Swiss soldiers face loss of right to store guns at home

You know, this is a little off topic, but it's gun control related:D I live in Indiana. However, I have never bought a handgun from a dealer. All of my acquisitions have been by gifting or private parties. That said, I might be in the market for a new gun. I was doing a little research online as to what kind of hoops I might have to jump through to get one.

A quick google search landed me on the Brady Bill website with Indiana's "score" on gun control. Out of a possible score of 100 (with 100 being "desirable" as a very gun unfriendly state), IN scored an 8 :D:D

No waiting period on purchases, no real restrictions on what you can buy, law enforcement has very little in the way of what they "have" to keep on file regarding what someone has, guns do not have to be registers with the gub'ment, etc.

God bless the Hoosier State:D My buddy, a native to here, is having a hell of a time in Detroit getting a piece due to the strict regulations that the city has on weapons. I think we're just going go shopping when he brings his wife and daughter down here to visit his folks over the Easter weekend;):thumbup:
 
Steely_Gunz said:
You know, this is a little off topic, but it's gun control related:D I live in Indiana. However, I have never bought a handgun from a dealer. All of my acquisitions have been by gifting or private parties. That said, I might be in the market for a new gun. I was doing a little research online as to what kind of hoops I might have to jump through to get one.

A quick google search landed me on the Brady Bill website with Indiana's "score" on gun control. Out of a possible score of 100 (with 100 being "desirable" as a very gun unfriendly state), IN scored an 8 :D:D

No waiting period on purchases, no real restrictions on what you can buy, law enforcement has very little in the way of what they "have" to keep on file regarding what someone has, guns do not have to be registers with the gub'ment, etc.

God bless the Hoosier State:D My buddy, a native to here, is having a hell of a time in Detroit getting a piece due to the strict regulations that the city has on weapons. I think we're just going go shopping when he brings his wife and daughter down here to visit his folks over the Easter weekend;):thumbup:
Click to expand...

I am moving to Indiana.
 
WV is blissfully lax on gun control. Brady Campaign gave us a 4. It's CCW policy is "shall issue." No waiting periods. No purchase restrictions. No garbage about features a firearm must have to be sellable. I think part of the Castle Doctrine was put on the books where someone found criminally innocent in a self defense shooting can't be sued civilly. The government has a more or less laissez-faire attitude about it. And the bonus awesomeness addendum is that the attorney general is in charge of reciprocity agreements, and we finally have CCW reciprocity with Ohio and Pennsylvania, which is nice for me living in the northern Panhandle.
I think the only states that are more lax are Florida (which I think has "make my day" laws now) and Vermont and Alaska, the only two states in the Union with no restrictions on concealed carry.
Now if only we can lift restrictions on knife length... love carrying that M43...
 
In the UK, and other nations, the law is whatever a transitory majority in parliament says it is.

In the United States, our Constitution expressly recognizes that some rights exist as a matter of natural law or by God's gift. Those rights include the individual's right of armed defense, which requires access to arms. The Constitution prohibits the government from interfering with that right, as our Supreme Court recently recognized.

Against whom did our "founding fathers" think "arms" might be needed?

Firstly, the Consitution was written by men who had the experience of killing the servants of the government in order to achieve liberty. As a result, they were suspicious of government and saw the God-given right to bear arms as essential to defense of liberty against the tendency of government to tyranny, such as an attempt to disarm the people to insure their compliance with the government's will.

Beyond that, it was generally recognized that, as observed in the thread, criminals will typically arm themselves if they physically can do so, regardless of the laws regarding weapons. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Indeed, if the notional "victim? is armed, he or she may not actually be a victim. Consistent with that lesson of human behavior, a fellow who is supposedly a leading political godling in the pantheon of the Democrat Party, said:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. … Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
Click to expand...

Jefferson, Thomas, “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776 quoting
from Beccaria, Cesare, "On Crimes and Punishment," 1764.

So arms are needed to defend against the criminal element that has been a part of every society.

The degree of need to defend against government and crimiminal varies, but it never entirely disappears. Even "civilized" of nations can forget "inalienable" rights. We have done so as respects minorities from time-to-time ("The only good Indian is a dead Indian"; "Strange Fruit"; Manzanar). Germany did, with violent thugs becoming the government.

