Should you be able to bear Arms?

[7TH SFG]

Hi point and click, Nice talking to you! I enjoy a good discussion, and I am passinate in my belief in The United States Constitution. When we take the oath, we swear to protect the constitution, not the goverment, not even The United States.

 

 

The court's recent Heller decision established the meaning of the 2A to be referring to an individual rather than a collective right. The ruling clearly made it apparent that this is individual right

 

.You can read Scalia's majority opinion in the Heller case and get a US Supreme Court discussion about the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/up.../06/07-2901.pdf

 

It is NOT called the Bill of Needs....It's the Bill of Rights.

 

Some on this thread have mentioned handgun's are only good for this or that, certain rifles are only good for this and that.

 

It's NEVER been about "hunting" and has from DAY ONE been about defense of self, home, family, and country

 

Taking H.R.1022 as the operative definition, more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than are licensed to hunt in this country, yet less than 3% of murders in this country involve ANY type of rifle ("assault weapon" or not). Twice as many people are murdered annually using shoes and bare hands as using all styles of rifles combined. And the rifle crime rate is no higher now than it was ten years ago.Rifles, even small-caliber ones with modern styling, are not a crime problem in the United States and never have been.

 

Only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts. 80% of us are nonhunters, and non-hunters like to keep THEIR guns too. The AR-15 platform is the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States, and is also the #1 defensive carbine; the ammunition it uses (.223 Remington) is the #1 selling caliber of rifle caliber in the nation. non-automatic civilian AR-15's have never been issued by any military on this planet. A Remington M700 in .308 is more of a military rifle than a 16" midlength Rock River AR is.The most feared marksmen on the battlefield use what is essentially a modified hunting rifle. The 30.06 started life as a military cartridge while the .223 was based on a wildcat varmint cartridge.The .30-06 cartridge, and the bolt-actions that fire it, were developed by the military to kill human beings at extreme ranges. Which didn't stop the.30-06 from becoming the most popular deer caliber in America.

 

anti-gun people usually are not anti-gun just because they don't read the Constitution. They are usually anti-gun, or anti-you-need-an-AR15, or whatever, because of an emotional response and the Constitution is irrelevant to that. They may think the 2A applies to the military, police, maybe not, maybe they think it's hunting, maybe they don't understand what it means, misinterpret it, etc. Who knows? because the facts and history don't have anything to do with the decision that the anti-gun gun grabber is making. They are not saying, "because of history, you don't need an AR15". They are really saying, "because it is scary and military looking, you don't need an AR15".The "AR-15's are evil death weapons that will blow a deer to smithereens and are only suitable for mass murder" BS, because I know enough about guns to know it's BS. The anti , on the other hand, may be susceptible to that type of propaganda because they don't know enough about the technologies in question to see through the specious claims.

 

It may never understood why some people view the world and its affairs as a kind of FLATLAND, where no forces strive for supremacy. Maybe people have never seen anything more violent and threatening than a Television Set? Why do some people view modern man as somehow, exempt from history?

What we do know is that large numbers of people apparently do see life this way, as though things which occurred in the past, such as tyranny, oppression, violent disturbances and so on, have been magically edited out of our common experience. These are the ones who are convinced that the individual citizen should be disarmed.

[PointAndClick]

Indeed.

I hope I did not come off as implying that those in the service are pawns of the government.

Rather I was trying to emphasis that governments role is to protect, not rule, and if citizens don't stand up for their rights they will loose them.

 

As you said, just because we live in the 21st century doesn't mean we live in a utopian society. If you wish to trust others to protect your rights, so be it. I for one would rather be proven wrong than end up sorry. This is why I made it a point to bring up the struggles of Europe even into the 20th century (and not just WWI/II). It was not that long ago.

 

You make a valid point. I may go pheasant hunting once a year, but for the most part my gun ownership is A. a hobby and B. an exercise of my right. Heaven forbid I put a synthetic stock on my rifle.

My favorite is how media always refers to semi automatic rifles as assault rifles.

 

Your knowledge on the subject, obviously, vastly outpaces my own and I thank you for sharing. I always make it a point to learn whenever the opportunity presents itself.

[sportsman]

The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia. The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people. There is nothing in the sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation

The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

The phrase well regulated militia means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. But even beyond grammar the other writings of the men that penned the Second Amendment make it clear their thoughts on the thing. They left behind enough other writings on the topic to make their meaning very clear. There's plenty of documentation by the framers of the constitution that make it clear that it is an individual right. Not to mention the fact the bill of rights concerns inalienable and individual right. The second amendment is short and right to the point. It means what it says, and it means what the founding fathers said it means.

 

 

People really should read the constitution & The Federalist Papers.

 

 

I'm big enough to recognize it when someone knows more than I do. I looked up the things you said in this post and found, to my surprise, that you are correct. The 2nd amendment actually does apply to the individual right of gun-ownership.

