erichonda30
Banned
imported post
Haz. wrote:
Haz. wrote:
did you give your guns up
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Should we consider other's opinions?
- Thread starter swine
- Start date
B
Bikenut
Guest
imported post
Why is it the young, with their young ideas, seem to think that the old, with their time tested truths, are irrelevant?
The concept that the founding fathers and their ideas are just old fogey stuff not relevant to the new and cool today neglects to address the truth that there are concepts that have proven throughout History to be timeless.
Such as....
-There will always be people who wish to rule and those people will always relentlessly seek to rule.
-Those who wish to rule will always seek to disarm the populace.
-An unarmed population always becomes subservient to an elitist ruling class.
-And there will always be those misguided folks who, thinking they are being "hip", or "cool", or "intellectual" will help those who wish to rule to take over.
But in the end it is the same old story that has played out all over the world since the beginning of time when the only "arms" were rocks and sharp sticks... and will continue to play out until the end of time when "arms" are ray guns or whatever whiz bang technological thing they have....
But the time tested and Historically proven TRUTH is .... only the well armed are able to resist being ruled by those who consider themselves the elite... and those who consider themselves to be the elite will stop at nothing to disarm anyone and everyone who could stand in their way of ruling.
Why is it the young, with their young ideas, seem to think that the old, with their time tested truths, are irrelevant?
The concept that the founding fathers and their ideas are just old fogey stuff not relevant to the new and cool today neglects to address the truth that there are concepts that have proven throughout History to be timeless.
Such as....
-There will always be people who wish to rule and those people will always relentlessly seek to rule.
-Those who wish to rule will always seek to disarm the populace.
-An unarmed population always becomes subservient to an elitist ruling class.
-And there will always be those misguided folks who, thinking they are being "hip", or "cool", or "intellectual" will help those who wish to rule to take over.
But in the end it is the same old story that has played out all over the world since the beginning of time when the only "arms" were rocks and sharp sticks... and will continue to play out until the end of time when "arms" are ray guns or whatever whiz bang technological thing they have....
But the time tested and Historically proven TRUTH is .... only the well armed are able to resist being ruled by those who consider themselves the elite... and those who consider themselves to be the elite will stop at nothing to disarm anyone and everyone who could stand in their way of ruling.
Haz.
Regular Member
imported post
steveman01 wrote:
G-day Steveman01.
I love that quote, (Luke 22:36) and use it all the time where ever possible especially when the anties put up "Thou shalt not kill" as their argument against self defence.
The wording of the American Constitution is consistent and in alignment with the teachings of the Bible. Weapons of defense should be dispersed throughout the nation, not concentrated in the hands of a central government. A government honoring the Lord and His laws has no cause to want a monopoly of force and when it does it threatens the lives, liberty and property of its citizens and is operating in opposition to the Most High God.
steveman01 wrote:
G-day Steveman01.
I love that quote, (Luke 22:36) and use it all the time where ever possible especially when the anties put up "Thou shalt not kill" as their argument against self defence.
The wording of the American Constitution is consistent and in alignment with the teachings of the Bible. Weapons of defense should be dispersed throughout the nation, not concentrated in the hands of a central government. A government honoring the Lord and His laws has no cause to want a monopoly of force and when it does it threatens the lives, liberty and property of its citizens and is operating in opposition to the Most High God.
Haz.
Regular Member
imported post
ericfrompahrump wrote:
Hi Ericfrompahrump.
No. Sporting shooters who were liscenced at the time of the gun ban and buy back, who had registered firearms that were not declared illegal by the government, ( for example pump action shotguns), and had a genuine reason to keep their firearms and were prepared to go through the insane paperwork and government requirements and inspections did keep them. The government never made it easy and many many thousands of law abiding citizens with their heads bowed in submission just gave up and handed them in. It was a sad thing to witness.
Haz.
ericfrompahrump wrote:
Hi Ericfrompahrump.
