ghandi is on record, circa the battle for Indian independence, acknowledging the futility of nonviolence (carrot) without the implementation of violence (stick). other criticisms of ghandi aside (pretentious misogynist racist classist jerk) he was no dummy when it came to recognizing real material social/political conditions and strategizing accordingly. in other words he believed in freedom too much to throw away certain circumstantially useful tactics for mere ideological interpretations. iirc, there's something where ghandi admonishes people not to judge those physically fighting the British.
as far as Stalin, if he wasn't anti gun he would have reformed gun laws. just because he inherited an effective and genocidal system of control doesn't mean he is morally superior to his predecessors. on the contrary. furthermore, he was a part of the party when those systems were created so.
as far as the constitution and the American people today, when you read the papers the framers wrote and what they were reading, it gets clearer that they 1 expected social systems (family, church, community, whatever) to do a lot of the "Americanizing" of each new generation 2 they did not see this country as a Government, but as a People, who would in turn create a small utilitarian orginization, an employee or subcontractor, to more cheaply do some few needful things. 3 they had no illusions about government, and intended the revolution to be perpetual in spirit and therefore hopefully rarely so desperate as to need violent insurrection but knowing that the constant real possibility of insurrection would keep the government and moneyed interests from attempting a coup. they knew the government could never be a check on itself so the 2nd amendment is like a hint, that the 4th branch of government cannot be government but must be the people armed and organized for themselves and not for it.
Vedy good ! you get it
