Gandhi, the RTBA and cowardice...

[TM7]

Gandhi and violence....FYI....TM7 ~~~~~ . [/t][/t]   Gandhi advocated the right to bear arms; use of  'violence' to defend innocents against bullying, oppression Monday, December 17, 2012 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all  articles...) [/t] [/t](NaturalNews) 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 libertyGandhi 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  couragePresident 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. Learn more:  http://www.naturalnews.com/038372_Gandhi_nonviolence_right_to_bear_arms.html#ixzz2FQ7xW4Ll

[finisher]

TM7, if this is truly on the up and up, I'd love to paste this post on my FB page if you have no objections.

[SharonAnne]

and didn't that guy Jesus say that if you had no sword you should sell your coat to buy a sword?

[SharonAnne]

TM7, I believe it is only the palace guards, DHS and FEMA, that we must resist. I truly believe that the Joint Chiefs will remember they swore oaths to the Constitution, not any passing President. If we can survive as a nation through the next 4 years we will see that the obamanation currently illegally residing in the White House plans to be the first dictator of the USA.  he will find some excuse to suspend elections, something he does not have any Constitutional right to do.

Then we will face the palace guards.

[BUGEYE]

TM7, I believe it is only the palace guards, DHS and FEMA, that we must resist. I truly believe that the Joint Chiefs will remember they swore oaths to the Constitution, not any passing President. If we can survive as a nation through the next 4 years we will see that the obamanation currently illegally residing in the White House plans to be the first dictator of the USA.  he will find some excuse to suspend elections, something he does not have any Constitutional right to do.

Then we will face the palace guards.

Yes the ones you name would obey obama, but like you say, the military must defend the constitution. and they could plainly see that obama would want to kill civilians.
as for the OP, most people would like to solve problems peacefully.

[SharonAnne]

I would love to solve the problems peacefully, but the obamanation, the DHS and FEMA will not go for that. The Executive Orders already written supposedly give the President the power to confiscate all private property, nationalize all fuel, electricity, transportation and homes. They allow forcing all USA citizens to move to another location, even entire cities if the President declares an national emergency. He can suspend the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Congress. All of the Executive Orders that exist illegally give the President the power to set himself up as Dictator. All he has to do is say that he is declaring a national emergency.

By The Way, there is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that gives the President this power. The Presidents have just unilaterally declared that they have this power. The do as long as we go along with it.

Don't go along with it.