If our founding fathers can be believed (And I believe them.), the right to bear arms cannot be infringed by executive order, statute, or amendment of the Constitution.
 
just as an example, in the early 1800's, against a supreme court decision, the then president ordered the army to relocate the indians from the south east portions of the US to bleak unproductive reservations in the northwest. these indians had been civilised, intermarried with europeans and fought against the british in the revolution and again in the war of 1812-15. it was a disgraceful land grab and the pres gave the best bits to his supporters. thousands of indians died of exhaustion, exposure and starvation along the way. they had of course been disarmed. it's the trail of tears

the president in question was a democrat
 
Last edited:
To all the anti-gun posts here I have this to say:

I own guns,have an AR,have a 45-70 to hunt and several more but

I know that because I chose to have,and use,weapons I've made a decision to be my home land's last line of defense if all else fails,no I'm not saying "I WILL STAND ON MY OWN TO FIGHT,I HAVE A GUN DU-HN!" no I'll side with a military man who says "come help" because if it's ether something from outside or within I feel the military will be there first-and I'll be standing behind them.
 
I have pretty much stayed out of this one so far, but something Robert from Survival Sheaths said once deserves repeating here. I brought up the fact that average Joe Citizen has no need whatsoever for a tricked-out, full-auto M-4 with a dozen reloads and some frag grenades along with it. He said, "It's not a matter of need. It's my right to have these things, and my rights aren't open to arbitrary interpretation." I thought this was an excellent point. I own a few guns, none of which are anything close to military grade weaponry, but it would be nice to know I could have such things if the spirit moved me to do so.
 
Sharp Phil's statements, while I agree with them for the most part, did arouse this question in me: Why do support of the Green Movement and support of the Second Amendment seem to be mutually exclusive, both among our politicians and, it seems, the general citizenry? I'm not a student of politics, but I don't see any reason why one can't stand behind both.
 
It's because the Green movement has become a haven for collectivist political sentiment. Collectivist, socialist, and communist political theory are all socio-political movements built on totalitarian control of the populace (regardless of their stated goals or official definitions). This means such systems and theories go hand in hand with radical environmentalism. The modern Green movement is only ostensibly about "saving the planet" -- at it's core, it's about telling other people how to live and passing invasive government restrictions to that effect.

Radical Greens and Radical Reds are ideological kissing cousins.
 
Whoa everybody. Slow down.

Entertaining as a lively debate is, I think everyone is approaching this from the wrong angle. This isn't some anti-gun law, or some disarm the militia ploy.

For those of you who are unaware, up until... well, now according to the article, the Reserve militia in Switzerland let its soldiers take home the military weaponry. These aren't there own private weapons that are getting taken away; it's property of the military. I'm pretty sure that the National guard and reserve force in the US doesn't let its soldiers take home their assault rifles at the end of the days training, they certainly don't in Canada.

Regardless of whether or not people should or should not have the right to bear arms in fear of a tyrannical government (which i personally think is a horribly naive view), I do not see anything wrong with a country's military deciding it wants to have a better hold and control over where and when its munitions are being deployed. In this respect, Switzerland is just catching up to where every other military in the world already is when it comes to controlling its arms.
 
Radrunner said:
Whoa everybody. Slow down.

Entertaining as a lively debate is, I think everyone is approaching this from the wrong angle. This isn't some anti-gun law, or some disarm the militia ploy.

For those of you who are unaware, up until... well, now according to the article, the Reserve militia in Switzerland let its soldiers take home the military weaponry. These aren't there own private weapons that are getting taken away; it's property of the military. I'm pretty sure that the National guard and reserve force in the US doesn't let its soldiers take home their assault rifles at the end of the days training, they certainly don't in Canada.

Regardless of whether or not people should or should not have the right to bear arms in fear of a tyrannical government (which i personally think is a horribly naive view), I do not see anything wrong with a country's military deciding it wants to have a better hold and control over where and when its munitions are being deployed. In this respect, Switzerland is just catching up to where every other military in the world already is when it comes to controlling its arms.
Click to expand...

