The Swiss Have Liberal Gun Laws, Too But They Also Have Fewer Gun-Related Deaths Than The U.S.

[RW NRA Gunloon]

The Swiss Have Liberal Gun Laws, Too But they also have fewer gun-related
deaths than the U.S.

[Maybe it's because the Swiss have so few gun hugging American gunloons
there]

In February 2011, Swiss citizens voted in a referendum that called for a
national gun registry and for firearms owned by members of the military to
be stored in public arsenals.

“It is a question of trust between the state and the citizen. The citizen
is not just a citizen, he is also a soldier,” Hermann Suter, who at the
time was vice president of the Swiss gun-rights group Pro Tell, told the
BBC then. “The gun at home is the best way to avoid dictatorships—only
dictators take arms away from the citizens.”

Apparently many of his fellow Swiss agreed. The referendum was easily
defeated. Gun ownership in the country has deep historic roots and it is
tied to mandatory military service for Swiss men between the ages of 18
and 34. Traditionally, soldiers were allowed to keep their weapons at home
in order to defend against conquering armies. These fears came close to
being realized during the Franco-Prussian War on 1871; as well as World
War I, when the Swiss border was threatened; and World War II, when the
country feared a Nazi invasion.

But guns are popular beyond the military, as well. Children as young as 12
are taught how to shoot as well as the rules of gun safety, and are
encouraged to participate in highly popular target-shooting competitions.
The country’s cultural attachment to firearms resembles America’s in some
ways, though it has no constitutional right to bear arms—it has the third-
highest rate of private gun ownership in the world, behind the United
States and Yemen. Yet Switzerland has a low rate of gun crime, and hasn’t
seen a mass shooting since 2001, when a gunman opened fire in the
legislative body in the Canton of Zug, killing 14 people, as well as
himself.

So it’s possible to have widespread gun ownership without so frequently
seeing the kinds of incidents that the U.S. saw on Wednesday, when a
gunman killed 17 people at a high school in Florida. But how?

For one thing, Switzerland’s rate of gun ownership is still substantially
lower than America’s—in Switzerland the rate is roughly one gun per four
people, whereas in the U.S. it’s more than one per person, according to
GunPolicy.org. The Swiss Defense Ministry estimates that there are 2
million privately owned weapons in the country of 8.3 million people.
There are estimated to be 300 million guns in the U.S., but 130 million of
them are owned by about 3 percent of the adult population.

Another way the two countries differ is in their rates of gun-related
deaths. Swiss gun-related death rates are the highest in Europe. The
figure for the U.S. is three times higher than that for Switzerland. Much
of that is attributable in both countries to suicide. Mass shootings in
Switzerland are relatively rare, though, with two in the past 20 years. By
one estimate, there have been 30 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2018 alone,
including Wednesday’s in Florida—though the number of fatalities in these
mass shootings is only a small proportion of the overall gun-related
homicides in the U.S.

The Washington Post offers some reasons why mass shootings are more common
in the U.S. than in Switzerland:

Swiss authorities have a list of about 2,000 individuals they suspect of
being willing to commit shootings. All of them are frequently approached
by authorities, along with psychologists, and are forced to hand over
their weapons immediately or are barred from purchasing new ones.

Some sociologists say that Switzerland's military service comes close to
an extended background check, too, and that the country's education system
teaches children early on to search for compromises instead of risking
open conflicts. Hence, while almost every home in Switzerland may have a
weapon, access is still indirectly regulated and the use of weapons
usually follows strict societal norms.
Then there’s the question of what Swiss guns are meant to defend against.
The Swiss trust their government more than citizens of other rich
countries trust theirs. So the tradition of gun ownership arose more from
the historic need to protect Switzerland from invaders than from the
hypothetical need to overthrow a tyrannical government. And as Time
pointed out in 2012, “the culture of responsibility and safety … is
anchored in society and passed from generation to generation.”

The fundamental difference between Switzerland and the U.S. when it comes
to buying guns is not the ease of purchase—it’s easy in both countries—but
the regulations that are associated with gun ownership in Switzerland.
Most firearms, with the exception of fully automatic weapons, are legal.
But background checks are mandated, which is not always the case in the
U.S. Heavy machine guns and military weapons such as grenade launchers are
banned in Switzerland; under some circumstances they can be purchased in
the U.S. Public-carrying permits are issued rarely. Guns can be
transported, but must remain unloaded at all times when they’re not in
use.