 

However, in my post, I made several points, and you only addressed one. While it's true that the constitution says that bearing arms is an unalienable right, it never makes any mention of what kinds of arms you can bear. Those who believe that the Consititution is an evolving document (in other words, not Scalia and his lackeys), I think should have the grounds to ban people from having certain kinds of arms based on public safety. For example, you, as a private citizen, cannot own a tank or an anti-aircraft missile. Why can't that ban be extended to include a handgun?

 

Also, if you look at the first world countries that have bans on guns, their violent crime rates are miniscule compared to ours, and you can't just point to a homogenous population as the sole reason for that. A lot of European countries have lots of immigrants from poor nations, and for the most part they live in slums similar to the ones in America. And yet, the violent crime rate is still tiny. Could it be because it's harder to get guns there?

 

In addition, everyone I've ever talked to who has had some experience with dealing with crime or violence (mostly police officers and a few soldiers too) have told me that the more guns present at an argument, the more violent it's likely to be. Arming the entire country to the teeth doesn't make everyone safer, it makes the situation more dangerous. You also said that people need guns in order to protect themselves against people who are trying to take away their rights. We have laws and a government for that. And if the government ever tries to take away your rights, I don't think your 38 special is going to help you that much.

 

If you can address all of these points and convince me that I'm wrong, I'll go out and buy the biggest gun I can find.

[PointAndClick]

You also said that people need guns in order to protect themselves against people who are trying to take away their rights. We have laws and a government for that. And if the government ever tries to take away your rights, I don't think your 38 special is going to help you that much.

If you trust government and laws that much then like I said, I hope for all our sakes you're right.

If the government ever does try to take our rights away, I'm willing to bet there will be more than one gun owner to prove you wrong.

By the wording of your sentence, it appears you have already given up on your rights, however.

[7TH SFG]

The first paragraph below and is from a previous post of mine in this thread

 

The Militia Act of 1792, written by pretty much the same guys that wrote the 2nd Amendment, required ALL able males 17-45 be armed to minimum standards - at their own expense. Upgraded to 2008, that would entail you to buy your own M16, 8 full mags, and related gear. anyone between 17-42 is in the unorganized militia (USC chap 10, sect 311), and Miller v US did say that the 2nd referred to military pattern weapons (which is why the guy's sawed off, being a non-mil weapon, wasn't protected from NFA regulation). By all rules and regs, I can't see any constitutional reason why I shouldn't be able to purchase the exact same weapons that the military has, assuming I can find a buyer.

 

Section 311 of US Code Title 10 which details Militia Classes states:

 

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

 

( The classes of the militia are —

 

(1) The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

 

(2) The unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

The key is of course (2).

 

 

 

 

I can legally own fully automatic weapons--NFA firearms are legal in most states. They were legal to purchase brand new until 1986. The 1934 NFA is nothing but a tax, for those who want the CL3 thumb of goverment on there heads and who can pay the price tag, 25,000$ + NFA weapons. There are roughly 200,000 full autos in civilian hands

 

 

Weapons of mass destruction - nukes, chemical weapons, biological weapons. They cannot be used without affecting innocents as well as proper targets, so they aren't militia weapons.

 

OTOH, colonists owned cannon, and cannon-bearing ships (otherwise the Constitution's grant of authority to Congress to grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" would be utterly meaningless). I think that ANY fully automatic weapon, and any artillery piece should be permitted (and, in fact, there are artillery pieces registered under the NFA to civilians).

 

In the 1930s most of society was against the NFA, the lower courts ruled it was unconstitutional. Yet after being in place for awhile it is seen as necessary.

I think this is a very important lesson for gun grabber law makers.Ban whatever you want for long enough and it will be seen as normal, even if not normal at the time

 

 

 

My sister lives in Scotland.All dis-arming of the lawful citizens has accomplished in the uk, is to give the crims more firepower over the law abiding citizen.And cause a rash of knife and sword attacks! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh.../ixopinion.html

 

 

 

the Europe argument does not wash, One only has to look at Britan.Violent crime has increased in Britain as gun control has increased. That's a fact. The fact is that as gun control legislation has increased in Britain, so has violent crime.They banned guns, now swords and knives, after a surge of hack attacks..Since handguns are outlawed over there are fewer killings with handguns. The people prone to kill simply pick the next best thing rifles, semi-autos in preference of course.So they ban rifles. The people prone to kill simply pick the next best thing, this time shotguns.Yep, they ban shotguns. So the people prone to kill simply pick the next best thing, again! Knives of course. Britain has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world, yet London has one of the highest murder rates in the world. Since the UK banned hand guns in 1997 in a knee jerk reaction, the country has been flooded with illegal guns, and gun crime has climbed at an alarming all time rate. Even though the Government would have them believe that they have an unarmed police force, there are more and more instances where police officers are routinely carrying weapons. The only effect gun control law has had is to prevent a large number of people enjoying recreational and professional usage of guns.

 

A survey conducted between the British Home Office and the US Dept of Justice showed that Brits are three times more likely to be mugged on an average English, Scottish or Welsh, street and four times more likely to suffer home invasion. And the records show here in the USA, that thousands of serious crimes are halted by armed US citizens every year.

