Swiss soldiers face loss of right to store guns at home

Now, if you live somewhere where people don't own guns, then the one entering probably won't own one either, and if he does he'll be confident enough to settle with robbing you. And, if he does own a gun, chances are that he'll get charged with that alone before he gets to do anything too serious.

You don't have much knowledge of real life, eh?
Many home invasions involve firearms(even in jolly old Britain), because they give criminals a great advantage.
As for getting charged for owning a gun before getting to do something serious, that doesn't fly in the States, Canada, or places like Britain where the guns are totally not allowed. The criminal generally gets a very lenient sentence(check the statistics you're so fond of).
I hope you enjoy getting robbed or raped at home because the criminal was confident to go about his business.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
To be honest, I don't see the point of people having access to military grade weaponry. guns don't kill people but they sure help. Here, where I live, people are allowed to own shotguns and rifles to hunt, but anything more advanced is illegal. And even this is regulated. This is fine by me; we have very few gun killings. In addition it makes law enforcement a safer occupation, and actually makes it easier to bring down criminals who use weapons.

And besides, if someone breaks into your house at night, cut the power and all you really need is a CAK.

The point of having any type of weaponry is self defense.
The point of registering weapons is the precursor to eventually confiscating them from people. If the authorities don't know what you have or how much of it you have, then they cant take it from you.
This process has happened in every culture throughout history.

In Switzerland every man of military age is required to keep his service rifle at home with his gov't issued ammo. This is given to him in case of war so he has enough armament to hightail it to his post safely.

Collectivism can't be browbeaten into an armed populace. It's exactly why various groups in the usa are doing everything they can to encourage people to give up their weapons.

On another note, ownership of a weapon is not going to make a person innately more or less prone to violence. What it will do is give them a better fighting chance if someone wishes to do them harm.
 
Not to nit pick, but the only "military grade" weaponry I can access is a 12 ga. pump and a semi-automatic pistol. I cannot access a true assault rifle, meaning, for the last forty years+, a magazine-fed fully-automatic rifle. Not to mention all the other military "small arms" that I cannot, and do not wish to access.

That a magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle is "military" simply because it is black is propaganda. Those have not been "military" for generations.

But facts seldom slow down those with a cause. They answer to a "higher truth" that trumps plain, ole' garden variety truth. (Sorta like documented global cooling is really global warming.)
 
In World War II, the Swiss had defenses no other country had. Let's begin with the rifle in every home combined with the Alpine terrain. When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: shoot twice and go home. Switzerland also had a decentralized, direct democracy which could not be surrendered to a foreign enemy by a political elite. Some governments surrendered to Hitler without resistance based on the decision of a king or dictator; this was institutionally impossible in Switzerland. If an ordinary Swiss citizen was told that the Federal President--a relatively powerless official--had surrendered the country, the citizen might not even know the president's name, and would have held any "surrender" order in contempt.

the full article appears HERE

swiss neutrality has only been maintained by being armed. central hold of weapons in a blitz style war would mean concentration of supplies and people during any attempt at issuing them, if the beurocracy was able to move fast enough, which i doubt. these concentrations would thus vulnerable to attack from the air. putting all your eggs in one basket comes to mind.

arms, dispersion and defense in depth has kept the swiss free for centuries.
 
arms, dispersion and defense in depth has kept the swiss free for centuries.


That is well said, and it has served us well also. At least it gave Yamamoto some pause in discussing a potential invasion of the mainland US.

"Target Switzerland" is a great read!

Take care,

Tom
 
Collectivism can't be browbeaten into an armed populace. It's exactly why various groups in the usa are doing everything they can to encourage people to give up their weapons.

+ 1,000

Despite what sort of spin (and outright lies) the NeoStalinists and their toadies try to feed us, that is the exact underlying motive behind their agenda.
 
In World War II, the Swiss had defenses no other country had. Let's begin with the rifle in every home combined with the Alpine terrain. When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: shoot twice and go home. Switzerland also had a decentralized, direct democracy which could not be surrendered to a foreign enemy by a political elite. Some governments surrendered to Hitler without resistance based on the decision of a king or dictator; this was institutionally impossible in Switzerland. If an ordinary Swiss citizen was told that the Federal President--a relatively powerless official--had surrendered the country, the citizen might not even know the president's name, and would have held any "surrender" order in contempt.

the full article appears HERE

swiss neutrality has only been maintained by being armed. central hold of weapons in a blitz style war would mean concentration of supplies and people during any attempt at issuing them, if the beurocracy was able to move fast enough, which i doubt. these concentrations would thus vulnerable to attack from the air. putting all your eggs in one basket comes to mind.

arms, dispersion and defense in depth has kept the swiss free for centuries.

