info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Swiss to Debate Restrictive Gun Laws in 2018
43 views
Skip to first unread message
raykeller
Apr 17, 2018, 4:47:32β―PM4/17/18
to
Swiss to Debate Restrictive Gun Laws
in 2018
Gun Watch ^ | 18 April, 2018 | Dean Weingarten
Switzerland has long been one of the safest and well governed countries in the world. Switzerland had historically few firearms restrictions and high rates of gun ownership. Until 1996, the firearms laws in Switzerland were entirely an affair of the local cantons. Gun laws in Switzerland were generally less restrictive than in the United States. Most firearms were not registered. It was easy to purchase handguns and automatic rifles. Cannon required an approximate $5 registration which could be obtained at the local police office. Cannon breech blocks were required to be stored separately from the cannon. Before 1998, pistols could be carried most places. Some cantons required an easily obtainable permit.
As the push for European Union gun control intensified, the high Swiss level of freedom to own guns was criticized.Β The European Union pushed hard for more restrictions, to bring the Swiss laws in line with the highly restrictive laws in the European Union.
In 1999 the Swiss passed a referendum that imposed severe firearm restrictions by Swiss historical standards. Additional tightening of controls were imposed in 2007. Full auto firearms and cannon are now difficult to obtain. Semi-auto rifles of military caliber and semi-automatic pistols are required to be registered.Β
It does not matter how low the crime rate is to those who wish to disarm populations. Even though the Swiss have world class low crime rates, those pushing for ever more restrictive rules use suicides and the rare gun crime to demand more restrictions. From thelocal.ch:
About 85% of those were suicides. Of suicides committed with guns in Switzerland, about 9% are committed with a military weapon. That puts the number committed with a military weapon in 2009 at about 19.Β Assisted suicide in Switzerland is legal. No reason need be given.Β There were 300 assisted suicides in Switzerland in 2009.
Apparently, the problem with suicide, for those who wish to disarm the Swiss, is the use of a firearm.
In 2009 there were only 24 homicides with firearms in Switzerland, for a firearms homicide rate of an astonishing low .31 per 100,000. But firearms homicides is a misleading number. The number that should be compared is the overall homicide rate. In 2009 in Switzerland, it was .7 per 100,000.Β In England and Wales the homicide rate for 2009 was 1.08.Β In France, the homicide rate for 2009 was 1.3.
An obvious reasons for imposing restrictive gun laws on the Swiss is that Switzerland serves as a counterexample of a prosperous country with considerable freedom to have arms, and a very low crime rate. People in England and France might think their gun laws are too restrictive.
Statistics and death rates do not matter to those who want disarmed populations. The fact that people legally have arms *is* considered the problem, not crimes or suicides.
In Switzerland, if the federal government enacts a law, the Swiss people can call for a referendum to prevent it from going into effect. If a restrictive firearms law is passed, it will face a referendum.
Β©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun WatchΒ
Gun Watch ^ | 18 April, 2018 | Dean Weingarten
Posted on 4/17/2018, 12:40:53 PM by marktwain
Β
Switzerland has long been one of the safest and well governed countries in the world. Switzerland had historically few firearms restrictions and high rates of gun ownership. Until 1996, the firearms laws in Switzerland were entirely an affair of the local cantons. Gun laws in Switzerland were generally less restrictive than in the United States. Most firearms were not registered. It was easy to purchase handguns and automatic rifles. Cannon required an approximate $5 registration which could be obtained at the local police office. Cannon breech blocks were required to be stored separately from the cannon. Before 1998, pistols could be carried most places. Some cantons required an easily obtainable permit.
As the push for European Union gun control intensified, the high Swiss level of freedom to own guns was criticized.Β The European Union pushed hard for more restrictions, to bring the Swiss laws in line with the highly restrictive laws in the European Union.
In 1999 the Swiss passed a referendum that imposed severe firearm restrictions by Swiss historical standards. Additional tightening of controls were imposed in 2007. Full auto firearms and cannon are now difficult to obtain. Semi-auto rifles of military caliber and semi-automatic pistols are required to be registered.Β
It does not matter how low the crime rate is to those who wish to disarm populations. Even though the Swiss have world class low crime rates, those pushing for ever more restrictive rules use suicides and the rare gun crime to demand more restrictions. From thelocal.ch:
A new platform composed of left-wing politicians, police officers and psychiatrists is pushing for Switzerland to follow the European Union in tightening controls on guns.The use of fraudulent "studies" by the disarmament groups is not limited to the United States. In pushing for more restrictions on the Swiss, the use of militia weapons in a few suicides per year, is often cited as a reason to restrict all the Swiss.Β In 2009, there were 241 deaths in Switzerland associated with a firearm.
Representatives of the Social Democratic Party (SP), the Swiss police officers association VSPB/FSFP and the Swiss federation of psychiatrists and psychotherapists FMPP joined forces on Thursday ahead of a debate on the issue in parliament, the Tribune de Genève reported.
The EU parliament approved a revised gun law last year designed to close security loopholes and introduce tighter controls on blank-firing and inadequately deactivated weapons like those used in the Paris terror attacks.
On March 2nd the Federal Council issued a message on a βpragmatic implementationβ of the EU legislation in Switzerland in response to the terror attacks in Europe.
About 85% of those were suicides. Of suicides committed with guns in Switzerland, about 9% are committed with a military weapon. That puts the number committed with a military weapon in 2009 at about 19.Β Assisted suicide in Switzerland is legal. No reason need be given.Β There were 300 assisted suicides in Switzerland in 2009.
Apparently, the problem with suicide, for those who wish to disarm the Swiss, is the use of a firearm.
In 2009 there were only 24 homicides with firearms in Switzerland, for a firearms homicide rate of an astonishing low .31 per 100,000. But firearms homicides is a misleading number. The number that should be compared is the overall homicide rate. In 2009 in Switzerland, it was .7 per 100,000.Β In England and Wales the homicide rate for 2009 was 1.08.Β In France, the homicide rate for 2009 was 1.3.
An obvious reasons for imposing restrictive gun laws on the Swiss is that Switzerland serves as a counterexample of a prosperous country with considerable freedom to have arms, and a very low crime rate. People in England and France might think their gun laws are too restrictive.
Statistics and death rates do not matter to those who want disarmed populations. The fact that people legally have arms *is* considered the problem, not crimes or suicides.
In Switzerland, if the federal government enacts a law, the Swiss people can call for a referendum to prevent it from going into effect. If a restrictive firearms law is passed, it will face a referendum.
Β©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun WatchΒ
!Jones
Apr 17, 2018, 6:39:25β―PM4/17/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:47:36 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "raykeller"
<whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
wrote:
>Swiss to Debate Restrictive Gun Laws in 2018
>Gun Watch ^ | 18 April, 2018 | Dean Weingarten
>
>Switzerland has long been one of the safest and well governed countries in the world. Switzerland had historically few firearms restrictions and high rates of gun ownership. Until 1996, the firearms laws in Switzerland were entirely an affair of the local cantons. Gun laws in Switzerland were generally less restrictive than in the United States. Most firearms were not registered... yada yada
Uuuh, no. There is a misconception in the US that Switzerland is some
kind of a gun loon's heaven when, in reality, if the US were to
consider the Swiss model for gun laws, the gunners would immediately
have a screaming conniption fit.
First of all, the Swiss have always had strict background checks and
registration; you must show registration to purchase ammunition.
While a gun may be transported, "carrying" a gun, ala US, is out of
the question anywhere but the most rural areas.
What gun you may have and where you may have it is up to the local
state (or "canton" as they call them; probably closer to "county" but
more autonomous.)
The Swiss have a good model; of course, they are a far more
law-abiding society than the US... and generally far less aggressive.
On the other hand, by US standards, their gun laws are quite strict.
Jones
--
Quod si verum est, non dicere.
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:47:36 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "raykeller"
<whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
wrote:
>Swiss to Debate Restrictive Gun Laws in 2018
>Gun Watch ^ | 18 April, 2018 | Dean Weingarten
>
Uuuh, no. There is a misconception in the US that Switzerland is some
kind of a gun loon's heaven when, in reality, if the US were to
consider the Swiss model for gun laws, the gunners would immediately
have a screaming conniption fit.
First of all, the Swiss have always had strict background checks and
registration; you must show registration to purchase ammunition.
While a gun may be transported, "carrying" a gun, ala US, is out of
the question anywhere but the most rural areas.
What gun you may have and where you may have it is up to the local
state (or "canton" as they call them; probably closer to "county" but
more autonomous.)
The Swiss have a good model; of course, they are a far more
law-abiding society than the US... and generally far less aggressive.
On the other hand, by US standards, their gun laws are quite strict.
Jones
--
Quod si verum est, non dicere.
Ed Huntress
Apr 17, 2018, 8:33:50β―PM4/17/18
to
concealed carry permits are very rare (you have to demonstrate a need
and pass a multi-part written test, plus a handling test); it is NOT
true that automatic rifles are (or ever were) easy to buy -- in fact,
they are completely illegal except for active militia; its firearms
homicide rate is only midling for Western Europe. Transportation is
allowed only for legal, unloaded weapons and ammo must be kept
separate.
When a militia man ages out (34 for regular militiamen; up to 50 for
officers), he has to turn in his automatic service rifle or pay to
have it converted to semiautomatic, after which he can keep it.
I had the pleasure to shoot some beautiful antique scheutzen rifles
when I was a student at the University of Lausanne, in 1968.
--
Ed Huntress
Klaus Schadenfreude
Apr 17, 2018, 8:37:27β―PM4/17/18
to
Name them all
Right here ----->
!Jones
Apr 17, 2018, 9:07:54β―PM4/17/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 20:33:41 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>As long as somebody is answering the idiot, let's also mention that
>concealed carry permits are very rare (you have to demonstrate a need
>and pass a multi-part written test, plus a handling test); it is NOT
>true that automatic rifles are (or ever were) easy to buy -- in fact,
>they are completely illegal except for active militia; its firearms
>homicide rate is only midling for Western Europe. Transportation is
>allowed only for legal, unloaded weapons and ammo must be kept
>separate.
>
>When a militia man ages out (34 for regular militiamen; up to 50 for
>officers), he has to turn in his automatic service rifle or pay to
>have it converted to semiautomatic, after which he can keep it.