Valid point, yes. BUT....
Did you miss the thread Veer? :D
 
The fact gun crime has risen in parts of the UK can also be put down to the break up of the IRA and other para groups over there and all the guns that came over with it.This and the time it happened must be takin into account.
Which IMO has way more to do with the rise in gun crime than the ban also all the imigration since then cant have helped.
There are many things that gave rise to gun crime in the UK to say it was directly the ban which came about through the tragedy of Dunblane is false.
I live in a city were the knife has always been the number one tool in murders.
Glasgow has the highest murder rate in the UK 3 times that of London for example yet there has not been a big increase in the use of firearms since the ban.
Take into account the fact a lot of the people in the West of Scotland have long standing connections and sympathise with para military groups in Ireland yet there still hasnt been a big rise in gun crime even though these weapons are more avalible.
So there are way more factors involved than just the ban alone.
 
Radrunner said:
...it wants to have a better hold and control over where and when its munitions are being deployed. In this respect, Switzerland is just catching up to where every other military in the world already is when it comes to controlling its arms.
Click to expand...


That "hold and control" is not over merely "arms," but people. If this was not the case, the Greens would not be part of the coalition trying to establish the change. You can't convince me that they're simply concerned about tracking resources. This is about making sure the people aren't armed as a militia is supposed to be armed.

Taking the guns out of their homes effectively means they're no longer a militia at all, and puts control squarely in the hands of the government rather than in the hands of the people.

These_Nutz said:
The fact gun crime has risen in parts of the UK can also be put down to the break up of the IRA and other para groups over there and all the guns that came over with it.This and the time it happened must be takin into account.
Which IMO has way more to do with the rise in gun crime than the ban also all the imigration since then cant have helped.
There are many things that gave rise to gun crime in the UK to say it was directly the ban which came about through the tragedy of Dunblane is false.
I live in a city were the knife has always been the number one tool in murders.
Glasgow has the highest murder rate in the UK 3 times that of London for example yet there has not been a big increase in the use of firearms since the ban.
Take into account the fact a lot of the people in the West of Scotland have long standing connections and sympathise with para military groups in Ireland yet there still hasnt been a big rise in gun crime even though these weapons are more avalible.
So there are way more factors involved than just the ban alone.
Click to expand...

There are multiple factors, yes, but the point is that such laws do nothing to prevent crime, while making it much harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
 
It's because the Green movement has become a haven for collectivist political sentiment. Collectivist, socialist, and communist political theory are all socio-political movements built on totalitarian control of the populace (regardless of their stated goals or official definitions).
Click to expand...

In practice communism became a totalitarian system, nowadays socialists are just lost, haven't met a collectivist yet.

Here a large part of the greens are just isminists, people who need some ideology to go on living, it does not really matter all that much what it is, black or green shirt goes equally well.

TLM
 
Radrunner said:
Regardless of whether or not people should or should not have the right to bear arms in fear of a tyrannical government (which i personally think is a horribly naive view), . . . .
Click to expand...
In the U.S. there is no "should or should not." Nothing to debate. In the U.S., there, quite simply, is. Further, our belief is that the right of armed self-defense extends to all persons everywhere. A government interfering with the natural right of armed self-defense is a tryannical government.

It can't happen here -- again? In my lifetime, our government sent 100,000's of its citizens to concentration camps for no better reason than their national origin. In a country we both know, government policy in my lifetime was to destroy the culture of the nations who were in place before the Europeans came by "civilizing" their children.

I think Jefferson, Washington, Adams, et al. had it dead right.

The same sentiment found its way into most state constitutions in the U.S.:

"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power." Ohio Const, Art. I, § 4.
 
Dave Hahn said:
you might want to update your intel on Canada.
Click to expand...

Well, we still can own rifles, shotguns, semi-autos and revolvers(only 10 round clips for semi-autos, but if you can't kill it with 10 rounds, you suck at shooting!), and a decent nuber of "assault rifle" things(although limited to 5 round clips).
You can cry a river about how things were in the "good old days"(which I remember!), but we ARE ahead of the curve over most countries when it comes to owning firearms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top