Hunting weapons must be registered with the local Canton. Pistols, rifles,
and semiautomatic weapons require a license. The paperwork is relatively
easy to obtain—and Cantons can make exceptions for individuals. (Citizens
of Albania, Algeria, Sri Lanka, Kosovo, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Serbia, and Turkey who live in the country as permanent residents are
forbidden from buying guns because of their nations’ history of civil
war.)

Switzerland’s relatively liberal rules may soon face a challenge from
outside the country’s borders, however. The country is a member of the
Schengen area, the group of 26 European countries that allows for the free
movement of people. Some other members of the Schengen area are also
members of the European Union (Switzerland is not). Last year the EU
tightened the restrictions on gun ownership and Switzerland, as a member
of the Schengen, must bring its laws in line with the new regulations by
August of this year. Swiss gun-rights advocates are already planning a
legal challenge because, among other things, it revisits the idea of a gun
registry.

“When conflicts arise, Switzerland must put its sovereignty first,”
Christoph Blocher, the vice president of the SVP, the country’s biggest
party, told Reuters. “In an emergency, Switzerland should be ready to exit
Schengen.”


https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/swiss-
guns/553448/

[Gospel TT]

They have more sensible gun laws, to which too many here are opposed.

[Shadow]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 20:50:12 +0000 (UTC), RW NRA Gunloon
<RichG...@trump.ru> wrote:

>Swiss authorities have a list of about 2,000 individuals they suspect of
>being willing to commit shootings. All of them are frequently approached
>by authorities, along with psychologists, and are forced to hand over
>their weapons immediately or are barred from purchasing new ones.

That's probably the most important reason for the extreme
difference.
The Swiss State does background checks and psych and medical
evaluations on ALL it's citizens.
I would have thought those numbers would be higher. Psychotics
make up a little over 1% of a population. Which would be almost
100.000 people (half of which would be male). They are probably exempt
from military service, and hence also not allowed to own guns.
Stop the loony's "right to buy guns" and the problem
disappears.
[]'s

PS crazy follow-up groups removed
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[Shadow]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 18:47:23 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>On 3/29/2018 6:23 PM, Shadow wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 20:50:12 +0000 (UTC), RW NRA Gunloon
>> <RichG...@trump.ru> wrote:
>>
>>> Swiss authorities have a list of about 2,000 individuals they suspect of
>>> being willing to commit shootings. All of them are frequently approached
>>> by authorities, along with psychologists, and are forced to hand over
>>> their weapons immediately or are barred from purchasing new ones.
>>
>> That's probably the most important reason for the extreme
>> difference.
>> The Swiss State does background checks and psych and medical
>> evaluations on ALL it's citizens.
>> I would have thought those numbers would be higher. Psychotics
>> make up a little over 1% of a population. Which would be almost
>> 100.000 people (half of which would be male). They are probably exempt
>> from military service, and hence also not allowed to own guns.
>> Stop the loony's "right to buy guns" and the problem
>> disappears.
>

>'Loony'. Hmm. The devil is in the definition...

Personally I think sane individual SHOULD be able to purchase
guns.

Psychotics and extreme sociopaths are very easy to detect. Do
you have trouble at all identifying them in the newsgroups ? So much
easier for a trained psychiatrist.
There will always be the "fringe" individuals who might or
might not become violent under certain conditions, but I'm sure the
homicide numbers will plunge if the US takes mandatory mental
screening seriously.

Anyone disagree ?
There you go ... easy, huh ?
[]'s

[Shadow]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 22:29:10 -0400, Rhino
<no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:

>On 2018-03-29 6:47 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 3/29/2018 6:23 PM, Shadow wrote:

>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 20:50:12 +0000 (UTC), RW NRA Gunloon
>>> <RichG...@trump.ru> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Swiss authorities have a list of about 2,000 individuals they suspect of
>>>> being willing to commit shootings. All of them are frequently approached
>>>> by authorities, along with psychologists, and are forced to hand over
>>>> their weapons immediately or are barred from purchasing new ones.
>>>
>>>     That's probably the most important reason for the extreme
>>> difference.
>>>     The Swiss State does background checks and psych and medical
>>> evaluations on ALL it's citizens.
>>>     I would have thought those numbers would be higher. Psychotics
>>> make up a little over 1% of a population. Which would be almost
>>> 100.000 people (half of which would be male). They are probably exempt
>>> from military service, and hence also not allowed to own guns.
>>>     Stop the loony's "right to buy guns" and the problem
>>> disappears.
>>

>> 'Loony'.  Hmm.  The devil is in the definition...
>>

>To many on the left, the mere desire to own a gun is proof positive that
>the person desiring the gun *is* a loony.

Crazy people on the "left" too. They would not be allowed to
purchase guns either if they were screened by mandatory mental
examinations.
I maintain that mandatory mental screening should be
implemented for ANYONE that wants to buy a gun. And that only a
psychotic or dangerous sociopath would disagree with that. A little 2
hour test once every 2 years or so hurts no one.
Everyone that passes should be allowed to purchase a gun. Not
a much of a deterrent in case the government decides to go rogue and
uses drones, bombs, nerve gas or tanks but it will make them think
twice.

You realize you are deflecting from the thread ? Or maybe not.
Maybe you need that test.
[]'s

[Shadow]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:00:58 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak
<esta...@att.net> wrote:

Pertinent text removed so replaced.

>>> Psychotics and extreme sociopaths are very easy to detect. Do
>>>you have trouble at all identifying them in the newsgroups ? So much
>>>easier for a trained psychiatrist.

>>> Shadow

>>
>> but I'm sure the homicide numbers will plunge if the US takes
>> mandatory mental screening seriously. Anyone disagree?
>

>As long as they have their day in court.

After killing half a dozen children ? Strange logic. I suppose
you think that will bring them back to life.

Thank you for your feedback. 3 positively identified so far.
Like I said - easy.

[Shadow]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 05:34:12 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak
<esta...@att.net> wrote:

Relevant text removed by poster again .....

ON topic newsgroups entered AGAIN.

>> Shadow
>> > Ed Stasiak

>> >
>> > As long as they have their day in court.
>>
>> After killing half a dozen children?
>

>No, before they’re judged to be crazy and stripped of their
>Constitutional and human rights, or are you opposed to the
>concept of due process?

I suppose as long as killing half a dozen children is
considered a "human right", lawyers will be able to afford nice cars.

I'm sorry, it's still 3. Posting crazy twice won't increase
the psycho stats.
Psychosis is a medical condition, BTW. I don't believe judges
have the necessary training to determine who is or who isn't
psychotic. It's why in Switzerland the screening is done by the State
Medical System.
Very few judges would rule that permitting a medically
certified psychotic or sociopath to buy a gun is a "Constitutional and
human right".

[Shadow]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:22:11 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>Hate to say it, but, if it's still fallible, corruptible humans doing
>the certifying, yeah, I'd worry.

What percentage of doctors do you think are "corruptible"
enough to lose their licenses for selling false certificates ?
They'd be easy to spot, as their "patients" would commit more
crimes than the average "patient".
I never said it would eliminate all murders. Switzerland DOES
have murders. If you exclude suicides, < 1/7th of US stats. Suicide
rates are very similar.

[Shadow]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:59:10 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak
<esta...@att.net> wrote:

>> Shadow
>> > Ed Stasiak

>> >
>> > No, before they’re judged to be crazy and stripped of their
>> > Constitutional and human rights, or are you opposed to the
>> > concept of due process?
>>

>> Psychosis is a medical condition, BTW. I don't believe judges
>> have the necessary training to determine who is or who isn't
>> psychotic. It's why in Switzerland the screening is done by the
>> State Medical System.
>>
>> Very few judges would rule that permitting a medically certified
>> psychotic or sociopath to buy a gun is a "Constitutional and
>> human right".
>

>It's the same here. The judges are basing their decision on the
>findings of psychiatrists who are brought in to exam the subject
>who is accused of being crazy. The judges are not personally
>carrying out psychological exams themselves.

Nobody will ever ACCUSED of being crazy. It's like being
ACCUSED of being 5 ft 10". A patient either is psychotic or is not
psychotic. It's NOT a criminal offence. So no need for a defense
lawyer. If you disagree with an evaluation, just apply for another by
a different professional.
He/she didn't measure me right. I'm 6'4", NOT 5'10".
"No problem. We'll send you to another professional measurer"
...... "Hey, you're right, you ARE 6'4". Corrected. Here's your
license to buy really long beds."
>
>But that’s not what we’re talking about, what the anti-gun fundies
>want is to bypass due process completely and allow random,
>nameless and faceless government bureaucrats (who I’ll point
>out, also aren’t trained psychiatrists…) to delete any American’s
>Constitutional and human rights with the click of a mouse.

No, that's not what I was saying. A lot on the police force
and other government bureaucrats are psychopaths/sociopaths. No way
they should be the ones to examine the applicants.
>
>Essentially, they want to implement a blanket “Do Not Fly List” on
>a nation wide basis applying to guns with no arrests, no prosecution,
>no judges, no defense lawyers, no psych exams. No Due Process.

