Gandhi – An Unlikely Gun Rights Advocate

Natural News

Gandhi advocated the right to bear arms; use of ‘violence’ to defend innocents against bullying, oppression

by Mike Adams

Gandhi is known around the world as the master of “nonviolence.” And yet, in the face of being threatened with bullying attacks, even Gandhi directly advocated the use of violence in the defense of the innocent. Had Gandhi been alive today and witnessed the senseless loss of life at Sandy Hook Elementary school, he would have advocated arming the principal and giving her a chance to protect innocent lives through the use of defensive violent action.

Don’t believe me? Read his own words…

“I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence,” Gandhi wrote in his famous work, Doctrine of the Sword.

He continues:

…When my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence.

Gandhi advocated “training in arms” to defend liberty

Gandhi also advocated justified violence over the “cowardice” of submission. Again, this is in his own words:

…Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. – M.K. Gandhi, The Doctrine of the Sword.

Gandhi also explains that someone who cannot use violence to defend themselves or their family is a helpless coward and a “worm.”

In his own words from the text Between Cowardice And Violence

…He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully …

[When violence] is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission.

In his own words, Gandhi advocated facing danger with measured violence (i.e. shooting back)

Also from Gandhi’s text Between Cowardice And Violence

…A man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward.

Not knowing the stuff of which nonviolence is made, many have honestly believed that running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to offering resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one’s life. As a teacher of nonviolence I must, so far as it is possible for me, guard against such an unmanly belief.

Self-defence … is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation.

You got that? Even Gandshi advocated self defense, even if it involved acts of violence. This is why, if Gandhi were alive today, he would have advocated arming school principals to defend innocent life (the children) against psychopathic killers.

Obama wants Americans to be cowards; Gandhi wanted people to act with courage

President Obama, of course, wants to disarm all Americans and turn them into cowards… “sheeple” with no ability to defend themselves against psychopathic killers or a tyrannical government like the one Gandhi faced.

Gandhi openly advocated the opposite: Arming the citizens in the defense of the innocent.

Gandhi, it turns out, was pro Second Amendment and openly believed in the right of citizens to arm themselves in their defense against violence and oppression.

Note: Credit for the research on this article goes to David Rainoshek of www.RevolutionaryWebinars.com

Michigan House passes bill blocking NDAA detention

Tenth Amendment Center

Contact: Mike Maharrey
Communications director
O: 213.935.0553
media@tenthamendmentcenter.com
www.tenthamendmentcenter.com
For Immediate Release:Dec. 5, 2012

A bill condemning detention provisions written into the National Defense Authorization Act and blocking any state cooperation with federal agents attempting to detain people in Michigan without due process unanimously passed the Michigan House Wednesday.

HB5768 declares, “no agency of this state, no political subdivision of this state, no employee of an agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the Michigan national guard on official state duty shall aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of any person pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act…”

It passed 107-0.

Bill sponsor Rep. Tom McMillin was jubilant after the vote.

“My bill opposing NDAA’s indefinite detention, and taking away due process, and prohibiting the Michigan government from participating passed the House today. On to the State Senate,” he said.

A large coalition of grassroots activists spanning the political spectrum, including the Tenth Amendment Center, supported the bill and lobbied for its passage.

“There has been a lot of debate about the Feinstein amendment recently passed in the U.S. Senate. Will it really protect Americans from indefinite detention? Or is the language too broad? State actions like the one taken in Michigan today protect people no matter what they come up with in D.C.,” Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey said. “Even if the Feinstein amendment sticks, it still expressly claims congressional power to pass legislation to detain people on U.S. soil. It is the duty of state legislatures to interpose and stop the progress of evil. And what can be more evil than government-sanctioned kidnapping? Don’t let caterwauling in D.C. distract you. Keep pressing your state lawmakers to take action.”

Mahmoud Ahmadeinejad: “We love the people of the United States.”

CNN.com
September 25, 2012

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made clear what he meant when he said Israel should be “wiped off” the map and touched on everything from the Holocaust to homosexuality in a wide-ranging interview that aired Monday on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight.”

The president, speaking through a translator, also said what his country would do if attacked by Israel, and he slammed an anti-Islam film that has triggered protests in the Muslim world.

“If a group comes and occupies the United States of America, destroys homes while women and children are in those homes, incarcerate the youth of America, impose five different wars on many neighbors, and always threaten others, what would you do? What would you say? Would you help it? … Or would you help the people of the United States?” Ahmadinejad asked in response to whether Israel should be “wiped off” the face of the map, as he once said.

Continue Reading @ CNN…

Related:

US Army and DARPA fund bug-sized “Nanodrones”

This is not a real bug.

Related: