namelesstavern.net

Lue, the US and Switzerland aren't remotely the same. As I understand it few if any are permitted to even get a gun permit until 18, this is the same age you are forcibly drafted for service. You are required to do military service in that country. The very nature of how that country came to be compared to our own is very different.

I would have no issue if our country said, you must be 18 to own a gun and you must server 1/3 a year in military service and become part of the reserves for another 10 years. Why would you have a problem with that? That is why I don't think you can compare the two

Frankly we are too free with our firearms and again, overtime, laws will get created to "fix" a perceived problem.

ClakarEQ wrote:I would have no issue if our country said, you must be 18 to own a gun and you must server 1/3 a year in military service and become part of the reserves for another 10 years. Why would you have a problem with that? That is why I don't think you can compare the two

I wouldn't actually have a problem with all of that, but I don't think you realize that on one hand on the stipulations you cited you actually eased gun restrictions by lowering the age a person could purchase a hand gun from 21 to 18. Then again I think a single established age of adulthood is the only fare way to operate. As far as military service as a precondition for owning a fire arm, I take two issues. The first is that like all other inalienable rights, the right to keep and bare arms is without precondition. Even that aside however you still haven't given a plausible reason that military service and/or training will reduce or eliminate someones propensity and willingness to commit violent crime.

So what would need to be done to prove that it could work? The only way would be to test it, which by your definition would be a violation of the inalienable rights of the people it is being tested on. Also by strict definition, we already violate the inalienable rights of those who do not pass background checks since the constitution does not call for any precondition to the right to keep or bear arms. If you want to be a purist in the interpretation of the letter of the law on this, all citizens of this country have the right to own and bear arms and any regulation against them doing so is a violation of the constitution, therefore any denial of that right for any reason is unconstitutional.

I'm of the opinion that military trained people and reservists would perceive life of greater value regarding their countryman along with the respect they are trained to have towards their weapon.

I think it is safe to assume most gun crimes do not involve current military personnel. Knowing that you're locked in to the armed service for 10 years, again IMO would create a burden if you will or a deterrent for criminal activity. I guess I'm assuming someone who has training and served a purpose to protect their fellow countryman, is going to have a much higher respect for the weapon and the man. Unlike what we have here, a bunch of cowboys abusing rights in many cases (IMO), and want weapons for the sheer purpose of "because we can". There is no demand, there is no training requirement, this is no service, this is no ideal of protection of countrymen, no reasonable age requirement, unenforceable laws, etc.

No facts to back that up though, not sure how you could easily research that to generate conclusive results.
I suppose you could compare civilian gun crime to military gun crime but on what country would be the problem.

The other point I can make is how many Swiss "want" weapons vs. are given weapons because of the military requirements. The GOV there actually supplies you with military grade weapons along with some rounds. So again the populace isn't given a choice, it isn't a "right' so much as it is a demand.

BTW, there is no law that says you have to be 18 or 21 to buy a handgun at the state level in the US, to my knowledge. State trumps Fed so regardless of a fed law that says this, it means nothing and is ignored at the state level. Each state has it's own requirements, some of them being very very lax.

IMO I don't perceive a big difference regarding 18 or 21 when it comes to firearms (side rail, in truth, if you can die for our country (e.g. get drafted) and you're an adult (18), you should be able to drink, and do whatever a 21 year old can, so I think you and I will agree that 18 is the "line")

I just want to stress here that I'm not some all knowing Switzerland gun pro, far from it. All that I know right now is from some very brief articles I've read on that countries gun laws and requirements.

i think you should be able to drink as soon as you're old enough to ask for it at the counter. i don't think you should be able to own a firearm or get a vehicle license until you know exactly how alcohol effects your body

Gidan wrote:So what would need to be done to prove that it could work? The only way would be to test it, which by your definition would be a violation of the inalienable rights of the people it is being tested on.

It's not my definition, but other then that you are pretty much correct. Even still various things have been tried to one extent or another, and in the end have proven to be ineffective at best and detrimental at worst.
History has however shown us time and time again what happens when you disarm a civilian population, they become subjects. Seriously why does it seem unfathomable to anyone that the founding fathers would expressly secure the right to keep and bare arms considering the actions that sparked the battles of Lexington and Concord.

