Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Banning Guns Means Only 'Terrorists' Have Guns

http://www.americanthinker.com/images/at-painter.gif

Gun Control in India

Larrey Anderson
The world watched in horror as the terrorists prowled and murdered for hours through the streets of a major city in India. The mayhem went all but unabated. No one tried to stop them -- because no one could stop them. None of the citizens were armed.

India has a long history of gun control. Under British occupation, the citizens of India had no rights to private gun ownership. Even Mahatma Gandhi protested the firearms prohibition:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." (M. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of my Experiments with Truth.)

In 1959 the prohibition was repealed. But the Indian government rushed in to protect its citizens from themselves and by 1990 the government had banned the import of small arms.

Permits for owning weapons are available to the citizenry of India but the licensing process is so complex and bewildering that very few citizens make the effort to (legally) obtain firearms. (A brief history of the gun control laws in India is available here and a video exploring the issue here.)

There is a huge lesson for freedom loving peoples to learn from the massacre in Mumbai: We cannot count on the government to protect us from terrorists who are willing to die to murder us. And without the right to legally own a firearm, we cannot protect ourselves. source

*********************************************

India has very strict gun control laws. From the International Herald Tribune:

The Oberoi Group employs many plainclothes security officers in its hotels, but these are unarmed, Oberoi said. Obtaining a license for even a single officer to carry a gun is extremely difficult in India, which has tight gun control laws.

It is likely, but not certain, that if the hotel security had been armed, they would have lost the battle anyway, due to the planning and overpowering firepower of the terrorists. That said, they might have been able to put up some sort of resistance or slowed the attack down or maybe, possibly, have saved a few of the nearly two hundred lives lost. At the very least, it might have given the terrorists pause before committing their atrocities. One thing is certain: Unarmed, security didn’t stand a chance and, by extension, neither did the guests.

I guess the point of this somewhat snarky post is that when the law abiding are completely unarmed, the lawless will always have the upper hand. If anything, they are emboldened because they know they face no resistance. source

*****************************************************

India gun control enabled Mumbai massacre



****************************************************
Will Obama and all the Clinton whores he has around him replay the Bill Clinton gun control story?

The Clinton Gun Ban Story

1 comment:

  1. Let's not forget that the liberty killing Patriot Act was not the sole province of the Bush/Cheney Junta, but was conceived and the basics written up by Bill Clinton's USAG, Janet Reno.

    They thought about trying to introduce their version of the PA into Congress after the OKC bombing, but realized that it wouldn't pass.

    The government needed something bigger and even more terrifying than the murder of 168 Americans in OKC.

    A type of new "Pearl Harbor" to get Americans scared enough to allow the Bill of Rights to be gutted.

    Which happened on 9/11.

    ReplyDelete