Nice post!:thumbup:
 
In World War II, the Swiss had defenses no other country had. Let's begin with the rifle in every home combined with the Alpine terrain. When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: shoot twice and go home. Switzerland also had a decentralized, direct democracy which could not be surrendered to a foreign enemy by a political elite. Some governments surrendered to Hitler without resistance based on the decision of a king or dictator; this was institutionally impossible in Switzerland. If an ordinary Swiss citizen was told that the Federal President--a relatively powerless official--had surrendered the country, the citizen might not even know the president's name, and would have held any "surrender" order in contempt.

the full article appears HERE

swiss neutrality has only been maintained by being armed. central hold of weapons in a blitz style war would mean concentration of supplies and people during any attempt at issuing them, if the beurocracy was able to move fast enough, which i doubt. these concentrations would thus vulnerable to attack from the air. putting all your eggs in one basket comes to mind.

arms, dispersion and defense in depth has kept the swiss free for centuries.


Great post and facts. Trying to take this idea to any UK government and they will ignore it.
Security is not their aim here. They are not banning firearms to HELP us. They are disarming to CONTROL us.

As much as ach.. tries to push the idea that Britain is safer without legal firearms, the more the facts about the gvernments true intentions are coming out.
Fascist state.

Adolf Hitler's victory is nearing completion.
 
In maximum security prisons, only the guards have guns.


And we all know what fun, safe, and pleasant places they are.
 
Well, another nail in the coffin of a free state.
Some wacko in Alabama goes nuts and some guy in Germany too.
Watch how the Democrats take this terrible tragedy and turn it into their victorious spearpoint.

"How can we let you people have guns when this is what you do to eachother?"
Can we take your guns away? YES WE CAN!"
 
I'm actually shocked that the gunman in Alabama was able to get away with as much carnage as he did. Typically speaking, Alabama being a very "suhthen" state would mean that someone along the way would be armed enough to put the dog down.
I guess the body count really has more to do with the fact that 75-80% of his victims were family members that would not be expecting a psychotic relative to gun them down. The rest were random strangers. given that situation, I too would have had a hard time getting to my gun as I carry it.

Germany's shooting does not surprise me either. Schools are set up to be the Utopian idealistic model of the perfect institution of the state. You have to be at a specific place at a specific time. You must wear only what is deemed acceptable. What books you have access too on school grounds is highly regulated. What material you are presented and in what context is decided by a board sever steps above the teacher's head. Any real notion of individual rights regarding self preservation are squelched (How many times have you seen a bully wailing on another kid, kid has enough and cold cocks the bully in the nose, Aggressor and Defender both get suspension?)

Schools are suppose to be "safe" places because the ideals of these places are supposed to emit some sort of ion particle forcefield that protects the children, i guess. It appears that the crazies of the world did not get this memo. The only defense against aggressive assailants is the freedom to defend yourself.
 
arms, dispersion and defense in depth has kept the swiss free for centuries.

This is a bit of a simplistic overstatement. This is the most brief and all encompassing blurb I could find on the subject:

No European country remained truly neutral during WWII. Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland all worked to some extent with the Axis. In Switzerland, the people who lived through the war wanted to believe that it was their army and fortifications that kept the Nazis out. Historical research and documents clearly show that if the Nazis wanted to invade Switzerland, it would have been quick and relatively easy. The reason Germany spared its tiny neighbor to the south was because Switzerland proved much more useful as an independent state than as a satellite. The Swiss made many useful weapon components (aluminium for the Luftwaffe, spark plugs for jeeps taken from the Russians, timing devices for bombs, among other things), and thus their factories were not bombed every night. The Swiss National bank bought gold from the Reichsbank, the Reichsbank was given Swiss francs in exchange, and used them to buy cobalt, nickel and tungsten from the other “neutral” countries. The Turks, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish, who were all under heavy pressure from the Allies not to accept direct gold payment from the Reichsbank, then exchanged the Swiss francs for gold. The problem was that the German gold came from the Belgian National bank reserves (not from concentration camps as some sensationalists would have it) and the neutrals knew it. Finally, the Swiss allowed trains to carry food and non-weapon supplies from Germany to Italy, with dozens of trains every day on their way to Africa. But did Switzerland have any other choice? Probably not. Totally surrounded by the Axis, most of its coal supply came from Germany every week, and all of its exports had to go through Axis controlled territory. For a landlocked country with no natural resources, this meant the Swiss had to work out some form of accomodation with their neighbors. The problem is that the postwar generations have been raised to believe that it was the Swiss army, and not the country’s usefulness to the Germans, that protected it from the wrath of war.

A little more detail here.