>
>I had the pleasure to shoot some beautiful antique scheutzen rifles
>when I was a student at the University of Lausanne, in 1968.
I think that the misconceptions come from looking at Swiss national
law; their federal (they do use that term, right?) government is very
small and weak by US standards; they have as few national laws as they
can have. The gun laws are all in the cantons, I believe.
You are correct; the Swiss have an average (for western Europe) crime
rate. Not great; not bad, either.
I have not had the pleasure of living there; however, I did the
tourist thingy.
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 20:33:41 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>As long as somebody is answering the idiot, let's also mention that
>concealed carry permits are very rare (you have to demonstrate a need
>and pass a multi-part written test, plus a handling test); it is NOT
>true that automatic rifles are (or ever were) easy to buy -- in fact,
>they are completely illegal except for active militia; its firearms
>homicide rate is only midling for Western Europe. Transportation is
>allowed only for legal, unloaded weapons and ammo must be kept
>separate.
>
>When a militia man ages out (34 for regular militiamen; up to 50 for
>officers), he has to turn in his automatic service rifle or pay to
>have it converted to semiautomatic, after which he can keep it.
>
>I had the pleasure to shoot some beautiful antique scheutzen rifles
>when I was a student at the University of Lausanne, in 1968.
law; their federal (they do use that term, right?) government is very
small and weak by US standards; they have as few national laws as they
can have. The gun laws are all in the cantons, I believe.
You are correct; the Swiss have an average (for western Europe) crime
rate. Not great; not bad, either.
I have not had the pleasure of living there; however, I did the
tourist thingy.
Ed Huntress
Apr 17, 2018, 9:31:05β―PM4/17/18
to
How many official languages are there in Switzerland, Klaus? You can
find an answer on a Trivial Pursuit card. It's wrong, but you'll find
an answer there.
--
Ed Huntress
--
Ed Huntress
Gronk
Apr 18, 2018, 1:31:17β―AM4/18/18
to
!Jones wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:47:36 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "raykeller"
> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Swiss to Debate Restrictive Gun Laws in 2018
>> Gun Watch ^ | 18 April, 2018 | Dean Weingarten
>>
>> Switzerland has long been one of the safest and well governed countries in the world. Switzerland had historically few firearms restrictions and high rates of gun ownership. Until 1996, the firearms laws in Switzerland were entirely an affair of the local cantons. Gun laws in Switzerland were generally less restrictive than in the United States. Most firearms were not registered... yada yada
>
> Uuuh, no. There is a misconception in the US that Switzerland is some
> kind of a gun loon's heaven when, in reality, if the US were to
> consider the Swiss model for gun laws, the gunners would immediately
> have a screaming conniption fit.
>
> First of all, the Swiss have always had strict background checks and
> registration; you must show registration to purchase ammunition.
Speaking of which, SFAIK they still use taggants. Something else
>
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:47:36 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "raykeller"
> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Swiss to Debate Restrictive Gun Laws in 2018
>> Gun Watch ^ | 18 April, 2018 | Dean Weingarten
>>
>> Switzerland has long been one of the safest and well governed countries in the world. Switzerland had historically few firearms restrictions and high rates of gun ownership. Until 1996, the firearms laws in Switzerland were entirely an affair of the local cantons. Gun laws in Switzerland were generally less restrictive than in the United States. Most firearms were not registered... yada yada
>
> Uuuh, no. There is a misconception in the US that Switzerland is some
> kind of a gun loon's heaven when, in reality, if the US were to
> consider the Swiss model for gun laws, the gunners would immediately
> have a screaming conniption fit.
>
> First of all, the Swiss have always had strict background checks and
> registration; you must show registration to purchase ammunition.
the ammosexuals would have a hissy fit over.
Vincent
Apr 18, 2018, 2:20:07β―AM4/18/18
to
military unjtil age 58...Thus they are issued weapons and ammunition in
abundance that is kept in their homes.
>
> Speaking of which, SFAIK they still use taggants. Something else
> the ammosexuals would have a hissy fit over.
Everybody uses Taggants ..even the military.
> Speaking of which, SFAIK they still use taggants. Something else
> the ammosexuals would have a hissy fit over.
Might I suggest that you actually spend some time in Switzerland before
you mouth off as an expert.
>
Gunner Asch
Apr 18, 2018, 2:48:07β―AM4/18/18
to
meters of his Home.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
!Jones
Apr 18, 2018, 8:55:37β―AM4/18/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 23:31:16 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Gronk
<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Speaking of which, SFAIK they still use taggants. Something else
>the ammosexuals would have a hissy fit over.
Dunno. They're used in the US on many products; usually, it means a
passive RFID.
If your device were tagged, you'd likely never know it.
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 23:31:16 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Gronk
<inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Speaking of which, SFAIK they still use taggants. Something else
>the ammosexuals would have a hissy fit over.
passive RFID.
If your device were tagged, you'd likely never know it.
Frank
Apr 18, 2018, 9:07:27β―AM4/18/18
to
In spite of 4 official languages, they appeared regional and I found
Geneva to be predominantly French and Zurich, German.
I visited a gun shop their but stuff was fancy and pricey.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Apr 18, 2018, 9:15:03β―AM4/18/18
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 21:30:56 -0400, Ed Huntress
Just what I thought.
!Jones
Apr 18, 2018, 10:58:43β―AM4/18/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 01:20:08 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Vincent
<vi...@Letuci.org> wrote:
>For non Citizens! Swiss citizens are a necessary component of their
>military unjtil age 58...Thus they are issued weapons and ammunition in
>abundance that is kept in their homes.
If I were a Swiss citizen and I wanted to buy a box of ammunition for
my gun, I would have to produce identification and registration for a
piece that took that ammo. That's a real common method for getting
people to register their grandfather's guns... and not at all unique
to the Swiss.
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 01:20:08 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Vincent
<vi...@Letuci.org> wrote:
>For non Citizens! Swiss citizens are a necessary component of their
>military unjtil age 58...Thus they are issued weapons and ammunition in
>abundance that is kept in their homes.
my gun, I would have to produce identification and registration for a
piece that took that ammo. That's a real common method for getting
people to register their grandfather's guns... and not at all unique
to the Swiss.
!Jones
Apr 18, 2018, 11:08:12β―AM4/18/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 21:30:56 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Name them yourself.
>
>How many official languages are there in Switzerland, Klaus? You can
>find an answer on a Trivial Pursuit card. It's wrong, but you'll find
>an answer there.
English, of course. It's a civilized society.
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 21:30:56 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Name them yourself.
>
>How many official languages are there in Switzerland, Klaus? You can
>find an answer on a Trivial Pursuit card. It's wrong, but you'll find
>an answer there.
Ed Huntress
Apr 18, 2018, 1:08:55β―PM4/18/18
to
they made in the '90s.
--
Ed Huntress
!Jones
Apr 18, 2018, 6:14:03β―PM4/18/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:07:23 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Frank
<"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
>I did the tourist thingy too, many years ago.
>
>In spite of 4 official languages, they appeared regional and I found
>Geneva to be predominantly French and Zurich, German.
>
>I visited a gun shop their but stuff was fancy and pricey.
OK.
I hope to gain the pleasure of visiting soon.
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:07:23 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Frank
<"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
>I did the tourist thingy too, many years ago.
>
>In spite of 4 official languages, they appeared regional and I found
>Geneva to be predominantly French and Zurich, German.
>
>I visited a gun shop their but stuff was fancy and pricey.
I hope to gain the pleasure of visiting soon.
!Jones
Apr 18, 2018, 6:16:22β―PM4/18/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:08:46 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
><g> The answer to my question is a debatable point, based on a change
>they made in the '90s.
I haven't been there in a *long* time. As I recall, I could get by in
English if I wasn't too picky about what I actually ordered.
I didn't try to buy a machine gun.
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:08:46 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
><g> The answer to my question is a debatable point, based on a change
>they made in the '90s.
English if I wasn't too picky about what I actually ordered.
I didn't try to buy a machine gun.
Ed Huntress
Apr 18, 2018, 7:44:36β―PM4/18/18
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:16:22 -0500, !Jones <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote:
>x-no-idiots: yes
>x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
>
>On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:08:46 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>><g> The answer to my question is a debatable point, based on a change
>>they made in the '90s.
>
>I haven't been there in a *long* time. As I recall, I could get by in
>English if I wasn't too picky about what I actually ordered.
<g> Right. I was student in English-language comparative-politics
>x-no-idiots: yes
>x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
>
>On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:08:46 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>><g> The answer to my question is a debatable point, based on a change
>>they made in the '90s.
>
>I haven't been there in a *long* time. As I recall, I could get by in
>English if I wasn't too picky about what I actually ordered.
classes, taught mostly by Brits, and I only learned survival French. I
got by OK but I wouldn't do it again without being reasonably capable,
if not proficient, in French.
FWIW, Switzerland has four "national" languages, but until 1997
(IIRC), only three "official" languages. Romansch was not official,
and wasn't accepted for legal documents.
Since '97, Romansch is allowed, if a particular Canton approves it,
for internal legal documents. And the federal government will now
reply to inquiries made in Romansch. Apparently, two or three Cantons
have approved it.
Some official Swiss sites now say three official languages, and others
say four.
>
>I didn't try to buy a machine gun.
--
Ed Huntress
tRudy Crayola
Apr 19, 2018, 1:41:14β―AM4/19/18
to
do. They do have national identification, but no registry for Ammunition
or private firearms. They have hidden military emplacements all over
Switzerland and large stocks of both Military and civilian ordnance in
caches. Same for Emergency hospitals etc. Yes ..you can purchase a
Machine gun in Switzerland..With a lot of paperwork. A citizen merely
gets issued one when turning military age. With copious amounts of
ammunition.
>
> --
> Jonus alles phoked ap.
>
--
Rudy's Nut & Fruit farm- Sacramento
Ed Huntress
Apr 19, 2018, 8:29:16β―AM4/19/18
to
permit and you have to be a security guard with special needs or a
registered and certified collector. In most cantons, no machine gun
sales are allowed at all.
As for being issued one, you have to turn it in when you turn 34 (up
to 50 for some officers). You can keep it if you pay to have the
federal armorer convert it to semiautomatic.