Gidan wrote:Also by strict definition, we already violate the inalienable rights of those who do not pass background checks since the constitution does not call for any precondition to the right to keep or bear arms. If you want to be a purist in the interpretation of the letter of the law on this, all citizens of this country have the right to own and bear arms and any regulation against them doing so is a violation of the constitution, therefore any denial of that right for any reason is unconstitutional.

Under that logic one could also claim imprisoning someone was unconstitutional. The important factor that you ignore is that removal of these rights is based on individual action, they are in response to a demonstrated (not perceived or guessed at) danger.


ClakarEQ - you may very well be right, although I suspect the rational you cite being more in line with volunteers than conscripts, and there is no denying the relative change in individuals with military service in many cases. Let me jump to your side for a moment however and give you what I see as a plausible reason beyond gun control (or lack of) that you have a lower level of violent crime in Israel specifically. Younger people being faced with forced military service, and a high likely hood of military fighting would be less likely to seek out testosterone induced thrills of perpetuating street violence. Still soldiers and ex-soldiers still commit violent crimes although admittedly I don't know the statistics on crime rate between those having served or currently serving vs those who never do.

As far as the federal and state laws surrounding gun sales. Federal law addresses retail sales, you will not in any state be able to purchase any gun at all before the age of 18, or any hand gun before the age of 21 from a licensed fire arm dealer. That is federal law followed by every state. Now when it comes to a private trade transactions, inheritance, and gifts federal law does not address these specifically and so it is something that the states make laws regarding.

Drem wrote:i think you should be able to drink as soon as you're old enough to ask for it at the counter. i don't think you should be able to own a firearm or get a vehicle license until you know exactly how alcohol effects your body

That makes far to much sense to be drafted into law.

Lueyen wrote:The first is that like all other inalienable rights, the right to keep and bare arms is without precondition..

it was amended on, it could be amended off..

Seriously why does it seem unfathomable to anyone that the founding fathers would expressly secure the right to keep and bare arms considering the actions that sparked the battles of Lexington and Concord.

This is specifically why the amendment was created. It was created to ensure that local militia would have arms so that a swift military action would not disarm the entire area. This was however done because the founders believed a well regulated militia was required for the security of the state. From that standpoint, the amendment itself is out dated and does not necessarily hold weight in the current state of the US.

Aye, it is my understanding that the original concept was to avoid as much as possible having any sort of standing professional army, and thus national defense WOULD be dependent upon armed militias that formed in times of war. You can see further evidence of this mindset in the fact that we didn't have a navy for MANY years. Indeed, it wasn't until we made a few ships to go deal with the Barbary Pirates that we had any sort of naval force at all.

Indeed, as late as 1860, there were a grand total of less than 16,000 people in the actual US Army, and militias formed the seeds around which the wartime armies formed. By certainly no later than post-WWI, however, that paradigm for the army had been done away with, and we had moved to a large, permanent, professional military force, that was just swelled with additional members in times of war. Militias are, therefore, a dated concept. What this means for the 2nd amendment is a matter for the SCOTUS to decide, if anyone does.

-Arlos

There is a lot of debate on the founding father's "intent" of the second amendment so no one can say that it is outdated. I believe the school of thought that it served two purposes. First and foremost; to prohibit the disarming of the people. Just as Lue mentioned in his previous post, a disarmed populace is a subjugated one. Secondly, to establish a clear state right to protect it's citizens by forming a militia. BOTH of which establish a check to centralization of power.

Gid asked why someone would need an "assault" rifle. The answer is so I can defend my freedom. Even if the majority of the people around me decide to lay down in the street to get run over rather than stand and fight their own government once it gets perverted enough. When is that point? I don't know. But I don't want to wait to find out and then scramble around to secure a means of defending myself against it. Weapons are like insurance against tyranny.

Weapons are like insurance against tyranny.

that's an awfully sad, paranoid perspective pretty unique to the US, too.

you need a machine gun because one day (we don't know what day, but one day!) the government is going to take over and you feel your only protection is shoot up everything around you in protest so they don't take your freedom? good golly.

Dear god you government hating crazies are too much. You know what the big bad government is? It's a bunch a lazy bastards that was to go home early to beat traffic. They aren't trying to kill your children of steal your souls.

Where does all this conspiracy theory wackjob lunacy come from?

Zanchief wrote: You know what the big bad government is? It's a bunch a lazy bastards that was to go home early to beat traffic.

haw, it's funny cuz it's true.