No. Sporting shooters who were liscenced at the time of the gun ban and buy back, who had registered firearms that were not declared illegal by the government, ( for example pump action shotguns), and had a genuine reason to keep their firearms and were prepared to go through the insane paperwork and government requirements and inspections did keep them. The government never made it easy and many many thousands of law abiding citizens with their heads bowed in submission just gave up and handed them in. It was a sad thing to witness.
Haz.
steveman01
Regular Member
imported post
Haz. wrote:
Somehow they confuse murder with bearing arms. It would do them good to take the bible in it's entirety, and Selah. I'm having a brain fart, help me with this one:
"If someone comes to kill you, rise quickly and kill him first"
I know Exodus speaks alot about this but can't seem to pin it down.
Haz. wrote:
Somehow they confuse murder with bearing arms. It would do them good to take the bible in it's entirety, and Selah. I'm having a brain fart, help me with this one:
"If someone comes to kill you, rise quickly and kill him first"
I know Exodus speaks alot about this but can't seem to pin it down.
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
steveman01 wrote:
steveman01 wrote:
It's in the Talmud... The Law.
Haz.
Regular Member
imported post
steveman01 wrote:
Hi Steveman01
Most refer to the Sixth Commandment that tells us "Thou shall not kill." This was incorrectly translated in English and should read, "Thou shalt not murder." In the chapters following, God gave to Moses many of the situations which require a death penalty. God clearly has not told us never to kill. He has told us not to murder, which means we are not to take an innocent life. If someone is trying to harm you or kill you, they are not innocent.
Exodus 22:2-3 tells us "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed.
In Proverbs 25:26 we read that "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well." Certainly we would be faltering before the wicked if we chose to be unarmed and unable to protect ourselves against an assailant who might be threatening our life
Haz.
steveman01 wrote:
Hi Steveman01
Most refer to the Sixth Commandment that tells us "Thou shall not kill." This was incorrectly translated in English and should read, "Thou shalt not murder." In the chapters following, God gave to Moses many of the situations which require a death penalty. God clearly has not told us never to kill. He has told us not to murder, which means we are not to take an innocent life. If someone is trying to harm you or kill you, they are not innocent.
Exodus 22:2-3 tells us "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed.
In Proverbs 25:26 we read that "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well." Certainly we would be faltering before the wicked if we chose to be unarmed and unable to protect ourselves against an assailant who might be threatening our life
Haz.
Brimstone Baritone
Regular Member
imported post
These are some that caught my eye, and my thoughts about them:
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson
Sage advise back when loading and firing a gun really was exercise. Maybe not so relevant now. Debatable.
"A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders." -Larry Elder
Funny, but true.
"Anyone with a gun can go out and commit an act of terrorism, even without a political affiliation." -Aaron McGruder
They can, but why would they? It is the political or religious ideology that gives the motive.
"Don't carry a gun. It's nice to have them close by, but don't carry them. You might get arrested." -John Gotti
The idea of being arrested just for carrying a gun is, to me, preposterous. I'm glad I don't live in certain states.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -Ayn Rand
Morality is wholly contained in the heart and mind of the individual. An object cannot be moral or immoral, only the way that object is used.
"Gun bans disarm victims, putting them at the mercy of murderers or terrorists who think nothing of breaking the gun laws." -Michael Badnarik
Amen.
"I don't believe gun owners have rights." -Sara Brady
:what: just about sums it up.
"I grew up in a tough neighborhood and we used to say you can get further with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word." -David Mamet
Sounds a lot like the Heinlein quote from the OP.
These are some that caught my eye, and my thoughts about them:
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson
Sage advise back when loading and firing a gun really was exercise. Maybe not so relevant now. Debatable.
"A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders." -Larry Elder
Funny, but true.
"Anyone with a gun can go out and commit an act of terrorism, even without a political affiliation." -Aaron McGruder
They can, but why would they? It is the political or religious ideology that gives the motive.