There are no "copious amounts of ammunition" issued with service
rifles. Since 2007, no ammunition is issued at all, and you may NOT
keep any ammunition for your service rifle at home. Special militia,
mainly for airport security, may keep service rifle ammo at home.
There are roughly 2,000 such exceptions.
In previous years, as when I was a student there, every militiaman
kept a sealed box of 50 rounds at home. It was audited yearly by the
government to be sure it wasn't opened. You can buy ammo for your
service rifle at a certified range, but it all must be shot there. You
can't take it home.
Roughly speaking, Switzerland's gun laws are not dissimilar to ours in
the US. They just get a much better result.
--
Ed Huntress
!Jones
Apr 19, 2018, 9:25:59β―AM4/19/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:41:12 -0500, in talk.politics.guns tRudy
Crayola <Me...@anphetamine.net> wrote:
>You really are fucked up. The Swiss are very private in everything they
>do. They do have national identification, but no registry for Ammunition
>or private firearms. They have hidden military emplacements all over
>Switzerland and large stocks of both Military and civilian ordnance in
>caches. Same for Emergency hospitals etc. Yes ..you can purchase a
>Machine gun in Switzerland..With a lot of paperwork. A citizen merely
>gets issued one when turning military age. With copious amounts of
>ammunition.
OK, it's time to talk about this: the "hidden military emplacements"
of which you speak are actually secret UFO landing sites. When space
aliens visit earth, they are, by intergalactic law, restricted to
Switzerland unless they obtain proper travel papers.
That's OK; the emplacements are disguised to *look* like military
operations so as not to panic the tourists. I mean, how many tourists
would visit a place known to be lousy with space aliens? (They're not
really speaking French, you know.)
OTOH, if you're a Swiss citizen with no criminal record, you will be
issued a dynamic dethermalizer with temporal mutation capability and a
sealed box of 50 plutonium power cartridges (which are inspected on an
annual basis). When you reach an age of 57.3 standard intergalactic
years, you may choose to have the dethermalizer converted to take
conventional earth ammunition (the plutonium power cartridges *must*
be returned to the lawful authorities).
Hey! Facts are facts. Sorry if you find them uncomfortable.
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:41:12 -0500, in talk.politics.guns tRudy
Crayola <Me...@anphetamine.net> wrote:
>You really are fucked up. The Swiss are very private in everything they
>do. They do have national identification, but no registry for Ammunition
>or private firearms. They have hidden military emplacements all over
>Switzerland and large stocks of both Military and civilian ordnance in
>caches. Same for Emergency hospitals etc. Yes ..you can purchase a
>Machine gun in Switzerland..With a lot of paperwork. A citizen merely
>gets issued one when turning military age. With copious amounts of
>ammunition.
of which you speak are actually secret UFO landing sites. When space
aliens visit earth, they are, by intergalactic law, restricted to
Switzerland unless they obtain proper travel papers.
That's OK; the emplacements are disguised to *look* like military
operations so as not to panic the tourists. I mean, how many tourists
would visit a place known to be lousy with space aliens? (They're not
really speaking French, you know.)
OTOH, if you're a Swiss citizen with no criminal record, you will be
issued a dynamic dethermalizer with temporal mutation capability and a
sealed box of 50 plutonium power cartridges (which are inspected on an
annual basis). When you reach an age of 57.3 standard intergalactic
years, you may choose to have the dethermalizer converted to take
conventional earth ammunition (the plutonium power cartridges *must*
be returned to the lawful authorities).
Hey! Facts are facts. Sorry if you find them uncomfortable.
David R. Birch
Apr 19, 2018, 3:31:51β―PM4/19/18
to
David
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Ed Huntress
Apr 19, 2018, 4:14:46β―PM4/19/18
to
what about the Swiss Council of States" And is a "half-canton" a state
(there are two of them)? <g>
"Canton" is the common term, used as a description of the geographical
and semi-autonomous government units in the Swiss federation, but they
also use the term "states" used in the names of various government and
non-government assemblies.
Having spent 10 months as a student of Western comparative politics,
at a university in Switzerland, I detected Klaus tying to be a snide
and nasty troll with his question.
Or maybe he's just ignorant. Either way, he just wanted to stir shit.
--
Ed Huntress
tRudy Crayola
Apr 19, 2018, 10:57:10β―PM4/19/18
to
>
> Without going into every detail, machine gun sales require a special
> permit and you have to be a security guard with special needs or a
> registered and certified collector. In most cantons, no machine gun
> sales are allowed at all.
Apparently you cannot read , but can print a lot of meaningless words
> Without going into every detail, machine gun sales require a special
> permit and you have to be a security guard with special needs or a
> registered and certified collector. In most cantons, no machine gun
> sales are allowed at all.
that refutes nothing.
>
> As for being issued one, you have to turn it in when you turn 34 (up
> to 50 for some officers). You can keep it if you pay to have the
> federal armorer convert it to semiautomatic.
Completely incorrect. Most of the Armed forces are well over 34 and most
> As for being issued one, you have to turn it in when you turn 34 (up
> to 50 for some officers). You can keep it if you pay to have the
> federal armorer convert it to semiautomatic.
of the Command structure is in their 60's. You are a shameful person
that should be horsewhipped for your false prevarications.
>
> There are no "copious amounts of ammunition" issued with service
> rifles. Since 2007, no ammunition is issued at all, and you may NOT
> keep any ammunition for your service rifle at home. Special militia,
> mainly for airport security, may keep service rifle ammo at home.
> There are roughly 2,000 such exceptions.
Wrong again...But then again the army does not publish its issues for
> There are no "copious amounts of ammunition" issued with service
> rifles. Since 2007, no ammunition is issued at all, and you may NOT
> keep any ammunition for your service rifle at home. Special militia,
> mainly for airport security, may keep service rifle ammo at home.
> There are roughly 2,000 such exceptions.
fools like you.
>
> In previous years, as when I was a student there,
According to the records you were never a student there and no Passport
> In previous years, as when I was a student there,
is showing a point of entrance.
every militiaman
> kept a sealed box of 50 rounds at home. It was audited yearly by the
> government to be sure it wasn't opened. You can buy ammo for your
> service rifle at a certified range, but it all must be shot there. You
> can't take it home.
by any sane person.
>
> Roughly speaking, Switzerland's gun laws are not dissimilar to ours in
> the US. They just get a much better result.
Completely incorrect. My family has lived with that system of Government
> Roughly speaking, Switzerland's gun laws are not dissimilar to ours in
> the US. They just get a much better result.
and served in that Government since 1297 ad. We had a special name for
Nazi's, which would fit you to a T. I also call you on the lie of
attending the Swiss University. Next you will be claiming to be Einstein.
Ed Huntress
Apr 20, 2018, 1:06:31β―AM4/20/18
to
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 21:57:11 -0500, tRudy Crayola
HAHAHAho-ho! You're not following the attributions, spammy. Those are
YOUR words you just called a lie. <g>
'Nuff said.
<snip>
--
Ed Huntress
YOUR words you just called a lie. <g>
'Nuff said.
<snip>
--
Ed Huntress
!Jones
Apr 20, 2018, 9:15:57β―AM4/20/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 21:57:11 -0500, in talk.politics.guns tRudy
Crayola <Me...@anphetamine.net> wrote:
>Total lies...You and Jones along with Rudy are unlikely to be believed
>by any sane person.
How did *I* get involved in your little spat?
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 21:57:11 -0500, in talk.politics.guns tRudy
Crayola <Me...@anphetamine.net> wrote:
>Total lies...You and Jones along with Rudy are unlikely to be believed
>by any sane person.
!Jones
Apr 20, 2018, 9:36:21β―AM4/20/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:06:22 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>HAHAHAho-ho! You're not following the attributions, spammy. Those are
>YOUR words you just called a lie. <g>
Oh, well. Stuff happens.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:06:22 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>HAHAHAho-ho! You're not following the attributions, spammy. Those are
>YOUR words you just called a lie. <g>
Ed Huntress
Apr 20, 2018, 9:43:46β―AM4/20/18
to
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 08:15:55 -0500, !Jones <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote:
>x-no-idiots: yes
>
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 21:57:11 -0500, in talk.politics.guns tRudy
>Crayola <Me...@anphetamine.net> wrote:
>
>>Total lies...You and Jones along with Rudy are unlikely to be believed
>>by any sane person.
>
>How did *I* get involved in your little spat?
>
>Jones
If you want a third party opinion, two things are going on: first,
>x-no-idiots: yes
>
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 21:57:11 -0500, in talk.politics.guns tRudy
>Crayola <Me...@anphetamine.net> wrote:
>
>>Total lies...You and Jones along with Rudy are unlikely to be believed
>>by any sane person.
>
>How did *I* get involved in your little spat?
>
>Jones
spammy ("tRudy," among many other nyms) is an obnoxious troll who
picks fights for the fun of it. Second, you aren't entitled to
opinions that contradict those of the paranoid tribe of gun nutz that
you're dealing with. It isn't accepted.
So spammy is lumping you in with Rudy, who he often fights with for
any reason under the sun, as tRudy's sleazy way of identifying with
his tribe. Identifying a group of "enemies" is a gang sign, like the
five-pointed eyebrows on the Latin Kings.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Apr 20, 2018, 9:47:03β―AM4/20/18
to
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 08:36:19 -0500, !Jones <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote:
>x-no-idiots: yes
>
>On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:06:22 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>HAHAHAho-ho! You're not following the attributions, spammy. Those are
>>YOUR words you just called a lie. <g>
>
>Oh, well. Stuff happens.
>
>Jones
Spammy will call anyone a liar. Here we see him actually getting it
>x-no-idiots: yes
>
>On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 01:06:22 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>HAHAHAho-ho! You're not following the attributions, spammy. Those are
>>YOUR words you just called a lie. <g>
>
>Oh, well. Stuff happens.
>
>Jones
right -- identifying the liar as himself. d8-)
That one has to go in my archive...
--
Ed Huntress
!Jones
Apr 20, 2018, 10:15:40β―AM4/20/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:14:36 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Klaus, being an experienced troll, probably would have responded "But
>what about the Swiss Council of States" And is a "half-canton" a state
>(there are two of them)? <g>
>
>"Canton" is the common term, used as a description of the geographical
>and semi-autonomous government units in the Swiss federation, but they
>also use the term "states" used in the names of various government and
>non-government assemblies.