 

And look at the countries in europe the police are afraid to venture in certain immigrant neighborhoods Take a look at France--.519 cars were torched in ONE NIGHT. I don't think the people realize the magnitude of those riots. They estimated over 3000 vehicles were torched in total and buildings as well. This type of story is all too common in Europe.

 

 

 

 

10 states adopted right-to-carry laws between 1977 and 1992. They experienced these changes:

 

-0% change in suicide rates

- .5% rise in accidental shooting deaths

-5% decrease in rapes

-7% decrase in aggravated assults

-a 8% decrease in murders

Annually using data collected in the United States in 1995, thats a total of:

1 extra accidental death

316 less murders

939 less rapes

14,702 less aggravated assults

 

Annually per year in these ten states only. In my mind, this proves that government involvement in gun ownership is , immoral and criminal.

 

Total recorded rapes.

Australia 0.8 per 1,000 people

Canada 0.7 per 1,000 people

United States 0.3 per 1,000 people

United Kingdom 0.1 per 1,000 people

Switzerland 0.1 per 1,000 people

Japan 0.02 per 1,000 people

 

Total recorded burglaries

 

Australia 21.7 per 1,000 people

Denmark 18.3 per 1,000 people

United Kingdom 13.8 per 1,000 people

Canada 8.9 per 1,000 people

Switzerland 8.1 per 1,000 people

United States 7.1 per 1,000 people

France 6.1 per 1,000 people

Japan 2.3 per 1,000 people

Spain 0.6 per 1,000 people

 

 

 

And lastly, nobody is forceing you to own a gun,that's your right , politican's, social engineers, are trying their best to relieve me and millions of others of our rights. In place of the politicans growing a pair, and calling for a consitutional amendment for abolishion of firearms(their goal is the banning of ALL firearms), they ever so sly, try to take our guns away one at a time.

[sportsman]

Interesting that you didn't talk about homicides in your report.

 

You can add up up all of the homicides in London, Paris and Rome (775), you still don't get as many homicides as Washington DC alone (902).

 

European homicide rate: 1.7 per 100,000

 

American homicide rate: 5.8 per 100,000

 

In the innercity, the rate jumps to 26 per 100,000

[7TH SFG]

London-- 5 minutes there and you'll figure it out.

 

They argue for their own chains, and wring their hands about violence while accepting and endorsing it. Violence is much more a part of British culture than they can face. (I mean they like it; hypocrisy).

In England, when they {censored} in your ear and tell you its' raining, you just buy a new umbrella. The very act of self-defense is illegal

That is a core issue for Britian (and Australia). While I don't have a direct stake(Other then my sister lives in Scotland & both sets of grand parents came from there to) in whether or not these countries allow their subjects to own firearms or not, they.. sit there asking ... "why are we in this hand basket and where are we going?"

 

GB's gun homicide rates have always been lower than ours. Interesting, though, that before their sweeping ban, the homicide rate was 1/5 of ours. These days, it's a 1/3..The point here, however, is that the banning of firearms did not stop the criminal misuse of them(and our own rapid rise in crime AFTER 1968 ) . The irony of banning handguns which are now mostly owned by drugdealers is amazing. A criminal enterprise centered around illegally importing drugs manages to illegaly import weapons. Who'd have guessed??!!

In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Thousands of guns were confiscated .The ban's ineffectiveness was such that by the year 2000 violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe's highest violent crime rate. Brits are hypocrites about violence. They deplore it, but excuse it at the same time. I don't understand how a football game can turn into a riot in The UK and they can still perceive Americans as being somehow more violent than they are. A friend of mine and his girlfriend were mugged , by three thugs with a hammer. They quite abhor Americans as violent by nature; being interested in firearms or self defense at all will get you classed as violent, dangerous and crazy. In order to take the guns, they had to demonize them and anyone who disagreed. Then they had to sell the idea that self defense was wrong (and it is illegal). And now many cry about whats' to be done, and can't face the inevitable.

 

The following article was from the London (England) 'Times' is well worth reading. I'd be shocked if it had showed up on a mainstream American news site, let alone one in the UK . I know many UK citizens, many Military, and most are gunnies. I hope that that they will get to enjoy some form of normal gun ownership in the future. Not every Brit is an Anti, or so keen to swallow the Leftist/Passivitist line about guns and the morality of owning them. It's just the ones who don't think that way have to watch what they say if they don't want to be scorned.

 

Maybe articles like this will help towards that end.The original can be found at:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2409817.ece

 

 

 

Since we what to conentrate on those evil guns, Note, BTW, that the US non-gun homicide rate of 2.0/100,000 is about TWICE the total homicide rate of most European countries.

