For others’ convenience:
Here is Venkat’s Original article. Here was my earlier response. To my response, Venkat added a new article. Below is my response:

1. In my reverence of America’s founding fathers, Venkat raised a number of questions about those fathers. Let us remember that I did not mean that founding fathers were right about gun control because they were enlightened, I showed their mode of reasoning as well by quoting them. I have not seen any response to their reasoning from Sri Venkat.

Yes, some of them were slave owners and almost all of the slave-owners (except Mr. Washington who released slaves) dealt with slaves in a way that can not be called humane. Also, I do not know where Sri Venkat found this interpretation of “three-fifth of human being” part, but their constitution includes it as a basis of representative-tax calculation, does not declare as some kind of universal rule. But, that too, reeks of hypocrisy when one looks at declaration of independence. But this is not about slavery, this is about gun control. But my fellow blogger justifies the inclusion thus:

Is it not more reasonable to conclude that just as the founding fathers were wrong in their assessment of blacks so they were wrong about gun rights too?

This is a logical fallacy known as guilt by association. Can we call all the founding members of America cruel just because some of them are slave-owners? Can I also extend Sri Venkat’s logic and claim that democracy or bill of rights of freedom of expression were not correct ideas because same slave owners put them in the constitution? Surely, if his speculations were correct, mine are correct too. This type of gulit-by-association opens a can of worms in another direction. Can I call a certain man a supporter of genocide who called Hitler his friend or advised an entire community to commit mass suicide? Since that is true, does that validate anyone questioning his contribution to my country’s freedom struggle? If Sri Venkat is to be believed, it would have been proper. Oh, BTW Mr. Henry Wiencek’s scholarship is not beyond questions and criticisms as well.

2. Let us do a thought experiment. Let us consider a kid who always used calculator to do his arithmetic. Now, let us consider that he is shopping in a village in India without the calculator. What odds would I give to the kid successfully doing his arithmetic in his head and not loosing money in the sabji market? Now consider a “Karma Vairiagi” who never used a gun in his entire life. Faced with the possibility of loosing his life, if he picks up a gun in self-defense. What odd would my respected fellow blogger give to his chances of using that gun to save his life? In 1962, my country faced a war with a powerful army at one front and battled with an acute shortage of men and equipment internally. We lost the war because we lost the internal front first. How did “violent” Americans deal with second world war that they were not prepared to handle in the first place? They won because of some crucial factors and one of them is drafting an extra-ordinary amount of men whose relationship with gun would not have been approved by theory of Karma Vairagya.

3. Let us see:

If you are ever in doubt as to what the Second Amendment is all about, Richard Schrade, a Libertarian attorney from Georgia, makes it very clear

No, sir, I am not in doubt. In stead of going to secondary sources, I went to primary source to find this (my own emphasis):

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.

What is there to be in doubt Sri Venkat? The text is pretty clear, is not it? What part of “being necessary to the security of a free state” points to overthrow of the government, sir? All you are citing are subjective interpretations, not even the original text.

4. Let us imagine asking Pakistani prisoners of war about non-violent nature of Indians. I am merely questioning the objectivity of your witness. Chief Si’ahl (I do not think that the man would have been appreciative of the anglicization of his name) who lost his war with Americans is definitely the one of the last guys whom I will ask for an opinion on Americans or the idea of non-violence. I would also avoid asking you the sources of those outlandish numbers because I dont have proper sources to tell me the anual number of the plants vegetarians slaughter (yes, plants have lives and feelings too). You see, your violent Americans at least passed Humane Slaughter Act while the society that worships non-violence approves of halal method in the name of secularism.

5. What part of “children’s rights” appear to singular or individualistic to you? If I am sending my children to the school, I am also sending them to a campus dangerously infested with drug dealers, school boundaries scouted by dangerous men suffering from pedophilia and nearby roads used by bad drivers. I can not demand banning “unstable” people from driving cars, maniacs from scouting around schools or recommending death sentence for offenders caught for selling drugs in school premises, can I?

6. Let us see.

It is banned on an aircraft. You cannot take it to a school either

Last I checked, guns were banned on aircraft and in school as well. That did not prevent anyone from taking a gun inside school, right?

A gun is more serious than a kitchen knife because while a person brandishing a knife could be over-powered

OK, let us accept the argument in this case. Then,

Ask the 20 Connecticut children that were butchered.

Yes, let us ask the slain school children whether they could over-power someone with a large knife or not. Off course, they were all trained in over-powering someone with a knife.

7. I am not sure how you concluded this, but I never called for banning any ideologies.

I actually advocate banning or suppressing Christianity and Islam

I know. You probably do not understand that by calling for banning any view you dont like makes you same as a fanatic Muslim who calls for death to Kuffars or priests who advocate elimination of heathens by hook-or-crook. Think about it. Most modern problems are so complicated that a knee-jerk hasty response creates more problem than it solves.

If USDA could largely prevent foreign seeds and crops from entering the USA through vigilance, a policing agency could wipe out black market weapons too.

The idea of prohibition is as old as the pathetic track record of it’s implementation. The religion does not matter, I am deeply suspicious of any kind of purism or fundamentalism because at the end, they create more problems than the solutions they allegedly deliver. From British puritanism to US prohibition-era politics to Taliban style governance, they failed at the end but created tremendous human suffering.

The following two tabs change content below.

Siddhartha Chatterjee

Latest posts by Siddhartha Chatterjee (see all)