"Don't carry a gun. It's nice to have them close by, but don't carry them. You might get arrested." -John Gotti
The idea of being arrested just for carrying a gun is, to me, preposterous. I'm glad I don't live in certain states.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -Ayn Rand
Morality is wholly contained in the heart and mind of the individual. An object cannot be moral or immoral, only the way that object is used.
"Gun bans disarm victims, putting them at the mercy of murderers or terrorists who think nothing of breaking the gun laws." -Michael Badnarik
Amen.
"I don't believe gun owners have rights." -Sara Brady
:what: just about sums it up.
"I grew up in a tough neighborhood and we used to say you can get further with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word." -David Mamet
Sounds a lot like the Heinlein quote from the OP.
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
mcdonalk wrote:
That saying is attributable to Al Capone.
"Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword has never encountered automatic weapons": General Douglas MacAuther
mcdonalk wrote:
That saying is attributable to Al Capone.
"Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword has never encountered automatic weapons": General Douglas MacAuther
Brimstone Baritone
Regular Member
imported post
Mamet was the screen writer on "The Untouchables". Variations of the quote have been attributed to many people and criminals including Capone and John Dillinger.
Mamet was the screen writer on "The Untouchables". Variations of the quote have been attributed to many people and criminals including Capone and John Dillinger.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Sonora Rebel wrote:
Which is why dictatorships heavily censor--the former Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba.
Even as late as the early1840's, truth was not a defense to prosecution forcertain anti-government remarks in the press in Great Britain. See Origins of the Bill of Rights by Leonard Levy.
No dictator is going to kill all of his subjects. They are the producers whopay for his highstandard of living. He knows he is outnumbered and cannot afford to slay too many, thus he fears--fears--them getting new ideas...conveyed to them by the pen.
Douglas was an arrogant idiot on this point.
Sonora Rebel wrote:
Which is why dictatorships heavily censor--the former Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba.
Even as late as the early1840's, truth was not a defense to prosecution forcertain anti-government remarks in the press in Great Britain. See Origins of the Bill of Rights by Leonard Levy.
No dictator is going to kill all of his subjects. They are the producers whopay for his highstandard of living. He knows he is outnumbered and cannot afford to slay too many, thus he fears--fears--them getting new ideas...conveyed to them by the pen.
Douglas was an arrogant idiot on this point.
Repoman
New member
imported post
Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men. - Pope John Paul II
Violence and arms just ended most forms ofSlavery, Communism, Fascism, Naziism, Japanese Imperialism, or opression by England.
Shoot he was right, it NEVER resolved anything.
Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men. - Pope John Paul II
Violence and arms just ended most forms ofSlavery, Communism, Fascism, Naziism, Japanese Imperialism, or opression by England.
Shoot he was right, it NEVER resolved anything.
imported post
Bikenut wrote:
Is that the world you want? You hinted atthe way the future would develop in such a world when you alluded to "ray guns or whatever whiz bang technological thing they have...." So a continual and escallating 'arms race'? That's the world you want?
No matter how well armed you are, with sufficient resources and will, the'other guys' will be able to subdue you with their superior firepower. I'd rather bet on the power of the people in greatnumbers in peacefull protest to overcome the might of arms.
Bikenut wrote:
This a stirring, even slightly thrilling, justification for war, like the ones going on in Iraq and Afganistan right now, and I, for one, find it a bit anachronistic. It sounds like a fantasy from thesimplerdays of yesteryear. Right now, in Mexico, thedrug gangs outgun the government and the police. The gangs there arebetter armed than the police and are therefore able tomake the laws as they see fit withoutbothering with democratic institutions.
Is that the world you want? You hinted atthe way the future would develop in such a world when you alluded to "ray guns or whatever whiz bang technological thing they have...." So a continual and escallating 'arms race'? That's the world you want?
No matter how well armed you are, with sufficient resources and will, the'other guys' will be able to subdue you with their superior firepower. I'd rather bet on the power of the people in greatnumbers in peacefull protest to overcome the might of arms.
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
imported post
swine wrote:
swine wrote:
Then... you're a fool. Nothing left to say.