 

 

I gave up on anti-gun Europeans the last time I debated with one... from looking at European history (a history of tyrannical governments really), the recent riots they had in which people had gasoline poured on them and set on fire and such, etc. . Those I spoke to said they'd rather be killed than have to fight a tyrant (one said they think it'd be dangerous to stand up to JBT's like the Nazis taking you to death camps...they have no grasp of guerilla tactics and how effective they can be and so forth--(just ask the rag tag insurgents in Iraq how effective they were in 5 years of tangoing with the Grestest military in the history of the world ).Some said Their pocessions are not valuable enough to kill over and that no burglar would kill them if they give them what they want, etc.

In the past hundred years some 200 million people have been murdered by their own governments, most of them in mainland Europe.. If you were to take a long, hard look at the society in which Europeans live (and especially if comparing it in detail to more widelt recognised tryrannies), you might feel less confident that Europe is in fact devoid of tryranny today.Some areas of Europe, like Switzerland, do indeed have very low levels of violent crime. Equally, other areas have tremendous levels of violent crime - such as the UK, that has several times the rate of the USA. Even within countries the rate varies wildly from area to area.And it is interesting that the country with the lowest rate of violent crime in Europe, Switzerland, actually has the highest rate of gun ownership and the laxest gun laws.

 

Some years back I was in Scotland at Relatives-- and , a cute little Scottish lassie, asked, "Why do you Americans object to taxes so much? Here in Europe we say taxes are the price for living in a free country."And I replied, "Darlin, the price of liberty is etermal vigilance, not eternal taxation."

 

The submission of free men amazes me, the thought of that catching on here is terrifying.We have no shortage of intellectuals who believe the Europeans do everything best, and would love to copy some of those British socialist gun politics

[Descalzo]

Those who believe that the Consititution is an evolving document (in other words, not Scalia and his lackeys), I think should have the grounds to ban people from having certain kinds of arms based on public safety.

Lackeys?

 

Let me get this straight. Believing the Constitution means what it says makes someone a lackey?

[Maxintosh]

Believing the Constitution means what it says makes someone a lackey?

Ahh.... enter the word "interpretation"

[rschultz101]

agree with it,.....

switzerland is armed to the teeth , literary,..... lowest crime rate, etc,...

goverments have killed millions, through active, or passive (lack of actions)

suicide rates, are more alarming then any mall shootings.

 

for my taste, if I'am not allowed to carry arms, so should nobody else,...

that would include police and military,.....

the bad part about peoples ignorance is, that outlawing is a solution,...

like with guns, or prostitution,.....etc,... I'd guess 1/2 or at least a 1/3 of all the homicides in the states

are related to the pimps , due illegal activity, and they use illegal guns,....

we are not talking a dozen people in the mall,... we are talking thousands,....

 

anyway, it's hypocritical,... since in most countries, you can't and never will,

even in the states, for most parts you can't eather,........

homicides are bad, ~14.5k a year,.... a couple on the same place , get media coverage,....

suicides are worse,... +30k a year ,.... no media coverage, unless you are famous,...

 

one last thing,...... language ,....

- could be a weapon,..... (trigger cause of suicide or homicide)

- reflects the violence,.....

 

gun control,... yeah,.... I'd vote,... that people start using their language, what they say,

in the same responsible matter, as they would , carry and use a gun,

if they want to make a difference.

 

what do I mean,.... take a look at school bullies,... that includes everybody in their action,...

and then if one kids snaps,.... it's all the kids fault,....

the truth is ,... 1000 drops will fill the barrel,... literary,... as such,... every drop, could make it overflow,

as such, everybody should do their part,.... not to cut somebody off, and start a deadly road rage, etc....

 

and responsibility,.... do you want to put somebody behind bars? do you ? no,...

then, lock up your car,.... when you go inside the gas station,... lock up your bike,... so you don't create a thief,...

it goes on,.... on,... it takes 2, as you can see,...

 

London-- 5 minutes there and you'll figure it out.

 

 

 

Maybe articles like this will help towards that end.The original can be found at:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2409817.ece

Since we what to conentrate on those evil guns, Note, BTW, that the US non-gun homicide rate of 2.0/100,000 is about TWICE the total homicide rate of most European countries.

I gave up on anti-gun Europeans the last time I debated with one... from looking at European history (a history of tyrannical governments really), the recent riots they had in which people had gasoline poured on them and set on fire and such, etc. . Those I spoke to said they'd rather be killed than have to fight a tyrant (one said they think it'd be dangerous to stand up to JBT's like the Nazis taking you to death camps...they have no grasp of guerilla tactics and how effective they can be and so forth--(just ask the rag tag insurgents in Iraq how effective they were in 5 years of tangoing with the Grestest military in the history of the world ).Some said Their pocessions are not valuable enough to kill over and that no burglar would kill them if they give them what they want, etc.

In the past hundred years some 200 million people have been murdered by their own governments, most of them in mainland Europe.. If you were to take a long, hard look at the society in which Europeans live (and especially if comparing it in detail to more widelt recognised tryrannies), you might feel less confident that Europe is in fact devoid of tryranny today.Some areas of Europe, like Switzerland, do indeed have very low levels of violent crime. Equally, other areas have tremendous levels of violent crime - such as the UK, that has several times the rate of the USA. Even within countries the rate varies wildly from area to area.And it is interesting that the country with the lowest rate of violent crime in Europe, Switzerland, actually has the highest rate of gun ownership and the laxest gun laws.

