Eegore wrote on 02/01/20 at 15:52:33: I would agree Ghandi supported self defense, physically as an option second to passive behavior, but not at the level of supporting individual gun ownership as the image presents. I actually can't say he indicated either way since firearm ownership isn't a right anywhere where Ghandi lived or travelled.
The british would never have fallen to an armed India - simply because they owned 10,000 times the fire arms we could have ever made in that time. If it was an all out war - India didn't stand a chance. There were a few kings here and there that fought the british, the casualty ratio was comically obscene like 10,000 to 1, that's what happens when you fight with sticks against guns. Rememebr from 1857 to 1947 when the British ruled India the only way you would ever even touch a firearm is if you were in the army that the british assembled from Indian conscripts and maintained basically to keep the local populace from unresting themselves to fighting the british - and in 1857 these very soldiers revolted because they were using tallow as gun lube. Yea, they objected to the use of cow fat to lube a gun, started a mutiny and 10,000's dead. And India was pre industrial through the whole time, so we had to buy guns from elsewhere without any real currency.
Hopelessly outgunned, we had to shame them enough and hope the world took notice. WW2 and America finally did.
Cool.
Srinath.
Pages: 