>
>Having spent 10 months as a student of Western comparative politics,
>at a university in Switzerland, I detected Klaus tying to be a snide
>and nasty troll with his question.
>
>Or maybe he's just ignorant. Either way, he just wanted to stir shit.
Oh, if somebody said "state", I'd guess he or she meant "canton"... I
*believe* we derive our term: "county" from that... just guessing.
The issue with usenet is that it's full of experts. It doesn't matter
*what* the subject is; if you don't have an expert right now, you soon
will! Then the expert will expect your deference to his superior
knowledge.
The Swiss have a decent model from which we could learn. At the
national level, we require background checks and responsibility...
close the "loopholes". Let the individual states decide anything
beyond that. The US is a reasonably large country and, WRT gun laws,
one size does *not* fit all. What is appropriate in Wyoming might not
work in New Jersey and visa versa. If a gun owner crosses a state
line, he is responsible for knowing and following the gun laws in that
state.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 16:14:36 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Klaus, being an experienced troll, probably would have responded "But
>what about the Swiss Council of States" And is a "half-canton" a state
>(there are two of them)? <g>
>
>"Canton" is the common term, used as a description of the geographical
>and semi-autonomous government units in the Swiss federation, but they
>also use the term "states" used in the names of various government and
>non-government assemblies.
>
>Having spent 10 months as a student of Western comparative politics,
>at a university in Switzerland, I detected Klaus tying to be a snide
>and nasty troll with his question.
>
>Or maybe he's just ignorant. Either way, he just wanted to stir shit.
*believe* we derive our term: "county" from that... just guessing.
The issue with usenet is that it's full of experts. It doesn't matter
*what* the subject is; if you don't have an expert right now, you soon
will! Then the expert will expect your deference to his superior
knowledge.
The Swiss have a decent model from which we could learn. At the
national level, we require background checks and responsibility...
close the "loopholes". Let the individual states decide anything
beyond that. The US is a reasonably large country and, WRT gun laws,
one size does *not* fit all. What is appropriate in Wyoming might not
work in New Jersey and visa versa. If a gun owner crosses a state
line, he is responsible for knowing and following the gun laws in that
state.
Ed Huntress
Apr 20, 2018, 11:35:46β―AM4/20/18
to
purchase permit to buy a handgun. It includes fingerprinting and an
FBI background check of the fingerprints, and an extensive
mental-health check. You need references -- two, IIRC. There is more
to it, and it amounts to something close to the Title 2 application.
It costs $22.
We have no private sales, so we have 100% background checks for any
gun sales. I've been through the process three times (my older guns
are grandfathered in and didn't need the permits). It's annoying, but
not onerous.
And this is the upshot: Despite having the densest population in the
US, with most people living in metro areas, our firearms murder rate
is below average, ranking only 30th in the country.
But that's only part of the story. Relevant to what you're suggesting,
consider this: Of the crimes committed with guns in NJ, ATF crime-gun
traces show that 80% of the guns used in crimes in this state come
from *other* states. This is not surprising, because straw purchases
are almost impossible in NJ and it's mandatory to report gun thefts;
with no private sales, a legal purchaser is an accomplice to murder if
they transfer a gun without going through an FFL holder (typically
$25; I pay $15), and if the transferee commits a murder.
Our gun problem is other states, with PA, VA, SC, and FL being the big
sources. So making it a state's rights issue, which it partly is
already, results in a lot of gun crime here. Probably most of it.
The gun nutz are on the horns of a dilemma on this issue, because the
McDonald decision overrides much of states' rights on gun ownership
and disallows many types of state and local gun bans, as in the case
of Chicago. Of course, they want it both ways: state's rights when the
state laws are lax, and federal supremacy when they're tight --
including through-transport to other states.
--
Ed Huntress
!Jones
Apr 20, 2018, 4:08:50β―PM4/20/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
Yeah, we must close the loophole that allows someone to walk across a
state line. That's Chicago's issue; they're about an hour or so by
rail from Kenosha, WI. If background checks were mandated on all gun
transfers, that flow would be reduced sharply.
state line. That's Chicago's issue; they're about an hour or so by
rail from Kenosha, WI. If background checks were mandated on all gun
transfers, that flow would be reduced sharply.
Ed Huntress
Apr 20, 2018, 5:59:55β―PM4/20/18
to
it throughout the country, along with Swiss-style requirements for
securing guns and a big change in attitude.
That won't happen, so we'll continue to be the country that has the
highest rates of gun crime and gun homicide in the developed world.
I accepted that as a fact a long time ago, but I'm interested to see
what the kids do about it.
--
Ed Huntress
!Jones
Apr 21, 2018, 1:20:28β―AM4/21/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
I hear what you're saying; however, people are getting pretty well fed
up.
At the national level, what we need is pretty simple... in theory! We
need universal background checks (UBC) mandated by federal law. Now,
making that happen won't be simple because it will pull the plug on
the secondary market and this is a *big* cash cow for the gun
industry... and the NRA will shriek like a stuck pig. Implementing
UBC will entail national gun registration, of course; however, there
is no second amendment issue with that. The database technology is
already in place.
Once we get that, a person would not be able simply to cross a state
line and buy from the secondary market because the buyer would then
have to produce identification that showed his or her state residence.
With UBC in place, states would be free to define their own gun
laws... which is as it should be.
But, to do that, we would have to have a political sea change. The
gun industry is not known for playing nicely in the sandbox...
particularly when it impacts their bottom line. UBC are a no starter
with them; honesty and integrity get left rocking in our wake.
Therein lies the challenge; how does one maintain personal integrity
in an environment where none exists?
up.
At the national level, what we need is pretty simple... in theory! We
need universal background checks (UBC) mandated by federal law. Now,
making that happen won't be simple because it will pull the plug on
the secondary market and this is a *big* cash cow for the gun
industry... and the NRA will shriek like a stuck pig. Implementing
UBC will entail national gun registration, of course; however, there
is no second amendment issue with that. The database technology is
already in place.
Once we get that, a person would not be able simply to cross a state
line and buy from the secondary market because the buyer would then
have to produce identification that showed his or her state residence.
With UBC in place, states would be free to define their own gun
laws... which is as it should be.
But, to do that, we would have to have a political sea change. The
gun industry is not known for playing nicely in the sandbox...
particularly when it impacts their bottom line. UBC are a no starter
with them; honesty and integrity get left rocking in our wake.
Therein lies the challenge; how does one maintain personal integrity
in an environment where none exists?
rbowman
Apr 21, 2018, 12:36:23β―PM4/21/18
to
On 04/20/2018 11:20 PM, !Jones wrote:
> Once we get that, a person would not be able simply to cross a state
> line and buy from the secondary market because the buyer would then
> have to produce identification that showed his or her state residence.
That 'secondary market' is another of your ghosts. Is that when you buy
> Once we get that, a person would not be able simply to cross a state
> line and buy from the secondary market because the buyer would then
> have to produce identification that showed his or her state residence.
a hot Glock in a Baltimore alley? That's not going to change. Bangers
aren't going to do a background check.
What is the volume of this secondary market? Do you have any idea or are
you woofin'?
I can go over to Cabela's and buy a long gun after I fill out a 4473 and
they call it in to what is supposed to be a Federal database of people
who cannot purchase firearms.
I cannot purchase a handgun in Idaho. Years ago, even before the Brady
bill, when I lived in NH I could drive over to the Kittery trading post
in Maine and buy a rifle. If I bought a handgun I did not take
possession in ME. KTP had a storefront across the river in Portsmouth
where a KTP employee would meet me with the firearm and the sale would
be consummated.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Apr 21, 2018, 12:40:18β―PM4/21/18
to
>Yeah, we must close the loophole that allows someone to walk across a
>state line.
There is no "loophole."
>state line.
!Jones
Apr 21, 2018, 1:00:41β―PM4/21/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 10:37:01 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
<bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>That 'secondary market' is another of your ghosts. Is that when you buy
>a hot Glock in a Baltimore alley? That's not going to change. Bangers
>aren't going to do a background check.
Probably not, of course; however, it will become something like a dope
deal. If I sell clandestine guns, I will likely go to jail at some
point; therefore, I will need a much greater markup; this will drive
the cost up. Cost goes up, demand drops.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 10:37:01 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
<bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>That 'secondary market' is another of your ghosts. Is that when you buy
>a hot Glock in a Baltimore alley? That's not going to change. Bangers
>aren't going to do a background check.
deal. If I sell clandestine guns, I will likely go to jail at some
point; therefore, I will need a much greater markup; this will drive
the cost up. Cost goes up, demand drops.
Red Prepper
Apr 21, 2018, 1:18:21β―PM4/21/18
to
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 10:37:01 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:
Correct. It's already illegal to buy handguns in another state
without going through an FFL. That goes for private sales too.
If Kenosha has such h lax gun laws, why don't they have the same gun
iolence as Chicago? But, but, but... Background checks! Lolz.
wrote:
without going through an FFL. That goes for private sales too.
If Kenosha has such h lax gun laws, why don't they have the same gun
iolence as Chicago? But, but, but... Background checks! Lolz.
!Jones
Apr 21, 2018, 5:09:26β―PM4/21/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 12:18:15 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Red Prepper
<r...@red.com> wrote:
>Correct. It's already illegal to buy handguns in another state
>without going through an FFL. That goes for private sales too.
It is; however, in many states, no identification is required. What
the people want is for the existing laws to have procedures in place
that will guarentee their enforcement.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 12:18:15 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Red Prepper
<r...@red.com> wrote:
>Correct. It's already illegal to buy handguns in another state
>without going through an FFL. That goes for private sales too.
the people want is for the existing laws to have procedures in place
that will guarentee their enforcement.
Just Wondering
Apr 21, 2018, 5:45:51β―PM4/21/18
to
On 4/20/2018 11:20 PM, !Jones wrote:
>
> At the national level, what we need is pretty simple... in theory! We
> need universal background checks (UBC) mandated by federal law. Now,
> making that happen won't be simple because it will pull the plug on
> the secondary market and this is a *big* cash cow for the gun
> industry.
That's really stupid. A strong secondary market means more used gun
>
> At the national level, what we need is pretty simple... in theory! We
> need universal background checks (UBC) mandated by federal law. Now,
> making that happen won't be simple because it will pull the plug on
> the secondary market and this is a *big* cash cow for the gun
> industry.
sales and therefore fewer new gun sales, which means less money, not
more, for the gun industry.
