|
I think this thread is a prime example of using a topic (in this case gun control) that has almost no effect on people's daily lives to push aside important issues that could have a huge effect on us EVERY DAY.
Here is a little hint for all you folks outside the US. You can do what every you want to people in the US, as long as you distract them with guns, gays, and god (dancing celebrities don't hurt either). Almost any Right can be trampled, but as long as you flash the 3 G's on the TV screen, they will get all worked up, and not notice as they get poorer and more controlled every day.
I actually agree with this. I'm just constitutionally incapable of not keeping arguing once someone starts one. Sorry. :(
Though, in fairness, I think a lot of this thread (as opposed to Americanpolitics where you're completely right) going off into that space has to do with a general consensus on a lot of those issues (especially the economic ones), and thus not a lot of debate to be had there. Hell, I'm a libertarian and I'm all for more government regulation on big business and higher taxes on the rich, and not entirely against socialized health care. What does that tell you?
Your Switzerland comparison is not as good as you think, for several reasons :
1) it's not about the right for citizens to bear arms, but about the way Switzerland chose to organize its own defense. Technically, they are soldiers, not civilians.
Switzerland went for a militia model, along quasi medieval lines, where every male citizen is required to bear arms a few days at a time, from age 18 to 30-34. Think about them as National Guard equivalent, except participation is mandatory. It's a very, very old swiss tradition, currently challenged as it's not very efficient and quite costly.
I was, in fact, aware of this. It's of dubious relevancy, though. Private citizens can still have guns relatively easily, they just don't get automatic weapons and it's illegal to carry them around just because.
And a 2011 bill to remove said guns failed, so 'currently challenged' may be true...but also a misleading statement in some ways.
It's not purposefully misleading. 2011 is quite "current" for me. I just say that it is currently a semi-hot topic of discussion in Switzerland, no more. Maybe next bill will bring them a fully professional army, maybe not: they already downsized militias a lot.
I agree that the end result is the same (lot of weapons around), but the intent is VERY different. You have to be in the army to got one.
Otherwise, any automatic gun would be strictly forbidden, as shown here.
Yes, they have assault rifles at home... But no ammunition since 2007. Before that, they had only a SEALED small case of ammo (a clip worth) to use in case of emergency (read: war). AFAIK, they DO give back the rifles when they are done with their military duties: it's confederate property.Nope, they get to keep it (or some of their other gear, and, as noted with it's autofire option removed). And from what I'm looking at, there's nothing preventing you buying your own ammo, they just no longer provide it.
Do you have sources for that ?
As shown on the link above, ownership of automatic guns (even converted in semi-auto) is forbidden by swiss federal law. So no gun, and no ammo (no, they don't have Walmarts selling assault rifle bullets).
As for UK having tight gun laws, well, every european country do. I can't really vouch for Australia or New Zealand, but it's still true that it's only in the USA that you can hear people arguing that the detention of guns is a impregnable political right.Oh, I wasn't ever saying that the US's gun laws weren't more permissive than almost anywhere else. They are. I was arguing that if the US and UK are two ends of a continuum, most countries (including Switzerland) are somewhere in between...not all the way over on the UK side.
Sure, there is a graduation, and Switzerland gun laws are quite lax for an european country (in fact, Switzerland ranks fourth in the gun per inhabitant world contest).
European countries which are otherwise quite tighly bunched at their end of the spectrum, close to the UK. In France, you are permitted to freely buy melee weapons (yes, swords) and black powder weapons and pre-1900 guns (as collectibles). You are to register hunting rifles. All other guns are subjected to authorization, delivered on a need basis. Quite the same as the UK, Belgium, etc. The European Union harmonized european gun laws by a 1991 directive.
Believe me : whatever the text says, its practice counts. And it's awfully hard to buy guns in Europe, on purpose.
Sure, big wigs criminals still can get their hands on heavy stuff. But we collectively feel safer when any drunkard or small time hood can't have easy access to guns.