Haz.
Regular Member
imported post
Is that so? Its do as I say, not as I do, ay? These people then, were obviously unarmed.
Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France.By 1255, the Inquisition was in full gear throughout Central and Western Europe; although it was never instituted in England or Scandinavia. An estimated 31,912 heretics were burned at the stake, 17,659 were burned in effigy and 291,450 made reconciliations in the Spanish Inquisition.
.
Is that so? Its do as I say, not as I do, ay? These people then, were obviously unarmed.
Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France.By 1255, the Inquisition was in full gear throughout Central and Western Europe; although it was never instituted in England or Scandinavia. An estimated 31,912 heretics were burned at the stake, 17,659 were burned in effigy and 291,450 made reconciliations in the Spanish Inquisition.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
nightgunner wrote:
Without the full context of his remarks, assuming he wouldn't make an idiotic statement, my best guess is that he was referring to the fact that violence generally leaves in place the core disagreementsunderlying the fight.It is the disagreements that cause the problems of men. Violence does not sort them out; it just bypasses obtaining agreement. In which case, he would be talking like a spiritual leader, pointing out adeeper truth.
The problem comes in when anti-gunners deliberately mis-use such philosophical points to advance their agenda, skipping over the part about sometimes violence is needed in order to repel the person(s) who failed to first obtain your agreement.
nightgunner wrote:
John Paul II was not stupid. If we assume he would not make an idiotic, easily contradicted statement, we have to look elsewhere or deeper for what he was talking about. Decent, competentspiritual leaders would often make statements that require more than a superficial glance. If they only ever said things that were instantly recognizeable by almost everybody, they wouldn't be spiritual leaders.
Without the full context of his remarks, assuming he wouldn't make an idiotic statement, my best guess is that he was referring to the fact that violence generally leaves in place the core disagreementsunderlying the fight.It is the disagreements that cause the problems of men. Violence does not sort them out; it just bypasses obtaining agreement. In which case, he would be talking like a spiritual leader, pointing out adeeper truth.
The problem comes in when anti-gunners deliberately mis-use such philosophical points to advance their agenda, skipping over the part about sometimes violence is needed in order to repel the person(s) who failed to first obtain your agreement.
Repoman
New member
imported post
swine wrote:
swine wrote:
Don't forget in China at Tiananmen Square! Oh wait, that didn't work out too well....
Haz.
Regular Member
imported post
swine wrote:
Segregation and War in South Africa
The Historical Gandhi Exposed
The Durban Post Office: Gandhi’s Segregationist History
[align=left]In 1893, Gandhi was hired to serve as legal adviser to wealthy Indian traders in Colonial South Africa. He arrived there prior to apartheid, but during a time when the nation still suffered severe political unrest and racial segregation. That same year he was allegedly the victim of racial hatred when he was thrown off a train at Pietermaritzburg for refusing to give up his seat to a white man. [/align]
[align=left]This event was reportedly a pivotal moment in Gandhi’s life which inspired him to fight against discrimination in colonial South Africa and later to lead the independence movement in India.[/align]
[align=left]In 1895, just two years later, Gandhi began actively promoting racial segregation in Durban, South Africa. The local post office had two doors: one for whites and the other shared by Indians and black Africans. Gandhi was required to share a door with black South Africans, which deeply offended him. So he initiated a campaign to segregate the blacks from the Indians.[/align]