> UBC will entail national gun registration,and since that will never happen, you admit your post is bullshit.
> Once we get that, a person would not be able simply to cross a state
> line and buy from the secondary market because the buyer would then
> have to produce identification that showed his or her state residence.
criminals - people who couldn't care less about complying with the law.
>
> With UBC in place, states would be free to define their own gun
> laws... which is as it should be.
constitutional. You apparently think the extent of a person's
constitutional rights should turn on what state he lives in. That's
more bullshit.
> Therein lies the challenge; how does one maintain personal integrity
!Jones
Apr 22, 2018, 8:08:30β―AM4/22/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 15:45:49 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <JustWo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>That's really stupid. A strong secondary market means more used gun
>sales and therefore fewer new gun sales, which means less money, not
>more, for the gun industry. More bullshit. The people you're concerned
When a group of founders sit down to codify a constitution, they
*usually* realize that incorporating a set of individual rights is a
good idea. Some people suggest that these rights are pre-existant and
that the proposed constitution simply recognizes them; I have no
opinion on that because there is no way of knowing. If one were to
survey constitutions, one would tend to find this basic set of rights
to be pretty much consistent. We find ours in the first amendment...
they're in a different place in the Bolivian constitution; however,
they're in it.
The second amendment means exactly what it says (what *all* of it
says; please don't strip the first 13-word noun phrase.) It was
written to assert local control of the armed forces; i.e.: the
militia. Thus, Paul Revere rides through the country side calling:
"To arms! To arms! Dem darn British is a'comin to take yo guns!"
And the armed citizens all rouse and stand shoulder to shoulder upon
the Concord green... is my history right?
And so, in August of 1814, Paul Revere rode again (well, since he was
born in 1736, he was likely getting a little long in the tooth for
that action.) OK, *somebody* rode around and called the people to
arms because a regiment of British regulars were marching on
Washington DC; within range of the call lived about 7,000 armed US
citizens who were to assemble defending the bridge at Bladensburg, MD.
The problem was that, unlike Concord, the people who received the call
didn't live in or around Washington DC; they lived in Delaware, New
Jersey, Virginia, and Pennsylvania and essentially said: "That's
Maryland's problem; we got no dog in that fight" and they didn't show
up. Those who did ran before a shot was ever fired.
Well, sir, the British marched into Washington DC unopposed, almost
captured James Madison and congress, looted the place, and burned most
of the government buildings including the White House and the US
capitol. The loss of our capitol was a staggering defeat that led
directly to the Treaty of Ghent later that month which was essentially
a surrender and signed a few months later; by that treaty, the war
ended and restored the pre-war status quo... and the British gave us
back Washington DC, or whatever was left of it, anyway. The War of
1812 was clearly a resounding defeat for the United States.
After that, we did away with the local militia as our primary armed
force in favor of a standing army and the second amendment became a
legislative artifact of the 18th century. The bottom line is that
there are simply no such things as "gun rights". You have the
*freedom* to own a gun if your state allows it; if they don't, you may
petition your state legislature or move to another state.
I am aware that you and I profoundly disagree on this matter... but,
then... I wasn't really speaking to *you* initially. You're welcome
to your opinion; if you don't like mine, you're welcome to keep out of
it.
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 15:45:49 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <JustWo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>That's really stupid. A strong secondary market means more used gun
>sales and therefore fewer new gun sales, which means less money, not
>about, or should be, are criminals - people who couldn't care less about
>complying with the law. UBC has nothing to do with what state gun control
>laws would be constitutional. You apparently think the extent of a person's
>constitutional rights should turn on what state he lives in. That's
>more bullshit. When it comes to you, apparently you don't.
>constitutional rights should turn on what state he lives in. That's
When a group of founders sit down to codify a constitution, they
*usually* realize that incorporating a set of individual rights is a
good idea. Some people suggest that these rights are pre-existant and
that the proposed constitution simply recognizes them; I have no
opinion on that because there is no way of knowing. If one were to
survey constitutions, one would tend to find this basic set of rights
to be pretty much consistent. We find ours in the first amendment...
they're in a different place in the Bolivian constitution; however,
they're in it.
The second amendment means exactly what it says (what *all* of it
says; please don't strip the first 13-word noun phrase.) It was
written to assert local control of the armed forces; i.e.: the
militia. Thus, Paul Revere rides through the country side calling:
"To arms! To arms! Dem darn British is a'comin to take yo guns!"
And the armed citizens all rouse and stand shoulder to shoulder upon
the Concord green... is my history right?
And so, in August of 1814, Paul Revere rode again (well, since he was
born in 1736, he was likely getting a little long in the tooth for
that action.) OK, *somebody* rode around and called the people to
arms because a regiment of British regulars were marching on
Washington DC; within range of the call lived about 7,000 armed US
citizens who were to assemble defending the bridge at Bladensburg, MD.
The problem was that, unlike Concord, the people who received the call
didn't live in or around Washington DC; they lived in Delaware, New
Jersey, Virginia, and Pennsylvania and essentially said: "That's
Maryland's problem; we got no dog in that fight" and they didn't show
up. Those who did ran before a shot was ever fired.
Well, sir, the British marched into Washington DC unopposed, almost
captured James Madison and congress, looted the place, and burned most
of the government buildings including the White House and the US
capitol. The loss of our capitol was a staggering defeat that led
directly to the Treaty of Ghent later that month which was essentially
a surrender and signed a few months later; by that treaty, the war
ended and restored the pre-war status quo... and the British gave us
back Washington DC, or whatever was left of it, anyway. The War of
1812 was clearly a resounding defeat for the United States.
After that, we did away with the local militia as our primary armed
force in favor of a standing army and the second amendment became a
legislative artifact of the 18th century. The bottom line is that
there are simply no such things as "gun rights". You have the
*freedom* to own a gun if your state allows it; if they don't, you may
petition your state legislature or move to another state.
I am aware that you and I profoundly disagree on this matter... but,
then... I wasn't really speaking to *you* initially. You're welcome
to your opinion; if you don't like mine, you're welcome to keep out of
it.
NLQTSββ β¬ π΄πππππ πΎππππππ β¬ ββig4r
Apr 22, 2018, 8:43:05β―AM4/22/18
to
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
Gun nutters' favorite nuttery is to strip and use the Second Amendment
out of context.
If a bank law says: "If you own the money in your bank account, the
right of the people to withdraw and carry the money out of the bank,
shall not be infringed", gun nutters will ignore the first part, and
insist that "the right of the people to withdraw and carry the money out
of the bank, shall not be infringed".
"Local militias were formed from the earliest English colonization of
the Americas in 1607. The first colony-wide militia was formed by
Massachusetts in 1636 by merging small older local units, and several
National Guard units can be traced back to this militia. The various
colonial militias became state militias when the United States became
independent. The title "National Guard" was used in 1824 by some New
York State militia units, named after the French National Guard in honor
of the Marquis de Lafayette. "National Guard" became a standard
nationwide militia title in 1903, and specifically indicated reserve
forces under mixed state and federal control since 1933."
Army National Guard
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_National_Guard>
The Army National Guard (ARNG), in conjunction with the Air National
Guard, is a militia force and a federal military reserve force of the
United States. They are simultaneously part of two different
organizations, the Army National Guard of the several states,
territories and the District of Columbia (also referred to as the
Militia of the United States), and the Army National Guard of the United
States. The Army National Guard is divided into subordinate units
stationed in each of the 50 states, three territories, and the District
of Columbia, and operates under their respective governors.
Air National Guard
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_National_Guard>
The Air National Guard (ANG), also known as the Air Guard, is a federal
military reserve force as well as the militia air force of each U.S.
state, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It, along with each
state's, district's, commonwealth's or territory's Army National Guard
component, makes up the National Guard of each state and the districts,
commonwealths and territories as applicable.
When Air National Guard units are used under the jurisdiction of the
state governor they are fulfilling their militia role. However, if
federalized by order of the President of the United States, ANG units
become an active part of the United States Air Force.[3] They are
jointly administered by the states and the National Guard Bureau, a
joint bureau of the Army and Air Force that oversees the National Guard
of the United States.
Red Prepper
Apr 22, 2018, 11:00:43β―AM4/22/18
to
without using an FFL. Your Kenosha example is illegal.
It's already illegal, adding more State laws isn't going to make the
Federal Law any more illeagaler.
How about don't break the law?
MattB
Apr 22, 2018, 3:07:40β―PM4/22/18
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 11:53:21 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On 22/04/2018 8:31 AM, MattB wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 08:23:25 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/04/2018 8:01 AM, MattB wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 07:53:47 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> snip
>>>>> a UBC and you still have your 2A rights. As you say the vast vast
>>>>> majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens so this will work.
>>>>
>>>> Trump proposed some Gun Control measures and the left did nothing.
>>>
>>> Meaningless crap
>>
>> You oppose all he wanted?
>
>I saw it as meaningless crap
1. Trump has said he wants to strengthen background checks, at times
appearing to support universal checks that would apply to private
sales and gun show sales.
2. Develop regulations that would ban bump stocks, devices that are
used to make legal semi-automatic weapons fire similarly to machine
guns.
3. Raising the minimum age to purchase a semiautomatic weapon from 18
to 21, as βon the table for us to discuss.β
4. Trump often emphasizes the link between mental health and mass
shooters. After Parkland, he suggested that law enforcement should be
able to take guns away from people they think are safety risks without
going through the courts.
Which of these suggestions do you consider "meaningless crap" and what
would you propose that could get passed?
The Dems should have jumped at a chance for any of these. Instead
they did not because they needed them for the next election.
wrote:
>On 22/04/2018 8:31 AM, MattB wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 08:23:25 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/04/2018 8:01 AM, MattB wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 07:53:47 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> UBC has nothing to do with what state gun control laws would be
>>>>>> constitutional.Β You apparently think the extent of a person's
>>>>>> constitutional rights should turn on what state he lives in.Β That's
>>>>>> more bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> UBC should be Federal shared with the States, no legal gun sale without
>>>>>
>>>>>> UBC has nothing to do with what state gun control laws would be
>>>>>> constitutional.Β You apparently think the extent of a person's
>>>>>> constitutional rights should turn on what state he lives in.Β That's
>>>>>> more bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> a UBC and you still have your 2A rights. As you say the vast vast
>>>>> majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens so this will work.