I don't care what "they" want. A simple 2 hour mental
examination every two years or so by a trained STATE psychiatrist
would wean out most of (but not all - obviously) the people that are
more likely to use guns to commit crimes. And anybody too scared to be
examined should automatically have his permit to purchase guns (and
his guns) confiscated.
Who on earth would be scared to do a psych exam that could
save thousands of lives other than a seriously mentally ill citizen ?
I do them every time I renew my driver's license. My gardener
failed his. He asked for a re-evaluation. Failed again. He IS a
sociopath, so the doctors got that one right. Note the second doctor
never gets to know it's a re-evaluation, so there is no bias.

[moviePig]

Wait... your driver's exam includes a psych test? Of what sort?

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Just Wondering]

On 3/31/2018 9:45 AM, Shadow wrote:
>
> I don't care what "they" want. A simple 2 hour mental
> examination every two years or so by a trained STATE psychiatrist
> would wean out most of (but not all - obviously) the people that are
> more likely to use guns to commit crimes. And anybody too scared to be
> examined should automatically have his permit to purchase guns (and
> his guns) confiscated.
> Who on earth would be scared to do a psych exam that could
> save thousands of lives other than a seriously mentally ill citizen ?

Why limit it to gun violence? Take it to the next level.
A simple 2 hour mental examination by a trained psychiatrist
would wean out most of the people who are more likely to
commit crimes. Anybody who refuses to be examined should
automatically have his freedom confiscated. After all,
why would anyone other than someone with serious mental
illness balk at this?

> I do them every time I renew my driver's license. My gardener
> failed his. He asked for a re-evaluation. Failed again. He IS a
> sociopath, so the doctors got that one right.

Are you saying your state law requires people to submit
to a psychiatric examination to get a driver's license?

[BTR1701]

In article <ml9vbdt3mbs8fcc33...@4ax.com>,

Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:59:10 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak
> <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> Shadow
> >> > Ed Stasiak
> >> >
> >> > No, before they’re judged to be crazy and stripped of their
> >> > Constitutional and human rights, or are you opposed to the
> >> > concept of due process?
> >>
> >> Psychosis is a medical condition, BTW. I don't believe judges
> >> have the necessary training to determine who is or who isn't
> >> psychotic. It's why in Switzerland the screening is done by the
> >> State Medical System.
> >>
> >> Very few judges would rule that permitting a medically certified
> >> psychotic or sociopath to buy a gun is a "Constitutional and
> >> human right".
> >
> >It's the same here. The judges are basing their decision on the
> >findings of psychiatrists who are brought in to exam the subject
> >who is accused of being crazy. The judges are not personally
> >carrying out psychological exams themselves.
>
> Nobody will ever ACCUSED of being crazy. It's like being
> ACCUSED of being 5 ft 10". A patient either is psychotic or is not
> psychotic. It's NOT a criminal offence. So no need for a defense
> lawyer. If you disagree with an evaluation, just apply for another by
> a different professional.
>

> No, that's not what I was saying. A lot on the police force
> and other government bureaucrats are psychopaths/sociopaths. No way
> they should be the ones to examine the applicants.

You seem to be using the terms 'psychopath' and 'psychotic'
interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing. They are, in fact, two
very different things.

> I don't care what "they" want. A simple 2 hour mental
> examination every two years or so by a trained STATE psychiatrist

Why would I want to hinge my constitutional rights on the results of an
exam by a psychiatrist who wasn't good enough to succeed in the private
sector and had to settle for working for a government salary?

> would wean out most of (but not all - obviously) the people that are
> more likely to use guns to commit crimes. And anybody too scared to be
> examined should automatically have his permit to purchase guns (and
> his guns) confiscated.

Sorry, officer. My gun was stolen.

[BTR1701]

In article <4lRvC.10871$us1....@fx03.iad>,

This idiot lives in Brazil, the crime capital of South America, so
obviously what his government does works so well he thinks it should be
exported.

[Shadow]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 11:36:34 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak
<esta...@att.net> wrote:

>> Shadow
>>><CUT_IRRELEVANT_MATERIAL>

>>
>> A simple 2 hour mental examination every
>> two years or so by a trained STATE psychiatrist

<would prevent a lot of/maybe most of the mentally ill from purchasing
guns>
>
>Hmm, well if it only takes two hours and is only done every two years, how
>much of a hassle could it be?