As shown on the link above, ownership of automatic guns (even converted in semi-auto) is forbidden by swiss federal law. So no gun, and no ammo (no, they don't have Walmarts selling assault rifle bullets).Are you sure about this? Not Wal-Mart, I mean, but buying ammo without a strictly-controlled permit, because hunting rifle ammunition is assault rifle ammunition. Swiss assault rifles, like American M-16s, use a slightly modified version of .223 Remington, one of the most popular hunting rounds in the world. (So slightly modified such that they can safely fire .223 Remington, although hunting rifles cannot safely fire the NATO standard round.) The most popular military rifle round in most of Europe is 7.62×51mm NATO, which is also known as .308 Winchester, the most popular hunting round in the world, period. The only difference between the two is that the bullets in hunting rounds are generally banned from military use for being inhumane.
It's important to understand how little difference there is between military and civilian weapons, regardless of your particular political stance.
Good point about the closeness between NATO rounds and some civilian ammunition : guess it could make things easier for a swiss guy owning an assault rifle. I don't know if there is a civilian equivalent to the 5,6mm Swiss round fired by their Fass90 rifle, aka Sig 550 (it's a modified custom version of the 5,56mm NATO round).
Nevermind, as I did find a source stating that ex-military can keep their rifles (converted to semi-Auto) for sentimental reasons, despite the federal law ban on selling such weapons. So, I guess the corresponding ammo can somehow be bought too.
It makes Switzerland stand out as an exception in Europe. As said earlier, it has A LOT more guns per capita than any other country in the neighborhood.
Otherwise and anywhere else, ammo used in hunting is subject to quite a lot of restrictions, permits, etc.
|
|
It's not purposefully misleading. 2011 is quite "current" for me. I just say that it is currently a semi-hot topic of discussion in Switzerland, no more. Maybe next bill will bring them a fully professional army, maybe not: they already downsized militias a lot.
I didn't think it was purposeful, just potentially misleading. And that's very possible.
I agree that the end result is the same (lot of weapons around), but the intent is VERY different. You have to be in the army to got one.
Oh, sure. I wasn't saying otherwise. The difference in intent is why I specifically noted the militia thing in my original post on this.
Otherwise, any automatic gun would be strictly forbidden, as shown here.
Oh, totally. A restriction I disagree with, but certainly an existant one.
Do you have sources for that ?
Sadly, just wikipedia. That said, it's the only area where what they're saying there and what you appear to have is in conflict, so I'd be surprised if it's wrong. Snopes.com agrees, but cite and directly quote wikpedia, so I'm not sure that counts for independent verification on that bit.
EDIT: Glad you found one. :)
As shown on the link above, ownership of automatic guns (even converted in semi-auto) is forbidden by swiss federal law. So no gun, and no ammo (no, they don't have Walmarts selling assault rifle bullets).
I don't speak anything but English, sadly. But, as A Man In Black notes, I'd be surprised if something that works isn't available given the prevalence of hunting.
And, according to the wikipedia article, the restriction is on formerly automatic weapons that might be easily made back into actual automatic weapons, not necessarily everything that used to be automatic (a fact talked about in the wikipedia article and seemingly agreed with here, with citation).
This
People didn't get killed because they lacked guns; in fact, when the military stormed the La Moneda (the palace of government), everyone was armed to the teeth; Allende himself was sporting an AK-47 gifted to him by Fidel Castro, the same one he then used to shoot himself in the head (even though he had been offered a safe conduct to be expelled from the country). During the first three years after the coup, in fact, armed confrontation between the military and the left-wing paramilitary groups was the main source of deaths.Is not the same as this:
"The majority of deaths that occured between September 11 and September 30 (the most intense period of fighting) happened in confrontations between the military and these armed groups, or between the military and small armed cells. Snipers around the palace of government, hold-outs in schools and police stations, armed cliques in factories, et cetera."
Indeed they are not the same. I'm not claiming they are. I was stating both things.
But, still, it begs the questions: were most of the rapes and tortures the result of confrontations with armed leftist groups as well?
No, they were not.
Yes, Allende's supporters in the government had guns. How does that contradict what I said about Allende approving the disarming of the workers' organizations (the cordones industriales and the unions) and refusing to arm them?