>>>>
>>>> Trump proposed some Gun Control measures and the left did nothing.
>>>
>>> Meaningless crap
>>
>> You oppose all he wanted?
>
>I saw it as meaningless crap
1. Trump has said he wants to strengthen background checks, at times
appearing to support universal checks that would apply to private
sales and gun show sales.
2. Develop regulations that would ban bump stocks, devices that are
used to make legal semi-automatic weapons fire similarly to machine
guns.
3. Raising the minimum age to purchase a semiautomatic weapon from 18
to 21, as βon the table for us to discuss.β
4. Trump often emphasizes the link between mental health and mass
shooters. After Parkland, he suggested that law enforcement should be
able to take guns away from people they think are safety risks without
going through the courts.
Which of these suggestions do you consider "meaningless crap" and what
would you propose that could get passed?
The Dems should have jumped at a chance for any of these. Instead
they did not because they needed them for the next election.
!Jones
Apr 22, 2018, 3:21:20β―PM4/22/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:00:38 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Red Prepper
<r...@red.com> wrote:
>It's a Federal Law. It's illegal to buy handguns across state lines
>without using an FFL. Your Kenosha example is illegal.
>
>It's already illegal, adding more State laws isn't going to make the
>Federal Law any more illeagaler.
>
>How about don't break the law?
How about we set the law also to make it illegal for anyone to *sell*
(or transfer for any reason) a gun unless a thorough background check
has cleared? The law we have isn't effective because it has way too
many "loopholes". How about closing all of the obvious loopholes?
Jones
--
Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:00:38 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Red Prepper
<r...@red.com> wrote:
>It's a Federal Law. It's illegal to buy handguns across state lines
>without using an FFL. Your Kenosha example is illegal.
>
>It's already illegal, adding more State laws isn't going to make the
>Federal Law any more illeagaler.
>
>How about don't break the law?
(or transfer for any reason) a gun unless a thorough background check
has cleared? The law we have isn't effective because it has way too
many "loopholes". How about closing all of the obvious loopholes?
Jones
--
Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.
Just Wondering
Apr 22, 2018, 8:45:37β―PM4/22/18
to
law-abiding people, and that we already have laws making murder,
assault, robbery, etc. illegal?
Red Prepper
Apr 22, 2018, 8:52:17β―PM4/22/18
to
set and the bad guys ignore it, then you take our guns?
!Jones
Apr 22, 2018, 9:28:56β―PM4/22/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:45:34 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <JustWo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>How about observing that there's no need to restrict rights of
>law-abiding people, and that we already have laws making murder,
>assault, robbery, etc. illegal?
I understand the logic; however, it's a tad bit simplistic. If we say
that you can't sell your guns onto the street, your rights are not
being violated in any way... you can still sell your gun and buy one
in a different color.
If I were a nasty old criminal, how long do you think it would take me
to get my dick-skinners on a gun here in DFW? (I know; I'm pretty
smart for a criminal.)
Having a law requiring background checks on less than half of the gun
sales is like building defensive fortifications on half of the border.
Come to think of it, I heard a story once about some country who did
that in the WWII foreplay... France, wasn't it? It wasn't very
effective... maybe they should have used "No Trespassing" signs
instead?
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:45:34 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <JustWo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>How about observing that there's no need to restrict rights of
>law-abiding people, and that we already have laws making murder,
>assault, robbery, etc. illegal?
that you can't sell your guns onto the street, your rights are not
being violated in any way... you can still sell your gun and buy one
in a different color.
If I were a nasty old criminal, how long do you think it would take me
to get my dick-skinners on a gun here in DFW? (I know; I'm pretty
smart for a criminal.)
Having a law requiring background checks on less than half of the gun
sales is like building defensive fortifications on half of the border.
Come to think of it, I heard a story once about some country who did
that in the WWII foreplay... France, wasn't it? It wasn't very
effective... maybe they should have used "No Trespassing" signs
instead?
!Jones
Apr 22, 2018, 9:42:17β―PM4/22/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 19:52:12 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Red Prepper
<r...@red.com> wrote:
>I'm not a lawmaker, but what's stopping you? And after your law is
>set and the bad guys ignore it, then you take our guns?
Hoss, you're living in a dream world... this is simply the product of
paranoia.
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 19:52:12 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Red Prepper
<r...@red.com> wrote:
>I'm not a lawmaker, but what's stopping you? And after your law is
>set and the bad guys ignore it, then you take our guns?
paranoia.
Just Wondering
Apr 23, 2018, 12:28:29β―PM4/23/18
to
On 4/22/2018 7:28 PM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:45:34 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
> Wondering <JustWo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How about observing that there's no need to restrict rights of
>> law-abiding people, and that we already have laws making murder,
>> assault, robbery, etc. illegal?
>
> I understand the logic; however, it's a tad bit simplistic.
Your statement, to which I was responding and which you blithely
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:45:34 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
> Wondering <JustWo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How about observing that there's no need to restrict rights of
>> law-abiding people, and that we already have laws making murder,
>> assault, robbery, etc. illegal?
>
> I understand the logic; however, it's a tad bit simplistic.
clipped to make following the conversation unnecessarily difficult,
is "How about we set the law also to make it illegal for anyone to
*sell* (or transfer for any reason) a gun unless a thorough background
check has cleared?" Your statement is more than a tad bit simplistic.
You assume that such a law would make it more difficult for criminals to
acquire guns. You offer no evidence that it would. It looks like the
primary effect of such a law would be to make legitimate transactions
needlessy cumbersome.
Can you point to a single instance where a background check
was effective in preventing a crime? NO, I thought not.
BTW, what do you mean by "transfer"? Do you mean to convey legal title,
or to transfer actual possession, either temporarily or permanently? If
I take a friend to a shooting range and he want to try out my gun, do I
have to run a background check on him first? After all, if I hand him
my gun I have made a transfer.
> If I were a nasty old criminal, how long do you think it would
Maybe an hour or less, REGARDLESS of any background check laws.
No background check law will keep a criminal who wants a gun from
getting a gun, or even make it particularly difficult to get one.
> Having a law requiring background checks on less than half of the gun
> sales is like building defensive fortifications on half of the border.
Background checks did not exist before 1993. The USA got along
just fine without them for over two centuries. They are a "feel
good" response that does nothing to actually prevent crimes.
e931pββ β¬ π΄πππππ πΎππππππ β¬ ββoX0M
Apr 23, 2018, 12:47:00β―PM4/23/18
to
adminisatyr wrote on 4/23/2018 11:41 AM:
> Why is it that those with a lack of reading comprehension decide that
> 'a well regulated militia' refers only to a gov't controlled militia?
You are the one lacking in reading comprehension.
Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
> which equates to the gov't giving itself the right to bear arms with
> the 2a - That makes no sense!
It was the American Revolution that your treasonous turncoat Founding
Fathers rebelled against their own British overlord. That's why they
gave themselves the right to arm themselves against the Redcoats who
were the British loyalists up north (in today's Canada).
The "free State" in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State," refers to a "free and independent State" from
their British overlord.
> Why the heck would the gov't need an amendment to grant itself that
> right?! The right is only to that of the people. It is nonsensical
> to read it any other way.
Then ask your self this simple question: It is such an important
document, why did they start the sentence with "A well regulated
Militia" if it doesn't have any relevance in the sentence?
> 'a well regulated militia' refers only to a gov't controlled militia?
You are the one lacking in reading comprehension.
Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
> the 2a - That makes no sense!
It was the American Revolution that your treasonous turncoat Founding
Fathers rebelled against their own British overlord. That's why they
gave themselves the right to arm themselves against the Redcoats who
were the British loyalists up north (in today's Canada).
The "free State" in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State," refers to a "free and independent State" from
their British overlord.
> Why the heck would the gov't need an amendment to grant itself that
> right?! The right is only to that of the people. It is nonsensical
> to read it any other way.
Then ask your self this simple question: It is such an important
document, why did they start the sentence with "A well regulated
Militia" if it doesn't have any relevance in the sentence?
Winston_Smith
Apr 23, 2018, 1:57:15β―PM4/23/18
to
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 12:46:31 -0400, e931poX0M wrote:
>Then ask your self this simple question: It is such an important
>document, why did they start the sentence with "A well regulated
>Militia" if it doesn't have any relevance in the sentence?
Because the militia was the countries' only defense and it consisted
>Then ask your self this simple question: It is such an important
>document, why did they start the sentence with "A well regulated
>Militia" if it doesn't have any relevance in the sentence?
of citizen-soldiers - who brought their own arms.
For the militia to be "well regulated" - i.e., working correctly -
those citizen-soldiers had to have weapons. Weapons equal to or better
than those of the army any country might throw against us.
More than that, read the extensive writing of the founders and it's
clear they had in mind that the people should be able to replace their
government if it turned tyrannical. England was certainly tyrannical
towards the colony; one of their first actions when the sentiment for
separation was growing was to send a force to disarm what were then
their own citizens in the colonies.
It was clear to the founders that someday our own government might
need replacing and the citizens had to retain the means to do it.
___
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage
or working class flat is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there."
-- George Orwell
QfsqCββ β¬ π΄πππππ πΎππππππ β¬ ββBTep
Apr 23, 2018, 3:40:28β―PM4/23/18
to
Winston_Smith wrote on 4/23/2018 1:57 PM:
> More than that, read the extensive writing of the founders and it's
> clear they had in mind that the people should be able to replace their
> government if it turned tyrannical.
You are full of shit.
> More than that, read the extensive writing of the founders and it's
> clear they had in mind that the people should be able to replace their
> government if it turned tyrannical.
Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
It was the American Revolution that your treasonous turncoat Founding
Fathers rebelled against their own British overlord. That's why they
gave themselves the right to arm themselves against the Redcoats who
were the British loyalists up north (in today's Canada).
The "free State" in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State," refers to a "free and independent State" from
their British overlord.
Fathers rebelled against their own British overlord. That's why they
gave themselves the right to arm themselves against the Redcoats who
were the British loyalists up north (in today's Canada).
The "free State" in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State," refers to a "free and independent State" from
their British overlord.