[align=left]In his Collected Works (CWMG), Vol. I, pp. 367-368, Gandhi wrote: “In the Durban Post and telegraph offices there were separate entrances for natives and Asiatics and Europeans. We felt the indignity too much and many respectable Indians were insulted and called all sorts of names by the clerks at the counter. We petitioned the authorities to do away with the invidious distinction and they have now provided three separate entrances for natives, Asiatics, and Europeans.”[/align]
[align=left]Sgt.-Major Gandhi in the War on Blacks[/align]
[align=left]In 1906, the Zulus rebelled against the colonial British government in a region of South Africa. In protest of a new poll-tax, Zulus confronted and killed two British tax collectors in 1906. In retaliation, the British declared war on the Zulus. They hung, shot, and severely flogged thousands of Zulus. Around four thousand Zulus were killed during the rebellion. This war was called the Bambatha Uprising.[/align]
[align=left]Gandhi first cheered on the war efforts, encouraging Indians to send care packages to the soldiers “in order to express their sympathy.” He suggested these packages include “ fruits, tobacco, warm clothing and other things.[/align]
[align=left]Despite Gandhi’s current modern image as a dedicated pacifist, he berated the British for not raising an Indian regiment to help fight the black Zulus. He wrote: “If the Government only realized what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.” [CWMG, Vol. V, p. 11, Nov. 18, 1905] Early in 1906 he plead for an Indian regiment again, writing: "There is a population of over one hundred thousand Indians in Natal. It has been proved that they can do very efficient work in time of war... Is it prudent for the Government to allow a source of strength, which always lies at its disposal, to run to waste?” [CWMG, Vol. V, p. 124, Mar. 3, 1906][/align]
[align=left]Finally, he convinced the British to allow an Indian stretcher-bearer corps. But he seemed disappointed at the non-combatant status of the corps, writing: “The pity of it is that the Government...have not taken the elementary precaution of giving the necessary discipline and instruction to the Indians. It is, therefore, a matter of physical impossibility to expect Indians to do any work with the rifle; or, for that matter, to do any work in connection with war with much efficiency.” [CWMG, Vol. V, p. 211, May 5, 1906][/align]
[align=left]Gandhi was appointed a Sergeant-Major, taking an oath to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Edward" and "faithfully serve in the supernumerary list of the Active Militia Force." [CWMG, Vol. V, p. 262, June 6, 1906][/align]
[align=left]Before heading to the battlefield, Gandhi published an article titled "Should Indians Volunteer Or Not?" In it he argued for a religious reason to fight the black Africans, saying: “For the Indian community, going to the battle-field should be an easy matter; for, whether Muslims or Hindus, we are men with profound faith in God. We have a greater sense of duty, and it should therefore be easier for us to volunteer.” He also urged Indians to volunteer: "There is hardly any family from which someone has not gone to fight the Kaffir rebels. Following their example, we should steel our hearts and take courage. Now is the time when the leading whites want us to take this step; if we let go this opportunity, we shall repent later." [CWMG, Vol. V, pp. 273-274, June 30, 1906][/align]
[align=left]To make matters worse, Gandhi lied about his participation in the war in his 1920s autobiography. He wrote: "I bore no grudge against the Zulus, they had harmed no Indian. I had doubts about the 'rebellion' itself." He also claimed, "My heart was with the Zulus." Yet in 1906, he vehemently advocated Indians be allowed to "[take] their share in the defence of the Colony," demanded the Indian community help fund the suppression of the Zulu rebellion, and cheered the chance to train for "actual warfare."[/align]
[align=left]During his life, Gandhi vocally supported every major war. He supported the Second Bar War, Bambatha Uprising, World War I, World War II, and the forcible annexation by India of Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Junagarh.[/align]
http://www.gandhism.net
swine wrote:
Ghandi was no pacifist.