I was not arguing that point. I was giving context to this statement:
Chile, 1973. General Augusto Pinochet, at the behest of Henry Kissinger and the CIA, starts a military coup to overthrow the democratically-elected Unidad Popular government of Salvador Allende. The working classes clamor for Allende to give them guns so they can resist the coup. Allende refuses. Everyone dies.
I have to admit, though, I'm not quite so sure what background issue we're specifically arguing about. In order to be clear about it, I don't think civilians should have a right to bear arms. If anything, the 1973 coup would have been even more bloody if the laws had been more lax (in any case, the Military Government did issue out a general call for civilians to hand over any guns they might have at police stations pretty much the next day).
In order to be clear about it, I don't think civilians should have a right to bear arms. If anything, the 1973 coup would have been even more bloody if the laws had been more lax
Or, possibly, it would have been defeated.
In order to be clear about it, I don't think civilians should have a right to bear arms. If anything, the 1973 coup would have been even more bloody if the laws had been more laxOr, possibly, it would have been defeated.
Despite all the bad stuff that took place during the Military Government, one of the good things that it did was avoid a civil war. Though I think you are overstating the size and willingness to fight of the cordones (which, although indeed radical, where composed of a majority of workers who had no other choice but to join -consider how the cordones were formed: A factory was overtaken by a Communist commando with the support of some of the workers, the owners expelled and the property seized. Then all the workers were forced to join the Union or risk expulsion, as well as harassment. There were even some cases, like when they tried to take over the TV channels, that the workers themselves fought back to avoid the formation of a takeover. Once several Unions had taken over industries, they got together and formed a Cordon), having an armed population would have been a disaster.
The coup wasn't a "Military vs Everyone Else" thing; the country was split from the top to the bottom. Allende's discourse of "No civil war" was one of the few good things he did, because the alternative would have been a disaster of proportions. However, his words had already been falling into deaf ears, and both the radical left and radical right had been arming themselves at a hefty rate. If the coup had not taken place in 1973, I'm pretty sure civil war would have happened.
[Mutters to himself and stalks off to finish reading Of Love and Shadows.]
Ya guys do know that gunrights exists only for a single reason, killing cops, soldiers, civil servants, taxcollectors and their like. No other reason. There never was another reason.
Therefore each citizen should have the firepower to turn back the best equipped soldiers.
I wish people could stop deluding themselves on this point.
Which leads to a logical conclusion, either give up all freedoms or start getting serious about guns. Or then a third option, like maybe running away and hiding in the hills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or the fourth option of not shooting people or fleeing civilization, and participating in a democratic government.
That's a cute myth, but even a cursory study of what the framers and founders said and did prooves it to be a complete and utter delusion.
I'm sorry I couldn't resist! Participatory government? What naivate! ;)
[Mutters to himself and stalks off to finish reading Of Love and Shadows.]
Hmm, I posted this back on August 30th, and it's on my posts page, but it's not in this thread. I don't know if it's a glitch, or it was deleted by the admins or what. If the latter, sorry for reposting it. Vive le Galt!
It's why the Occupy "movements" rattled so many chains. They weren't some leader inspired fly by night, they were signposts of the same kind of general discontent that panicked the capitalists of Roosevelt's day.
I have been largely disappointed by Occupy, but I admit, I haven't been paying attention to the rest of the country over the past couple of months. But, here in NH, it's been awful.
Being NH, a large portion of Occupy was made up of Libertarians, Ron Paul supporters and members of the Free State Project. The other bunch of people were essentially left-wing Democrats with delusions of anarcho-syndicalism.
They have since split over the issue of whether or not they could carry guns to Occupy meetings and whether or not to support Right-to-Work legislation. Since then, the leftie-Occupiers have been running around doing donkey work for the Democrats and rallying in support of public prisons.
Yeah, it's not much fun being a commie in NH.
Just out of curiosity, are they rallying in favor of public prisons, or against private ones? Because as bad as our public prison system is and as much as I'm disgusted by the number of people we lock up and the conditions we keep them in, doing it for private profit is worse.
I don't know how they're putting it, exactly, but, yeah, it's opposed to privatizing the prisons.
What do you expect? It's not much fun being a commie anywhere in the US these days.
It was much more fun back in my glorious Boston days. Ah, youth...