Zc2rDββ β¬ π΄πππππ πΎππππππ β¬ ββ2NqKz
Apr 23, 2018, 4:39:25β―PM4/23/18
to
adminisatyr wrote on 4/23/2018 4:17 PM:
For example: Police are people. Policemen were given guns to keep the
peace. It doesn't give ordinary people the right to carry guns and act
like police.
> Besides, if guns are outlawed, one determined will turn to another
> means of mass murder such as a vehicle like what just happened in
> Toronto.
>
That is one of the favorite excuses from the gun nutters.
> Van swerves onto sidewalk striking several pedestrians
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43873804
That is terrible. I heard about it on the radio while I was driving
home. It does seem like a deliberate act of terror.
For argument's sake, that terrorist could have done a lot more damage if
he had assault rifles and opened fire into a crowd of people.
> e931p?? ? Mighty Wannabe ? ??oX0M wrote:
>> adminisatyr wrote on 4/23/2018 11:41 AM:
>>> NLQTS?? ? Mighty Wannabe ? ??ig4r wrote:
> ...
>> adminisatyr wrote on 4/23/2018 11:41 AM:
>>> NLQTS?? ? Mighty Wannabe ? ??ig4r wrote:
>>>
>>> Why is it that those with a lack of reading comprehension decide
>>> that 'a well regulated militia' refers only to a gov't controlled
>>> militia?
>>
>> You are the one lacking in reading comprehension.
>>
>> Second Amendment:
>> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
>> infringed."
>>
>>> which equates to the gov't giving itself the right to bear arms with
>>> the 2a - That makes no sense!
>>
>> It was the American Revolution that your treasonous turncoat Founding
>> Fathers rebelled against their own British overlord. That's why they
>> gave themselves the right to arm themselves against the Redcoats who
>> were the British loyalists up north (in today's Canada).
>>
>> The "free State" in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
>> security of a free State," refers to a "free and independent State"
>> from their British overlord.
>>
>>
>>> Why the heck would the gov't need an amendment to grant itself that
>>> right?! The right is only to that of the people. It is nonsensical
>>> to read it any other way.
>>
>> Then ask your self this simple question: It is such an important
>> document, why did they start the sentence with "A well regulated
>> Militia" if it doesn't have any relevance in the sentence?
>>
>
> It does have relevance, the militia is the people. So it supports
>>> Why is it that those with a lack of reading comprehension decide
>>> that 'a well regulated militia' refers only to a gov't controlled
>>> militia?
>>
>> You are the one lacking in reading comprehension.
>>
>> Second Amendment:
>> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
>> infringed."
>>
>>> which equates to the gov't giving itself the right to bear arms with
>>> the 2a - That makes no sense!
>>
>> It was the American Revolution that your treasonous turncoat Founding
>> Fathers rebelled against their own British overlord. That's why they
>> gave themselves the right to arm themselves against the Redcoats who
>> were the British loyalists up north (in today's Canada).
>>
>> The "free State" in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
>> security of a free State," refers to a "free and independent State"
>> from their British overlord.
>>
>>
>>> Why the heck would the gov't need an amendment to grant itself that
>>> right?! The right is only to that of the people. It is nonsensical
>>> to read it any other way.
>>
>> Then ask your self this simple question: It is such an important
>> document, why did they start the sentence with "A well regulated
>> Militia" if it doesn't have any relevance in the sentence?
>>
>
> "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
>
Your argument is absurd.
>
For example: Police are people. Policemen were given guns to keep the
peace. It doesn't give ordinary people the right to carry guns and act
like police.
> Besides, if guns are outlawed, one determined will turn to another
> means of mass murder such as a vehicle like what just happened in
> Toronto.
>
That is one of the favorite excuses from the gun nutters.
> Van swerves onto sidewalk striking several pedestrians
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43873804
That is terrible. I heard about it on the radio while I was driving
home. It does seem like a deliberate act of terror.
For argument's sake, that terrorist could have done a lot more damage if
he had assault rifles and opened fire into a crowd of people.
IoiMQββ β¬ π΄πππππ πΎππππππ β¬ ββl8MP
Apr 23, 2018, 6:02:27β―PM4/23/18
to
adminisatyr wrote on 4/23/2018 5:24 PM:
> Then tell me what the militia is made up of if not the people.
>
The answer is the next line after your question:
>>
>> For example: Police are people. Policemen were given guns to keep the
>> peace. It doesn't give ordinary people the right to carry guns and
>> act like police.
>>
>>
Stop. Up to here.
>>> Besides, if guns are outlawed, one determined will turn to another
>>> means of mass murder such as a vehicle like what just happened in
>>> Toronto.
>>>
>>
>> That is one of the favorite excuses from the gun nutters.
>>
>>> Van swerves onto sidewalk striking several pedestrians
>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43873804
>>
>> That is terrible. I heard about it on the radio while I was driving
>> home. It does seem like a deliberate act of terror.
>>
>> For argument's sake, that terrorist could have done a lot more damage
>> if he had assault rifles and opened fire into a crowd of people.
>>
>
> Define 'assault rifle'
>
> If you refer to an ar15 it is questionable if one could do 'alot more
> damage' and you use 'assault rifles' as a plural term. It's not
> likely one will use more than 1 rifle at a time.
You really need to get out more. All your sisters are doing that:
<https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_1724/17243094.jpg>
<https://c7.alamy.com/comp/KD08YY/woman-in-a-military-camouflage-with-two-assault-rifles-isolated-over-KD08YY.jpg>
<https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/102781/142341280/stock-photo-police-officer-is-holding-guns-isolated-on-white-142341280.jpg>
> And unlike a van, the rifle can be removed from the perpetrators hand
> (such as what happened at the waffle house near Nashville, TN).
Only because he had to reload.
> The van is more like a bomb in the amount of damage it does in such a
> short amount of time which is way more than using 1 semi-auto rifle at
> a time.
A vehicle is a lot slower than a bullet.
A vehicle cannot make sharp turns.
A vehicle cannot climb over obstacles higher than 2 feet.
It is easier to dodge to charging vehicle than a bullet.
>
The answer is the next line after your question:
>>
>> For example: Police are people. Policemen were given guns to keep the
>> peace. It doesn't give ordinary people the right to carry guns and
>> act like police.
>>
>>
>>> Besides, if guns are outlawed, one determined will turn to another
>>> means of mass murder such as a vehicle like what just happened in
>>> Toronto.
>>>
>>
>> That is one of the favorite excuses from the gun nutters.
>>
>>> Van swerves onto sidewalk striking several pedestrians
>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43873804
>>
>> That is terrible. I heard about it on the radio while I was driving
>> home. It does seem like a deliberate act of terror.
>>
>> For argument's sake, that terrorist could have done a lot more damage
>> if he had assault rifles and opened fire into a crowd of people.
>>
>
>
> If you refer to an ar15 it is questionable if one could do 'alot more
> damage' and you use 'assault rifles' as a plural term. It's not
> likely one will use more than 1 rifle at a time.
You really need to get out more. All your sisters are doing that:
<https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_1724/17243094.jpg>
<https://c7.alamy.com/comp/KD08YY/woman-in-a-military-camouflage-with-two-assault-rifles-isolated-over-KD08YY.jpg>
<https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/102781/142341280/stock-photo-police-officer-is-holding-guns-isolated-on-white-142341280.jpg>
> And unlike a van, the rifle can be removed from the perpetrators hand
> (such as what happened at the waffle house near Nashville, TN).
Only because he had to reload.
> The van is more like a bomb in the amount of damage it does in such a
> short amount of time which is way more than using 1 semi-auto rifle at
> a time.
A vehicle is a lot slower than a bullet.
A vehicle cannot make sharp turns.
A vehicle cannot climb over obstacles higher than 2 feet.
It is easier to dodge to charging vehicle than a bullet.
!Jones
Apr 23, 2018, 8:32:36β―PM4/23/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:28:23 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <JustWo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Your statement, to which I was responding and which you blithely
>clipped to make following the conversation unnecessarily difficult,
>is "How about we set the law also to make it illegal for anyone to
>*sell* (or transfer for any reason) a gun unless a thorough background
>check has cleared?" Your statement is more than a tad bit simplistic.
>You assume that such a law would make it more difficult for criminals to
>acquire guns. You offer no evidence that it would. It looks like the
>primary effect of such a law would be to make legitimate transactions
>needlessy cumbersome.
>
>Can you point to a single instance where a background check
>was effective in preventing a crime? NO, I thought not.
>
>BTW, what do you mean by "transfer"? Do you mean to convey legal title,
>or to transfer actual possession, either temporarily or permanently? If
>I take a friend to a shooting range and he want to try out my gun, do I
>have to run a background check on him first? After all, if I hand him
>my gun I have made a transfer. Maybe an hour or less, REGARDLESS of any
A background check that is rigorously and uniformly enforced is far
more likely to block a prohibited person from obtaining a gun than is
a half-assed law filled with loopholes, special cases, and exceptions.
Why do you think it would not be more effective to close the
loopholes? What do we have to lose?
I'll take one of your questions, then I will require that you answer
mine: A person "transfers" a firearm when he or she sells, gifts,
rents, or lends the device such that it leaves the owner's immediate
supervisory control. If you and friend go to the range and you are
present, fine. If your kid is going to a party and wants to borrow
the gun, that's not fine. If you go on a guided hunt and the guide
furnishes rifles; it's fine as long as a rep is there.
Good grief, you *know* what "transfer" means... quit being
deliberately obtuse.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:28:23 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <JustWo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Your statement, to which I was responding and which you blithely
>clipped to make following the conversation unnecessarily difficult,
>is "How about we set the law also to make it illegal for anyone to
>*sell* (or transfer for any reason) a gun unless a thorough background
>check has cleared?" Your statement is more than a tad bit simplistic.
>You assume that such a law would make it more difficult for criminals to
>acquire guns. You offer no evidence that it would. It looks like the
>primary effect of such a law would be to make legitimate transactions
>needlessy cumbersome.
>
>Can you point to a single instance where a background check
>was effective in preventing a crime? NO, I thought not.
>
>BTW, what do you mean by "transfer"? Do you mean to convey legal title,
>or to transfer actual possession, either temporarily or permanently? If
>I take a friend to a shooting range and he want to try out my gun, do I
>have to run a background check on him first? After all, if I hand him
>background check laws. No background check law will keep a criminal who
>wants a gun from getting a gun, or even make it particularly difficult to
>get one. No it's not.