 

Some years back I was in Scotland at Relatives-- and , a cute little Scottish lassie, asked, "Why do you Americans object to taxes so much? Here in Europe we say taxes are the price for living in a free country."And I replied, "Darlin, the price of liberty is etermal vigilance, not eternal taxation."

 

The submission of free men amazes me, the thought of that catching on here is terrifying.We have no shortage of intellectuals who believe the Europeans do everything best, and would love to copy some of those British socialist gun politics

[m16]

the difference is that switzerland is armed due to military reasons. The people with the guns are trained soldiers... not aspiring criminals or delusional violence mongers who dream about killing someone in self defense... Also switzerland is a very rich country all around and there isn't much need for crime. In the US you cannot say the same about certain parts of the country....

[7TH SFG]

"The Swiss are armed to the teeth, and do not have to take orders from anyone."

 

- Machiavelli

 

 

Apart from firearms Swiss ARE NOT a country made of all rich people that a previous poster suggests. If you work in the banking and financial industry you'll make a wonderful income and live a comfortable life but that's not the case of most Swiss. Taxes are quite high even for low-income workers. Car and medical insurance coverage is mandatory and very expensive compared to the US. Real-estate prices are insane. So clearly the US has better standards of living

 

And BTW if you all think Europe is a gun free zone-- there are an estimated 84 million legal (registered) firearms in the current member countries of the EU.(Not counting the Huge Gun cultures of Norway and Switzerland who are not members.) Finland has a large gun culture, as does Sweeden. Heavy ownership of "scary" and "evil" firearms in both countries.

 

I first went to Switzerland in '91. I seen soldiers, without supervision and with fully automatic rifles go to and from their homes on public trains.

It is a mindset in their culture. I seen them by the hundreds, in the train stations and alone without leadership. Full Automatic rifles attached to their backpacks.The responsibility for any misuse of that weapon belongs to that swiss soldier in that country.We have friends in Zurich, . We've visited numerous times and I gotta tell you, it's a shooter's paradise! You've heard of "pick up" basket ball games?" Try the same for target shooting..I've been there, participated, It helps to know someone, and be respectful. Then, the doors open and the fun begins! Gun shops in Switzerland are gorgeous.

 

The Swiss army is a national militia--This is the reason why Switzerland remained independent because any invading army would have to fight every last Swiss man. And when the militia collides with an invading professional army, militia is fighting on a home territory and it can fight guerrilla warfare. Furthermore militiamen are fighting for their freedom and have nothing to loose as opposed to the invading standing army that fights for various reasons.

 

The features of the Swiss system for keeping the peace are simple. They have a president with no power to declare war . They have a very small professional army, even small per capita. And they have very strict gun control. By which they mean that every Swiss male must have a gun, except for those who also have to carry a missile launcher or a mortar. Swiss women are not subject to compulsory military service, but many of them frequent the rifle ranges anyway. In the event of any attack on Switzerland, the whole Swiss population becomes the army.

 

 

They do what is called "recruit School" when you are around 20 (after what we call high school) for 4 to 5months .. it's kinda boot camp. You learn military basis, and than specialize. . Than, every year, you have a 3 week military course, in which you get paid, as if you were working.

 

This, for a total of 300 days, or until you reach age 34. Then you go to the reserves.Now, if a recruit wants , he can make what they call, LONG DUTY, and make all your 300 days at once, and then go in the reserve.Swiss also have a qualifiying shooting test each year, out of his military days.

 

Swiss Gun Ownership: Most are still legal except:

 

-full-autos (need exemption permit and a safe)

-sound suppressors if bought after 1.1.1999 (or you have an exemption permit)

-full-autos converted to semi-autos need a safe and a special permit too

 

These exemption permits are given out by cantons and they have varying requirements, but generally, if you can buy a gun and have a serious gun safe, you can get any "verboten" guns too.

 

Carrying is also up to the cantons. In the French speaking part, short of having connections or working in a security company, you can forget about getting a carrying permit for a gun.They can stretch the rules quite a bit and do. Some cantons allow restaurant patrons, gas station owners etc to carry, others don't. Basically, having a bit of "Vitamine B" (B stands for "Beziehungen", or connections), helps a lot. A lot of people carry and nobody cares too much

 

 

But Swiss firearm liberties are under siege. As in all countries where there is a legal possibility for citizens to procure firearms, the gun grabbers are not far behind. Since 1999, there have been numerous attempts to promote tiptoe disarmament of the public.

 

1. All personal service weapons (SIG 550 or SIG P220) should be surrendered and stored within the army logistic bases. As with most of such proposals, the practicality is questionalble, the additional costs horrendous.