I have never really understood that point of view either. Especially today, people don't even have the attention span to read forum posts of more than 2 or three paragraphs, you think they're going to sustain an armed insurrection against a government? And do you honestly think the difference between owning a semi-automatic AK-47 vs a bolt-action 30-06 or a 12-gauge is going to matter a rat fart in a hurricane against some hypothetical tyrannical oppressing army? Furthermore, do you honestly think our modern all-volunteer army would really let itself be used as a gestapo-like instrument of terror?

Really, honestly, you're way way out into tinfoil hat territory there.

-Arlos

Arlos wrote:Really, honestly, you're way way out into tinfoil hat territory there.

I laughed at this one, all I could think of was the newer SNL skit with Amy Poller(sp) and the other guy, a segment called "Really, Really" or some shit, lol

Look to the middle east if you want to see how well a lesser armed resistance can take on a large powerful army. Guerilla warfare ever hear that term before? Its a tactic as old as time and never loses its potentcy. I realize that we are in the deep end here but since you brought it up . Resistance is never a bad idea. If people had the mindset you have today of oh my god I cant fight an established army we never would have become a country.

Back on topic . I wish you people would stop trying to give my rights away. Rights you are scared of and dont seem to understand.

Oh please, show me where I said to ban guns, or even deny ownership to ANYONE who isn't either a felon or psycho. Yes, I think there should be some safety requirements to bringing them HOME, but that's a different kettle of fish. And as I said before, after seeing my little brother come within seconds of getting shot in the chest and killed by a couple of drooling idiots being unsafe with their guns, and nearly getting hit myself, the odds of me no longer wanting to find some way to balance the right to own firearms with a level of protection against unsafe gun owners is about nil.

I repeat though, if you honestly think that we need firearms to "fight tyranny and oppression of the US government", I will find you a nice link to assembly instructions for tinfoil hats, so you can be sure they won't influence you with their secret brainwave detectors and orbital mind control satellites. Furthermore, if you really think that the difference between owning a semi-automatic AK-47 and a bolt-action 30-06 is going to tip the scales as you fight those evil faceless stormtroopers of our government overlords (who have, you know, tanks and real firearms), I am going to laugh myself silly at you.

I mean, all this worry about the government suddenly morphing into something straight out of Orwell is hysterical. The closest we have ever been was under Bush, and even with 8 years of HIM and 6 years of an utterly compliant congress, the furthest we got is torturing some people, and we're already seeing a huge national backlash against such things. I mean, seriously, Think about most government employees. They're career bureaucrats. When was the last time you were quivering in abject terror at the employees of the DMV? Quivering in rage when it takes you 4 hours to move 8 feet in line because they have the collective IQ of a retarded hagfish, sure, but terror? Please.

In any case, as I said, the people in this country can't even be bothered to have the attention span to read a full page on a web board these days, and argue about such absolute useless pablum as who SHOULD have won Dancing With the Stars or whatthefuckever. You honestly think anyone has any interest in forming and participating in some massive armed insurrection against government oppression that isn't, you know, actually happening?

The Black Helicopter forums are THAT way -------------------->

-Arlos

Spazz wrote:Look to the middle east if you want to see how well a lesser armed resistance can take on a large powerful army. Guerilla warfare ever hear that term before? Its a tactic as old as time and never loses its potentcy. I realize that we are in the deep end here but since you brought it up . Resistance is never a bad idea. If people had the mindset you have today of oh my god I cant fight an established army we never would have become a country.

Back on topic . I wish you people would stop trying to give my rights away. Rights you are scared of and dont seem to understand.

If you think for a second that the guerrilla warfare tactics in the middle east are what is keeping them going, the you are severely mistaken. The tactics are working only because we have to maintain the favor of our population as a whole. A large focused army can take the entire middle east in a matter of days or weeks. Even though there are AK47's on every street in Iraq, I gaurantee you that a well trained army can walk through the country in no time.

If you are suddenly expecting the US Gov't to turn on its population, then what chance do you really think a small band of random people who have a hard enough time not fighting with each other will have. Even if you armed every family with military grade weapons, it would take no time at all for a disciplined military to walk right through them.

In regard to "Resistance is never a bad idea", this is blatantly false. There is most certainly a time where resistance is the absolute wrong path which can result in the loss of many lives for no chance of victory.

