Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (108121)	4/10/2009 1:40:26 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541413

"That's the point - they are - in some states for and in some against" That is NOT the point. They can do whatever they like privately- but they cannot use the state to further their bigotry. That just doesn't work for me. It obviously works for lots of other people- who confuse the freedom to privately be as prejudiced as you want to be, with the responsibility of the state to treat people fairly under the law. People who cower under a bible pretending it mandates that the state discriminate, if that is what "the people" want, get zero respect from me, but even I would not use the state to discriminate against such sad excuses for human beings- I simply would not allow them to persecute others by means of the state.

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (108121)	4/10/2009 1:53:03 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541413

You may not know the provenance of that quote- Mr. Ghandi's opinions evolved a lot after 1905: "In this instance of the fire-arms, the Asiatic has been most improperly bracketed with the natives. The British Indian does not need any such restrictions as are imposed by the Bill on the natives regarding the carrying of fire-arms. The prominent race can remain so by preventing the native from arming himself. Is there a slightest vestige of justification for so preventing the British Indian?" * Comments on a court case in The Indian Opinion (25 March 1905) "Mr. Ghandi was indeed a lifelong pacifist, but even he, at times, would become frustrated and consider other options. With regard to this 'red herring' issue raised concerning his 'advocacy' of the private ownership of firearms. This is a complete fiction, and worse, is a despicable and selective alteration of the historical facts. Mr. Ghandi's mis-attributed quotes regarding guns (cited above) pertain NOT to private ownership of guns, but refer to the British Government's refusal to enlist Indian troops into the WW1 war effort. Nothing to do with citizen owership of guns, everything to do with government control of guns. Specifically, it was his position that India was being 'held back' in evolving its own indigenous cadre of militarily capable individuals who would learn the use of guns in uniform, as servants of the State (and, hopefully, that state would in the future be an Independent India, feed from British rule)." His opinions a the turn of the century do not reflect the opinions of the Ghandi many people have come to admire. People change. Ghandi thankfully changed for the better. Your quote sounded so atypical of the later Ghandi that I figured you were probably quoting something rather strange- and low and behold, you were. Nothing whatsoever to do with private ownership, vigilantes, or anything else we've been discussing- except perhaps prejudice- and you can see some of the imperialist prejudices in the young Ghandi's quote about "natives" as opposed to "British Indians". It's always good to know the context.