 

2. Upon discharge from armed services, soldiers and officers schould no longer be allowed to take their personal weapons into their private property. It seems quite allright to order citizen soldiers to stand guard at the World Economic Forum in Davos as armed agents of the state, but god forbid them from keeping their stuff when the show is over.

 

3. Up until now, citizens have the right to buy guns unless they have a serious criminal record or mental health problems. Advocates of gun control propose a general prohibition, with the lawmakers granting temporary ownership privilege to citizens who can prove a "valid reason" to do so. I wonder if home defense will count? What about the constitutional guarantee of property?

 

4. A federal database of all civilian gun ownership. Does not prevent any crime, but sure makes later confiscation a lot easier.

 

Note that the usual coalition of suspects (socialists, greens,,...) tried to use the "crime prevention" and public safety argument in the past. It did not fly in Switzerland. Now the focus lies on suicide prevention and so called "UN compliance". You cant loose votes you never had.

 

Nanny state, here we come.

 

 

Here in the USA Our country was founded by Federalists and Anti Federalists and both feared a standing army more than anything else. The Anti Federalists wanted NO standing army and that all able bodied men would protect the country if needed (like Switzerland does now)

I like the way Switzerland does it, I think this type of organized national self defense tends to suppress military expansionism and intervention in the affairs of other countries. I also think a citizen army makes a country .

 

For what it's worth, whatever their disagreements about the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution, the founding fathers of our nation were unanimous in their support of an individual right to keep and bear arms.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Apart from firearms Swiss ARE NOT a country made of all rich people that a previous poster suggests. If you work in the banking and financial industry you'll make a wonderful income and live a comfortable life but that's not the case of most Swiss. Taxes are quite high even for low-income workers. Car and medical insurance coverage is mandatory and very expensive compared to the US. Real-estate prices are insane. So clearly the US has better standards of living

 

Lower taxes ≠ better standard of living

 

The human development index is a more reliable way of determining quality of life in a country, and Switzerland is very near to the top, with Iceland being no.1 this year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

[m16]

Seriously you need to get real. Social democracies in Europe enjoy a much higher standard of living then most places in the US. You need to go to tax heavy Sweeden and take a look at how the middle class lives....

 

Referring to Switzerland as "swiss" makes you look like an ignoramus. The situation in Switzerland is that everyone with a gun is trained about its dangers and they are only keeping a gun because they are required to because of Switzerland's military. In the US every redneck or thug can buy a gun and stir up trouble. In Europe where there is social help to get you to a better living there is much less need for crime...

[7TH SFG]

Spare me the BS anti's ALL parrot, caricaturing legally buying gun owners as rednecks – thugs . Who are all these redneck thugs with legally bought guns ? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out gunowners have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Americans with guns are neither a small nor ignorant group .It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group of redneck hillbilly neanderthals that are uneducated, poor, and dangerous.There are 79,990,000 responsible, law-abiding lawful gun owners in this country. And amoung their ranks could be your doctor, teacher, neighbor.

 

You would think with all the guns in them there hillbilly redneck hills that their schools would be war zones and everyday in downtown Pikeville would be Dodge city, wouldn't ya? Strange how it never happens...I do remember being asked by the principal of a rural grade school . what I had out there in my truck, I replied there was a .45 in the console and an 870 behind the seat.He said I was undergunned.When I asked him why he asked he suggested he just wondered who he could count on out there if he ever had any trouble...If there was ever a gun culture its' in those mountains. Strange how it never results in that level of violence.Had a conversation with a Social Worker in Scotland . When I suggested the solution to knife crime was gun ownership, he actually physically recoiled from me and stood on the other side of the room......So much for ignorant hillbilly redneck's ...

 

The Anti's see The Population of their nanny State socialist utopia,, being composed of irresponsible rednecks, rejects, and retards,who must not be allowed to have Arms.

 

 

Switzerland does not have the big inner cities and the massive drug trade like we do. But they have liberal at least for the moment gun laws and a huge gun culture with widespread ownership. You just need to be clear that this is not due to the *mandatory* part.There are a lot of Shooting

Clubs and shootings are organized almost every week (not counting the compulsory shooting for each CITIZEN -soldier) A lot of young people (teenagers usually) are training voluntarily in Shooting Clubs.

I don't know how many times I've been to Switzerland, spending much of my time in the company of Swiss military men.

 

We need to be realistic about why we have gun violence. The gun violence is not coming from Americans legally buying and owning firearms - the majority comes from drug related and ILLEGAL guns . The problem is that sweeping gun laws just tend to disarm law-abiding citizens while there remains an illicit trade in guns and ammo since there is such a high demand from crims for them. We need to solve these root social problems. Liberalizing our drug laws would be a huge positive step because it would curtail organized crime - and they have not been effective at all anyway--. Poverty was much worse in the past In the USA , to the point we have to redefine what the word means. The depression era had almost a 25% unemployment rate. But not nearly the crime. Certainly not the level of crime we see today. Antis refuse to look at the real reason for crime because it contradicts their world view of moral relativism. A decrease in moral values assumes that there's a value to start with so it can't be that. They turn to what they can see and touch instead, the gun.

