foreign aggressors (including those seated within India) . Swayam Sewak's are a people's militia and nothing but a people's militia. RSS needs to be well regulated. Patriots need arms and they need them now.
If IAC has to have a single point agenda, it would, in my view, be to have a 2nd Amendment like the USA's. Only this will ensure the balance of power between citizens and State and enable citizens to take back their delegated rights from a tyranical and despotic govt. Aam aadmi political party satyagraha does not work any more and which is why IAC "split" on this issue as Shanti Bhushanji knows very well.
Your last point about how most Americans are not in favour of guns, proves IAC's point. A hardcore MINORITY group with an ideology mixing guns and patriotism and which votes on the basis of its ideology is a significant force which is courted by all parties there. Please don't deny it.
Sarbajit
The 1st Amendment to USA's Constitution specifies that there can be no democracy without Free Speech. Today Americans have taken freedom of speech to bizarre lengths. As consequence pf the First Amendment the USA got a Freedom of Information Act in 1967.
India got its Freedom of Information Act (RTI Act) in 2005. India's first baby steps to democracy started with the passage of RTI Act
The 2nd Amendment to USA's Constitution empowers all Americans to possess and use non-military weapons (all kinds of weapons upto semi-automatic weapons with burst fire capability) in an essentially UNREGISTERED manner. In addition US citizens with a clean record (Sanjay Dutt would not qualify being a past drug user) can possess and transfer LICENCED/REGISTERED fully automatic weapons under the National FireArms Act 1934 (brought to stop gangsters like Al Capone using machine guns) similar to India's Arms Act
This amendment was necessary to defend Free Speech and democracy by explicitly permitting US citizens to raise armed militias to remove tyrannical governments. India as the world's largest democracy will eventually get such a clause too.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Today in India, RTI activists are being murdered in hundreds. RTI activists are spreading democracy and free speech hence it is necessary that they be allowed to arm themselves with automatic weapons also.
The Govt of Gujarat has suppressed and trampled the democratic rights of Muslims in Gularat.They are not allowed to become members of the ruling party there, they are not given tickets to stand for election. The State Police does not come to their aid when they are attacked by lumpens of the ruling party. Hence also the minorities, in Gujarat and everywhere (like Hindus in Punjab) need at least unregulated semi-automatic weapons to protect themselves and ensure a free state and overthrow their tyrannical government if ever required.
Please also keep in mind that India (like the USA) is a Federation of Free States. As a citizen I am not defending India, I am defending my own State FIRST.
IAC does not defend Sanjay Dutt. IAC is explaining its own policy for a rational Free Arms Policy in light of USA's Constitution on which our own is heavily based.
At an emotional level, citizens and especially the liberals and fairer sex, have instinctive opposition to Arms policy. But the practicalities will eventually cause them alsoi to realise that there is no other way to preserve democracy against a corrupt and tyranical government which rules on the basis of force of arms. The US which earned freedom from the British through force of arms and preserved their entire territory in the process has enshrined it in their Constitution India. India which bartered away its territories by non-violence and appeasement of banias to get a moth eaten land can no longer make the same mistake if India is to survive as a nation.
It is quite foolish to expect that India will be defended by an army of only lathi wielding Swayam Sewaks against foreign aggressors (including those seated within India) . Swayam Sewak's are a people's militia and nothing but a people's militia. RSS needs to be well regulated. Patriots need arms and they need them now.
If IAC has to have a single point agenda, it would, in my view, be to have a 2nd Amendment like the USA's. Only this will ensure the balance of power between citizens and State and enable citizens to take back their delegated rights from a tyranical and despotic govt. Aam aadmi political party satyagraha does not work any more and which is why IAC "split" on this issue as Shanti Bhushanji knows very well.
Your last point about how most Americans are not in favour of guns, proves IAC's point. A hardcore MINORITY group with an ideology mixing guns and patriotism and which votes on the basis of its ideology is a significant force which is courted by all parties there. Please don't deny it.
Sarbajit
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Kumar Arun <kumar2786@hotmail.com> wrote:
Many people in India carry no knowledge about the "2nd amendment of USA". They have no ideabut I thought you are educated enough to know the facts behind such provision within US constitution.Are you aware of the fact that 63% of American today are against 2nd amendment of US constitution?Such constitutional rights are NOT at all necessary in the society of 21st century. It is not at all going tobe a beneficial change in the laws for Indians. Please do not promote such ideas just to make stupid SanjayDutta hero among Indians people.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.