I for one absolutely feel that to safe guard themselves from tyranny by their own government people must be armed. For those of you calling that crazy talk, you are either completely ignorant of history (even as recent as history that occurred in your lifetime), or choosing to ignore it. I can cite many examples of people being disarmed either through political process or by force (often times by people knowing where to go due to fire arms registration) as a precursor to mass killings by their own government. How many examples can you all cite where a government accomplished mass killing of it's citizenry while they were still armed?

you guys did a pretty good job of wiping out your Indians despite them being armed

How exactly does arming the public safeguard us from our government? What specifically are you attempting to safeguard from? Yes "tyranny by their own government" but what exactly do you mean by that. Yes I can also cite a few times where political disarming of their nation was followed by mass killings, however can you name any that had a government similar to ours? I think you would be hard pressed to say our Government is anything like that of Stalin or Hitlers, granted Hitler only disarmed the Jews and lightened gun control over the rest of the people (of which he still killed millions of non Jews who were still armed). If you want an example of mass murder of an armed citizenry, how about Saddam Hussein's mass murder in Iraq which has a very armed citizenry.

Name one country where an armed populace was necessary to "defend liberty" that had a 200+ year tradition as a stable representative democracy. Every single case that I'm aware of where you might have a case for an armed populace being vital was in one that was already prone to tyranny or had recently been ruled by a monarchical or oligarchical system.

Not to mention, if the state TRULY was bent on oppression and tyranny, a handful of civilians, armed or not, would not matter, as I said, a rat fart in a hurricane. You think if Cambodian citizens had been armed they could have stopped Pol Pot? HAH. Did or would have armed civilians in Tanzania do anything to slow down Idi Amin? I think not.

The notion that somehow just because you happen to own a shotgun, that you will, in your lifetime, be called to "Rise up and defend your liberty against a tyrannical government" is an infantile fantasy. To use such an argument as a basis for why you need a firearm is likewise an infantile and thoroughly specious argument.

The closest this country has EVER come to giving up our liberties was in the McCarthy era and most recently under Bush, when people were so terrified by 9/11 that they were willing to let Bush and Cheney and Co. get away with egregious violations. EVEN THERE, however, we never came anywhere remotely close to a situation like you posit. No one attempted a military coup to seize absolute power, our system of democracy still functioned, and now we have a different administration in power that behaves very differently. So much for our descent into tyrannical oppression.

Even if the unthinkable happened, you honestly think you'd ride through the streets in a pickup truck, gun raised, as you led a wave of gun-packing civilians into Washington to throw down President Palpatine? Please, you'd be taken in the middle of the night and carted off to prison if you were an insurrectionist, or do you really think you having a shotgun in the house would protect you against a SEAL or SWAT team coming to arrest you? What, you planning on running into the forest, painting your face, and going all Patrick Swayze and yelling WOLVERINES at the top of your lungs as you sniped down the faceless government stormtroopers?

Riiiight.

Here, a helpful link for you:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/


-Arlos

/bow Arlos.

Well done, sir.

arlos, what do you say about the vietnamese? or the afghani then?

Exactly how was Vietnam an unsupported popular uprising against a tyrannical government, which is the situation that is being claimed here as a reason to need firearms? Did you miss the fact that North Vietnam was directly supported with massive amounts of arms and materiel by China and Russia? Yes, there was the Viet Cong, but they were hardly an unsupported popular uprising, now were they? They were largely funded and supported by North Vietnam, and in any case, their back was broken in the Tet offensive when they actually came out into the open and got shot to pieces. The vast majority of actual land-conquering in Vietnam was done by the North Vietnamese regular army, the NVA.

Afghanistan may be a bit closer to the situation that was posited, but it's still an entirely different kettle of fish. On one side, you had the direct military intervention by the Russians, and on the other, you had massive weapon shipments to the mujahadeen from the US, including advanced (for the time) weapons, like the Stinger missile, which finally gave them a method of dealing with Soviet Helicopters. Without the massive backing from the USA, they would have lost. In any case, last I checked, Afghanistan has only been a country since 1919 when the British left, it's government (with the exception of one stretch from the 30s to the 70s) has been marked by instability, coups and assassinations, and, post-USSR pullout, devolved into complete tribal warlordism. So, sure, the next time the US has devolved into a state with no central government, general anarchy, with competing regional warlords slaughtering people in the streets like in Somalia, THEN you can claim you might need guns to protect your liberty. Somehow, I don't exactly think we'll be seeing that in the immediate future, K?

-Arlos