 

I live a state with much more restrictive gun laws than the surrounding states and yet much, much higher crime, including crime committed with guns and including murder. Illinois gun laws were NOT a reaction to any need. They were enacted because urban politicians needed red-meat issues they could dangle in front of urban constituents, and they told their constituents that those restrictive gun laws would reduce violence in the cities of Chicago and East St. Louis.

Then the laws passed, and the violence didn't change. That was between 30 and 20 years ago, depending on which law you examine, and we're still waiting for their promises to come true. Their only answer is that we need to do the same thing harder and more. You will find that these gun banning countries have always had a low number of shootings, regardless of gun control. Britain, for instance, had extremely high rates of gun ownership prior to 1920 - and no gun laws, and yet it was one of the safest places in the world with very few shootings. Today, guns are very rare but but the rate is actually higher than it was back then - gun control did not cause them to have few shootings, if anything it has increased the number.

 

Britain proves a) gun control doesn't work and and B)only effects the law abiding citizen . Here's the statistics from the Home Office:

 

Deaths and injuries caused by the illegal use of guns.

 

In 1988: 410

 

Then there was "The Big Ban" when many types of gun were banned and ownership was restricted, then two more bans in 1996 and 1997 that banned all types of handgun and...

 

In 2004/5: 4,140

 

Certificates for the legal use of guns (certificates are like licenses)

 

In 1988: 1,037,400

 

Then there was "The Big Ban" when many types of gun were banned and ownership was restricted, then two more bans in 1996 and 1997 that banned all types of handgun and...

 

In 2004/5: 698,800

 

Crimes involving the illegal use of handguns

 

In 1988: 1,484

 

Then there was the two bans in 1996 and 1997 that banned all types of handgun and...

 

In 1998/9: 2,687

In 2005/6: 4,652

 

As you can see there has been a 1,000% increase in deaths and injuries caused by illegal use of guns, despite greatly increased gun control, and handgun crime has doubled despite their being banned and thousands of firearms confiscated

And all of this despite a halfing in the number of people who legally own guns.

 

 

However, it should not matter how many shootings there are - what we care about is how many murders there are. In that case there is no link between the legality of firearms and the number of murders in countries. The USA has relatively little gun control but a high murder rate, but Switzerland has a gun in every home and the second lowest murder rate in the world. Conversely, Columbia has a near-total prohibition on guns but has the world's highest murder rate. States in the USA which have legalised carrying guns in public over the last few years, states which have always allowed it (Vermont), Britain prior to 1920, Switzerland before carrying pistols was more restricted a few years ago etc etc. In all cases you had significant sections of society carrying guns for self-defence, but very low rates of gun crime.

 

I could go through the various gun control laws, matching them to prior murder rates not that does not matter. Those cities with tighter gun control have been like that for a long time now and are still the most violent places in America, in comparison to places like Vermont, which has no gun laws and is one of the most peaceful places on the planet.

[Hagar]

The fundamental difference between the USA & Europe when it comes to guns is not the proliferation. There are demonstrably vast numbers of guns both legal & illegal in many european countries; the leftovers from world war 2 alone are hidden in attics & basements all over Europe. The difference is in the attitude to the use of lethal force.

 

Walk into a gunshop in the USA & ask for a gun to protect yourself from burglars, and the chances are that you will be shown something in a 12 gauge pump-action with a pistol grip. Try that in Switzerland & you will most likely be shown the door.

 

The best result for everyone is not to open that box.

I live in a country awash with guns but with hardly any gun crime, for the simple reason that we grow up believing that it is never ok to even point an empty gun at anything you dont intend to eat, let alone fire a live round at another human being.

 

In the US, it is sadly far too late to teach sane attitudes to lethal force. I hope for all our sakes that their attitude doesn't spread.

 

[edit]

The USA has the worst rate of gun crime on earth. This is not due to the number of guns, it is due to insane attitudes. Any sane person with a sensible, competitive or hunting use for a gun should be allowed to own one, having proven that fact through a reasonable training & licencing system. No-one should be allowed to carry a gun for any other reason: that's a big NO to the bearing of arms.

[Maxintosh]

It turns out gunowners have the same level of formal education as nongun owners

LOL Now that's funny

 

The gun violence is not coming from Americans legally buying and owning firearms - the majority comes from drug related and ILLEGAL guns .

Your opinion is noted, as well as the lack of facts to back it up. The NRA would be proud of you

[djet]

I live in the Deep South (Alabama, but in the city) so I see quite a few guns, albeit most of them are used for hunting, but I come from a family where trap shooting is very common so my family probably has about 8 or so pistols and shotguns lying around the house that were gifts from my mother's dad to her (he was a championship trap shooter) and I've been taught how to shoot them. I was taught that if someone was in the house w/o a gun (for ill purposes) to shoot not to kill, but if they have a gun, shoot to kill or put the gun down. In my younger years I didn't question this but as I got older I began to wonder what the sense in this is. More than likely no one will ever come in my house and if they did, they would more than likely stop and/or run the moment they saw a gun. Now all this talk about how gun laws rob the normal citizen of protection seems kinda stupid to me. You're trying to say that the normal every day citizen will see a "robber" in their house then immediately run grab a gun and shoot them. Seems more likely that someone would use the gun against them.

