Previous Post
Next Post

Maoist rebels in India (courtesy

“Political power flows from the barrel of the gun, so said Mao,” as regurgitated by “But for Maoists in India, guns are increasingly going silent. Maoists are learnt to have instructed their cadres to use their weapons sparingly and rely more on bombs and mines to inflict casualties on security forces. The instructions have been given apparently owing to fast depleting ammunition with the CPI Maoist and the outfit’s difficulty in getting fresh arms.” So all those pro-gun folk who say “even if you eliminated all firearms there’d still be violence, crime, death and destruction” are right? Well according to this article . . .

“In the past couple of years Maoists have not been able to loot weapons from police stations or armoury. Many of their arms and ammunition manufacturing units have also been neutralized by forces. This has led to top brass passing instructions to cadres to use weapons less frequently,” CRPF DG DIlip Trivedi said.

He added, however, that Maoists still have good access to explosives and are improving day by day in making new kinds of bombs. “We are worried about their explosive stockpile. They are able to freely procure explosives and detonators. Their capability there has not been dented,” said Trivedi.

While this report should be taken with a grain of salt, combat vets amongst us know the score: bombs are the terrorists’ BFFs, not small arms fire. As for the idea that disarming America’s gang bangers and street thugs would thwart their criminal activities, it wasn’t true before guns existed, and it wouldn’t be true if, somehow, you removed firearms from society.

Of course, that’s not the goal of gun control advocates. They want to disarm civilians while leaving guns in the hands of the police and the government. What could possibly go wrong? And if whatever did go wrong, what’s the bet bombs would play a crucial role in what happened next? Just sayin’ . . .

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Actually, it looks like an Ishapore 2A1, an older Indian service rifle. They were based on the SMLE, I believe.

    • It’s a no. 4. The 2a1 was based on the older lee enfield that the no.4 replaced. The 2a1 had a square mag and was chambered for 7.62 nato. I had a couple of them. reliable, but they shot a pattern, not a group.

  2. Bracing the metal buttstock of a .303 on your collarbone as a shooting stance? Inadvisable…

  3. It is exceedingly easy to make zip guns … I don’t know why the local rabble rousers would have any trouble making them. Unless the local government is truly controlling the sale of steel stock and drill bits the Maoists can make zip guns.

    Of course it is even easier to make spear guns … all you need is a thick stick for a stock, some rubber bands or tubing, a thin stick for the spear, and a piece of flat steel for the blade-tip.

    People who are determined to commit violent acts will succeed with or without firearms. Take away firearms and all the violent offender does is change tactics.

    The only guaranteed result of eliminating firearms is that good people will die because they have no effective way to defend themselves from attackers who have the advantages of surprise, speed, (usually) strength, (often) greater numbers, and alternative weapons.

  4. Looking at that training line I think their problem is more of a “can’t hit sh*t” issue rather than “no bullets, sahib” problem. And hate to rain in the writers punchbowl, but CPI has been effectively using bombs since they first came to the party back in the ’70s.

  5. To be fair, gun control statist seemed obsessed with gun violence, but not so much with bomb, bodily extremity, blunt object or edged weapon violence.

Comments are closed.