Switzerland was not a match for Germany at the time. However, Switzerland was not a threat, either. At best, it was passive-aggressive against Germany, and ultimately somewhat complicit with the Axis in policy. It actually seems somewhat grudgingly admitted these days that the Swiss military was not a match for Germany of the time. However, the romantic notion of Swiss military deterrence during WWII has a much popular momentum both in Switzerland and beyond.

Steely_Gunz said:
I'm actually shocked that the gunman in Alabama was able to get away with as much carnage as he did. Typically speaking, Alabama being a very "suhthen" state would mean that someone along the way would be armed enough to put the dog down.

It doesn't surprise me at all. I think you hit on the reason why. The truth is that it's extremely unlikely for anyone to be gunned down, particularly by a total stranger. Let's face it. Not even police are really prepared for someone suddenly pulling out a firearm and going on a shooting spree. What does surprise me is that these shooting sprees don't end up with even more victims.
 
You make some good points, but the Swiss did not totally cave either. They were far from acquiescing to every German demand. The Germans were not allowed to pass troops through the Alps, which would have been a tremendous strategic benefit to them. Troops DID pass through Sweden. Also, the Swiss did not cave like various other European Nations. Granted, the Swiss were not in the direct path of Nazi objectives, and pre occupation with other fronts was certainly a factor in The Swiss' favor. Much the same was true in the US revolutionary war with Britain.

The Swiss also traded with the Allied nations, and did produce valuable precision instruments used in the Allied war effort. The haven for Jews and downed Allied aircrew cannot be ignored, not to mention the access provided to US espionage efforts. The Germans would no doubt have been glad to remove these thorns, and gain the benefits that could have been enjoyed, but decided that the cost was not worth it. The Swiss attitude, and their stated intentions to resist, and to destroy the passes through the Alps, seemed to have some effect on Nazi thinking.

Just because some factors may at times be overstated is no reason to undervalue them in response. I'm not saying you are, but the propensity to "de bunk" seems almost irresistible to many writers. After all, who wants to just say the same things that have already been said?

If the Swiss had not spent more money and effort in their military preparedness before WWII than the other small European nations, Germany may well have thought it worth their while to invade Switzerland. In many ways, that would have been a bad thing for the Allies, and for the people of Europe.

The Swiss soldier with his K31, and the elderly reservist with his 1911 or even his 1889, made a difference in WWII that is worth honoring, remembering, and emulating.

Tom
 
Also, some may write to diminish the value of the Swiss military in WWII as a means of justifying the reduction or elimination of the Swiss military today.

As with many other arguments, even if true, that would be totally beside the point.

Tom
 
I hate to say it, but I dunno how much of an issue it is for Switzerland. One of my closest friends, a Swiss citizen, constantly waxes angry to me about the utter useless of the modern Swiss army. To a point I see her logic. I mean, the first time someone invades, they'll be whining to America to come and save them, and we will, being both the self-designated world police and loyal puppy to Europe that we've become.
If we're picking up the tab for Japan's military protection still, and trying to tend to the affairs of other nations, why the hell not just be Switzerland's military, too?
 
You don't have much knowledge of real life, eh?
Many home invasions involve firearms(even in jolly old Britain), because they give criminals a great advantage.
As for getting charged for owning a gun before getting to do something serious, that doesn't fly in the States, Canada, or places like Britain where the guns are totally not allowed. The criminal generally gets a very lenient sentence(check the statistics you're so fond of).
I hope you enjoy getting robbed or raped at home because the criminal was confident to go about his business.:rolleyes:

Acinonyx
Now, if you live somewhere where people don't own guns, then the one entering probably won't own one either, and if he does he'll be confident enough to settle with robbing you. And, if he does own a gun, chances are that he'll get charged with that alone before he gets to do anything too serious.


I wonder what fantasy world this guy is living in when he says that because he does not have a gun, then probably the criminals won't have one either.

Last time I checked, perps didnt buy their automatic weapons from kwiki-mart or Tesco.
They are acquired ILLEGALLY.

Its also laughable how much faith this guy has in an unarmed police service.
He says its more likely the criminal gets charged for possesion BEFORE he commits the crime!
 
Last edited:
he he...the last word.

Most folks accept that guns and the right to bear them are our civil rights.

Dont forget. Alot of good men gave their lives to defend these civil rights. Do not let Hitler's new kids on the block take them away.
 
Great post and facts. Trying to take this idea to any UK government and they will ignore it.
Security is not their aim here. They are not banning firearms to HELP us. They are disarming to CONTROL us.

As much as ach.. tries to push the idea that Britain is safer without legal firearms, the more the facts about the gvernments true intentions are coming out.
Fascist state.

Adolf Hitler's victory is nearing completion.



And this is tooooo good!!
"When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: shoot twice and go home."

Wow.... wait till Doc see this!
He will want to make it his Sig line!!
Willow
 
Back
Top