>wants a gun from getting a gun, or even make it particularly difficult to
>
>Background checks did not exist before 1993. The USA got along
>just fine without them for over two centuries. They are a "feel
>good" response that does nothing to actually prevent crimes.
We live in a different world now than we did in 1993.
>Background checks did not exist before 1993. The USA got along
>just fine without them for over two centuries. They are a "feel
>good" response that does nothing to actually prevent crimes.
A background check that is rigorously and uniformly enforced is far
more likely to block a prohibited person from obtaining a gun than is
a half-assed law filled with loopholes, special cases, and exceptions.
Why do you think it would not be more effective to close the
loopholes? What do we have to lose?
I'll take one of your questions, then I will require that you answer
mine: A person "transfers" a firearm when he or she sells, gifts,
rents, or lends the device such that it leaves the owner's immediate
supervisory control. If you and friend go to the range and you are
present, fine. If your kid is going to a party and wants to borrow
the gun, that's not fine. If you go on a guided hunt and the guide
furnishes rifles; it's fine as long as a rep is there.
Good grief, you *know* what "transfer" means... quit being
deliberately obtuse.
!Jones
Apr 23, 2018, 8:53:56β―PM4/23/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 08:42:38 -0400, in talk.politics.guns NLQTS?? ?
?????? ??????? ? ??ig4r <u8...@THmkE.com> wrote:
>Second Amendment:
Yes, thank you! We heard you.
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 08:42:38 -0400, in talk.politics.guns NLQTS?? ?
?????? ??????? ? ??ig4r <u8...@THmkE.com> wrote:
>Second Amendment:
Yes, thank you! We heard you.
Winston_Smith
Apr 23, 2018, 9:01:56β―PM4/23/18
to
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:39:59 -0400, QfsqCBTep wrote:
>The "free State" in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
>security of a free State," refers to a "free and independent State" from
>their British overlord.
The Constitution was written quite some years after the Revolutionary
>The "free State" in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
>security of a free State," refers to a "free and independent State" from
>their British overlord.
War was over and won. England was history, just another country to
trade with on equal terms. The founders were trashing out how the
several states should govern themselves and how to avoid in the future
the evils of government that had required the pain of the war.
By the way, your cut and paste ability is quite impressive even if
monotonously repetitive. That's how we can tell when you are doing
badly in a debate and you want to continue it but not put any more
effort into a losing project.
BOM9Xββ β¬ π΄πππππ πΎππππππ β¬ ββjsGI
Apr 23, 2018, 9:46:01β―PM4/23/18
to
Winston_Smith wrote on 4/23/2018 8:51 PM:
> The Constitution was written quite some years after the Revolutionary
> War was over and won. England was history, just another country to
> trade with on equal terms.
The British Redcoats were in today's Canada, a formidable threat to the
> The Constitution was written quite some years after the Revolutionary
> War was over and won. England was history, just another country to
> trade with on equal terms.
US right up until WWII, you babbling fool.
Read about the Redcoats burning downing the White House in 1814.
Pay attention to the first line of the text that says "American militiamen".
Their militia was their "National Guard" at the time.
<https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/british-capture-and-burn-washington>
1814
British capture and burn Washington
During the War of 1812, British forces under General Robert Ross
overwhelm American militiamen at the Battle of Bladensburg, Maryland,
and march unopposed into Washington, D.C. Most congressmen and officials
fled the nationβs capital as soon as word came of the American defeat,
but President James Madison and his wife, Dolley, escaped just before
the invaders arrived. Earlier in the day, President Madison had been
present at the Battle of Bladensburg and had at one point actually taken
command of one of the few remaining American batteries, thus becoming
the first and only president to exercise in actual battle his authority
as commander in chief.
The British army entered Washington in the late afternoon, and General
Ross and British officers dined that night at the deserted White House.
Meanwhile, the British troops, ecstatic that they had captured their
enemyβs capital, began setting the city aflame in revenge for the
burning of Canadian government buildings by U.S. troops earlier in the
war. The White House, a number of federal buildings, and several private
homes were destroyed. The still uncompleted Capitol building was also
set on fire, and the House of Representatives and the Library of
Congress were gutted before a torrential downpour doused the flames.
On August 26, General Ross, realizing his untenable hold on the capital
area, ordered a withdrawal from Washington. The next day, President
Madison returned to a smoking and charred Washington and vowed to
rebuild the city. James Hoban, the original architect of the White
House, completed reconstruction of the executive mansion in 1817.
!Jones
Apr 23, 2018, 9:47:23β―PM4/23/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:57:06 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>Because the militia was the countries' only defense and it consisted
>of citizen-soldiers - who brought their own arms.
>
>For the militia to be "well regulated" - i.e., working correctly -
>those citizen-soldiers had to have weapons. Weapons equal to or better
>than those of the army any country might throw against us.
>
>More than that, read the extensive writing of the founders and it's
>clear they had in mind that the people should be able to replace their
>government if it turned tyrannical. England was certainly tyrannical
>towards the colony; one of their first actions when the sentiment for
>separation was growing was to send a force to disarm what were then
>their own citizens in the colonies.
>
>It was clear to the founders that someday our own government might
>need replacing and the citizens had to retain the means to do it.
Not entirely so: the colonial militia was defined under the Articles
of Confederation (Article Six) and, while the constitution superseded
the articles, there is some legal question as to whether they were
completely repealed or remained in force. For the most part, the
Constitution of 1787 covers the same topics as the Articles of
Confederation, and obviously the Constitution takes precedence in case
of conflict. However, nowhere in the US Constitution does it mention
the Articles of Confederation, nor does the constitution explicitly
state that it supersedes the articles entirely.
Article Six states (in part) that "every State shall always keep up a
well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and
accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in
public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper
quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
It articles seem to be saying that the "arms and ammunition" for the
militia will be provided by the state and kept "ready for use in
public stores". Article six is far more detailed regarding the
militia than the constitution; however, Article 1, section 8,
paragraph 9 states that "Congress shall have power to provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia..." thus, never
explicitly repealing article six. Note that both use the term
"disciplined" as well as "well regulated" and that both refer to state
provided arms.
The debate in the 1790s was that many said we needed a standing
army... an idea soundly opposed by anti-federalists. When the writers
of 2A wrote of a "well regulated militia", they were saying "no
standing federal army". When the British regulars rolled over our
militia like a tractor over a toad in the War of 1812, we rethought
that position.
Neither the constitution nor the articles mention overthrowing the
democratic government should it become tyrannical. It would be absurd
to have an amendment for this purpose.
Jones
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:57:06 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>Because the militia was the countries' only defense and it consisted
>of citizen-soldiers - who brought their own arms.
>
>For the militia to be "well regulated" - i.e., working correctly -
>those citizen-soldiers had to have weapons. Weapons equal to or better
>than those of the army any country might throw against us.
>
>More than that, read the extensive writing of the founders and it's
>clear they had in mind that the people should be able to replace their
>government if it turned tyrannical. England was certainly tyrannical
>towards the colony; one of their first actions when the sentiment for
>separation was growing was to send a force to disarm what were then
>their own citizens in the colonies.
>
>It was clear to the founders that someday our own government might
>need replacing and the citizens had to retain the means to do it.
of Confederation (Article Six) and, while the constitution superseded
the articles, there is some legal question as to whether they were
completely repealed or remained in force. For the most part, the
Constitution of 1787 covers the same topics as the Articles of
Confederation, and obviously the Constitution takes precedence in case
of conflict. However, nowhere in the US Constitution does it mention
the Articles of Confederation, nor does the constitution explicitly
state that it supersedes the articles entirely.
Article Six states (in part) that "every State shall always keep up a
well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and
accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in
public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper
quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
It articles seem to be saying that the "arms and ammunition" for the
militia will be provided by the state and kept "ready for use in
public stores". Article six is far more detailed regarding the
militia than the constitution; however, Article 1, section 8,
paragraph 9 states that "Congress shall have power to provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia..." thus, never
explicitly repealing article six. Note that both use the term
"disciplined" as well as "well regulated" and that both refer to state
provided arms.
The debate in the 1790s was that many said we needed a standing
army... an idea soundly opposed by anti-federalists. When the writers
of 2A wrote of a "well regulated militia", they were saying "no
standing federal army". When the British regulars rolled over our
militia like a tractor over a toad in the War of 1812, we rethought
that position.
Neither the constitution nor the articles mention overthrowing the
democratic government should it become tyrannical. It would be absurd
to have an amendment for this purpose.
Jones
!Jones
Apr 23, 2018, 10:09:54β―PM4/23/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
It was more than just that... the United States' armed forces had been
completely, *utterly* routed and forced to flee for their lives
through the streets of Washington DC... the US was finished.
Immediately afterward, we asked for peace in a meeting at Ghent. The
Treaty of Ghent, signed later that year, ended the war; however, the
British continued to interdict the slave trade in the Caribbean...
thus, none of our objectives were achieved. Oh yeah, and DC was
looted and burned.
We should have just repealed the second amendment because it served no
purpose after the War of 1812. A citizens' militia has *never* been a
match for competently led regulars... never will be. That the Earl
Cornwallis was incompetent is the *only* reason the US won
independence.
completely, *utterly* routed and forced to flee for their lives
through the streets of Washington DC... the US was finished.
Immediately afterward, we asked for peace in a meeting at Ghent. The
Treaty of Ghent, signed later that year, ended the war; however, the
British continued to interdict the slave trade in the Caribbean...
thus, none of our objectives were achieved. Oh yeah, and DC was
looted and burned.
We should have just repealed the second amendment because it served no
purpose after the War of 1812. A citizens' militia has *never* been a
match for competently led regulars... never will be. That the Earl
Cornwallis was incompetent is the *only* reason the US won
independence.
!Jones
Apr 23, 2018, 10:11:21β―PM4/23/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:39:59 -0400, in talk.politics.guns QfsqC?? ?
?????? ??????? ? ??BTep <Nj...@iGY2n.com> wrote:
>Second Amendment:
>"A well regulated Militia, being nece
You are beginning to become annoying.
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:39:59 -0400, in talk.politics.guns QfsqC?? ?
?????? ??????? ? ??BTep <Nj...@iGY2n.com> wrote:
>Second Amendment:
>"A well regulated Militia, being nece
0 new messages