 

My two cents.

[7TH SFG]

LOL Now that's funny

 

 

Your opinion is noted, as well as the lack of facts to back it up. The NRA would be proud of you

 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

 

You assume I'm a member of the NRA? what other assumptions do you make? Gun owners are a more diverse group than non owners think(Of course I'm under the assumption you're a non-owner ),libertarians, conservatives, Doctors, Lawyers ,people liberal on every issue under the sun except the 2A , a {censored} group like the pink pistols. We have lots of females who are shooters....my Ukrainian wife loves shooting, love guns, work for pro2A issues.... has lots of female friends who are shooters as well.

 

The problem is that with stereotypes it only takes one or two public examples to give a bad name to everyone in the group.

 

On the other hand I have liberal friends who cannot understand why so many conservatives think it's impossible for any liberal to support the RKBA, that in order to be pro2A, you must first have a certain ideology..

 

I served in the US Army 25 years, Vietnam 1968-72 Panama, Grenada, Storm\Shield, El Salvador—T & O in Honduras, Peru, Columbia, Venezuela, among other AO’s on the globe 7TH Group. I speak English, Scottish Gaelic, Spanish, Ukrainian, Russia, several other's. I'm not much into religon (MY WIFE IS)

What do George Bush and I have in common. We own, or have owned guns. Past that, we have very little if anything in common with each other. I'm dead set against the Welfare\Warfare state we have sunk into. I not only think, but I know Gen Smedley Butler was 100% correct, when he said "war is a racket"

 

After retirement from the University of life--The Army, I got a Bachelor's in Criminology and Archaeology. Started a business that employs 30 people.

 

How's that for stereotype?

[Maxintosh]

You assume I'm a member of the NRA?

Where did I say you were in the NRA? Go ahead, quote me, or you will prove my point made in post #67. Ironic huh?

[dillon31292]

Yes we should have the right to bear arms.

 

It really wouldn't effect anything in the US to ban them. Most of the gun-related deaths are also gang-related, and having been a "member of" the Bloods (not "a" Blood; I simply helped them out with alot of things in the past) I can assure you that the guns gangs choose to use and traffic aren't legal in the first place.

 

There's also the fact that I had much rather have my brains blown out with a gun that to have them bludgeoned out with a bat or to be stabbed to death.

[QuietOC]

This topic was going to come up sometime, so what do you think? I personally think that this is giving everyone around the World a very bad view of Americans, especially with the shootings that have recently happened at schools. It is scary thought that every Tom, {censored} and Jane would be carrying a handgun.

Bad views about other cultures are often impossible to avoid. Perhaps they require more education?

 

 

I would like to own weapons such as a hand gun, though I would need to work on using any weapon effectively. I am sure many should not have guns, and we may not be willing to restrict all those who should not have them. I am not scared that Tom, {censored}, and Jane would have a handgun. I would appreciate knowing that several Toms, {censored}, and Janes had handguns if a handgun was needed. It is a scary thought that neither Tom, {censored}, nor Jane should have one when one is needed.

[jwmikecz]

i dont know why you self righteous liberals try to alter the way gun owners want to live. i legally own probably dozens of guns, a few ak47s and whatnot. and no, its not out of unsecurity, fear, or the fact that i am going to go on a killing spree someday. it is because if my family ever gets attacked, my human born right is to protect them by any means necessary. self defense is a god given right, not a government given right. and i dont know why liberals hate hand guns or ak47s so much. all guns are guns. a deer rifle could kill someone just as easy. ill tell you why. they want to scare you. they want to build a trust based on fear that they wont get in office, and fear that they wont ban another freedom. concealed weapons ban is {censored} too, there are plenty of instances where if someone were armed they could have avoided injury and death. and for all you who talk about the 2nd amendment....why do u thing the constitution says "americans have the right to bear arms." its so americans could overthrow the government if it started to become what obama wanted it to be, protecting everyone from their own stupidity,, and sacrificing everyones freedom. the right to bear arms means the right to own and use weapons without falter

[brainbone]

if it started to become what obama wanted it to be, protecting everyone from their own stupidity,, and...

 

 

First, I would consider myself a liberal... quite a left wing liberal at that -- yet I whole heartedly subscribe to the right to bear arms -- and own a number of them myself (partial to the AR-15).

 

Second, if there is anyone you should be up in arms about for shredding our constitutional rights, it's Bush, not Obama. Bush has already done it, Obama only holds the potential to do so.

[Descalzo]

Where did I say you were in the NRA? Go ahead, quote me, or you will prove my point made in post #67. Ironic huh?

You must admit that you did at least imply that he served the NRA's will.