Segregation and War in South Africa
The Historical Gandhi Exposed
The Durban Post Office: Gandhi’s Segregationist History
[align=left]In 1893, Gandhi was hired to serve as legal adviser to wealthy Indian traders in Colonial South Africa. He arrived there prior to apartheid, but during a time when the nation still suffered severe political unrest and racial segregation. That same year he was allegedly the victim of racial hatred when he was thrown off a train at Pietermaritzburg for refusing to give up his seat to a white man. [/align]
[align=left]This event was reportedly a pivotal moment in Gandhi’s life which inspired him to fight against discrimination in colonial South Africa and later to lead the independence movement in India.[/align]
[align=left]In 1895, just two years later, Gandhi began actively promoting racial segregation in Durban, South Africa. The local post office had two doors: one for whites and the other shared by Indians and black Africans. Gandhi was required to share a door with black South Africans, which deeply offended him. So he initiated a campaign to segregate the blacks from the Indians.[/align]
[align=left]In his Collected Works (CWMG), Vol. I, pp. 367-368, Gandhi wrote: “In the Durban Post and telegraph offices there were separate entrances for natives and Asiatics and Europeans. We felt the indignity too much and many respectable Indians were insulted and called all sorts of names by the clerks at the counter. We petitioned the authorities to do away with the invidious distinction and they have now provided three separate entrances for natives, Asiatics, and Europeans.”[/align]
[align=left]Sgt.-Major Gandhi in the War on Blacks[/align]
[align=left]In 1906, the Zulus rebelled against the colonial British government in a region of South Africa. In protest of a new poll-tax, Zulus confronted and killed two British tax collectors in 1906. In retaliation, the British declared war on the Zulus. They hung, shot, and severely flogged thousands of Zulus. Around four thousand Zulus were killed during the rebellion. This war was called the Bambatha Uprising.[/align]
[align=left]Gandhi first cheered on the war efforts, encouraging Indians to send care packages to the soldiers “in order to express their sympathy.” He suggested these packages include “ fruits, tobacco, warm clothing and other things.[/align]
[align=left]Despite Gandhi’s current modern image as a dedicated pacifist, he berated the British for not raising an Indian regiment to help fight the black Zulus. He wrote: “If the Government only realized what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.” [CWMG, Vol. V, p. 11, Nov. 18, 1905] Early in 1906 he plead for an Indian regiment again, writing: "There is a population of over one hundred thousand Indians in Natal. It has been proved that they can do very efficient work in time of war... Is it prudent for the Government to allow a source of strength, which always lies at its disposal, to run to waste?” [CWMG, Vol. V, p. 124, Mar. 3, 1906][/align]
[align=left]Finally, he convinced the British to allow an Indian stretcher-bearer corps. But he seemed disappointed at the non-combatant status of the corps, writing: “The pity of it is that the Government...have not taken the elementary precaution of giving the necessary discipline and instruction to the Indians. It is, therefore, a matter of physical impossibility to expect Indians to do any work with the rifle; or, for that matter, to do any work in connection with war with much efficiency.” [CWMG, Vol. V, p. 211, May 5, 1906][/align]
[align=left]Gandhi was appointed a Sergeant-Major, taking an oath to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Edward" and "faithfully serve in the supernumerary list of the Active Militia Force." [CWMG, Vol. V, p. 262, June 6, 1906][/align]
[align=left]Before heading to the battlefield, Gandhi published an article titled "Should Indians Volunteer Or Not?" In it he argued for a religious reason to fight the black Africans, saying: “For the Indian community, going to the battle-field should be an easy matter; for, whether Muslims or Hindus, we are men with profound faith in God. We have a greater sense of duty, and it should therefore be easier for us to volunteer.” He also urged Indians to volunteer: "There is hardly any family from which someone has not gone to fight the Kaffir rebels. Following their example, we should steel our hearts and take courage. Now is the time when the leading whites want us to take this step; if we let go this opportunity, we shall repent later." [CWMG, Vol. V, pp. 273-274, June 30, 1906][/align]
[align=left]To make matters worse, Gandhi lied about his participation in the war in his 1920s autobiography. He wrote: "I bore no grudge against the Zulus, they had harmed no Indian. I had doubts about the 'rebellion' itself." He also claimed, "My heart was with the Zulus." Yet in 1906, he vehemently advocated Indians be allowed to "[take] their share in the defence of the Colony," demanded the Indian community help fund the suppression of the Zulu rebellion, and cheered the chance to train for "actual warfare."[/align]
[align=left]During his life, Gandhi vocally supported every major war. He supported the Second Bar War, Bambatha Uprising, World War I, World War II, and the forcible annexation by India of Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Junagarh.[/align]
http://www.gandhism.net