None at all. But it would scare the sht out of dangerous
sociopaths. They'd probably oppose, maybe violently.
The sedentary ones would remove relevant text and the
follow-up groups from any posts that support the triage.
Psychotics usually don't know they're psychotics, so they
wouldn't be a problem.
HTH

[Shadow]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:00:42 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
wrote:

Standard. IQ test, frustration levels, neurological
coordination, cognitive tests followed by a face-to-face interview.
Every 5 years. The interview is only mandatory for a
professional drivers's license, or when the first battery of written
exams shows strong psychopathic tendencies.
My gardener was a school bus driver. That requires a
professional licence. He was considered a "danger to himself and
others", by two independent evaluations. Why he's a gardener now.
He no longer has the "constitutional right" to kill and maim
children. I suppose he could use an axe ..... hum, maybe I should lock
them up somewhere.
TY. I'll do that.

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:56:45 -0700, in talk.politics.guns BTR1701
<atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>You seem to be using the terms 'psychopath' and 'psychotic'
>interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing. They are, in fact, two

>very different things. Why would I want to hinge my constitutional

>rights on the results of an exam by a psychiatrist who wasn't good
>enough to succeed in the private sector and had to settle for working

>for a government salary? Sorry, officer. My gun was stolen.

The easiest approach would be to limit firepower by limiting magazine
capacity and the type of gun that could be owned.

Besides that, universal background checks with registration would stop
the: "Sorry, officer. My gun was stolen," bit for the most part.
Agree that some will be stolen... that will happen. If your gun is
stolen and then you later show up with it, you have made a false
police report.

UBC is probably in your future as is gun registration. Neither
contradict even the most liberal interpretation of 2a. You'll scream
and kick, but it's coming.

As far as the psych exam, it would just be too expensive; who pays for
it? Just plug the loopholes and keep good records... that'll fix
*most* of the problems. If you want to get them all, you gotta repeal
2a and ban guns completely.

Jones


--
Quod si verum est, non dicere.

[BTR1701]

In article <9e13cdpi6kfvqh4dn...@4ax.com>,

!Jones <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote:

> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:56:45 -0700, in talk.politics.guns BTR1701
> <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >You seem to be using the terms 'psychopath' and 'psychotic'
> >interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing. They are, in fact,
> >two very different things.

> >Why would I want to hinge my constitutional rights on the results of
> >an exam by a psychiatrist who wasn't good enough to succeed in the
> >private sector and had to settle for working for a government salary?

> >Sorry, officer. My gun was stolen.

> Besides that, universal background checks with registration would stop
> the: "Sorry, officer. My gun was stolen," bit for the most part.

No, it wouldn't. The moron I was replying to-- and which context you cut
out-- was saying that you'd have to pass a yearly psych test to *keep*
your gun. Which is where I said, "Sorry, officer. My gun was stolen" in
response to some bureaucrat suddenly declaring me mentally unfit so he
could confiscate it.

> Agree that some will be stolen... that will happen. If your gun is
> stolen and then you later show up with it, you have made a false
> police report.

No, it could also mean you recovered it.

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 22:19:53 -0700, in talk.politics.guns BTR1701
<atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>No, it wouldn't. The moron I was replying to-- and which context you cut
>out-- was saying that you'd have to pass a yearly psych test to *keep*
>your gun. Which is where I said, "Sorry, officer. My gun was stolen" in
>response to some bureaucrat suddenly declaring me mentally unfit so he

>could confiscate it. No, it could also mean you recovered it.

Well, *any* law depends on general compliance; that's essentially the
difference between civilization and a short, brutal existence. The
psych test won't work; however, a gun owner has to keep his or her
nose clean and this should be well-defined at the national level. The
days of "my guns are none of your business" are quickly ending; gun
rights with no responsibility have pretty well failed on every
possible level.

Most of the time, if a person will choose a life of violent crime,
they have done so by age 21; they'll usually have a pretty long record
by age 25. Idea being that people don't *usually* change radically...
not suddenly, anyway.

We'd do a lot better to tighten the reporting. What, exactly,
constitutes a reported infraction? That was the issue with the
Sulphur Springs shooter; article 132 of the UCMJ simply defines
assault and the conviction was a misdemeanor... under existing law it
did not have to be reported. In my opinion, any infraction that
revokes (or might revoke) a drivers license (DWI, for example) should
also remove guns; if you can't be trusted with a car, I'd prefer that
you not have guns, either.

But, as far as a yearly qualification... that's a waste of time.

[BTR1701]

In article <or24cddf9sggdn76s...@4ax.com>,

!Jones <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote:

> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 22:19:53 -0700, in talk.politics.guns BTR1701
> <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >No, it wouldn't. The moron I was replying to-- and which context you cut
> >out-- was saying that you'd have to pass a yearly psych test to *keep*
> >your gun. Which is where I said, "Sorry, officer. My gun was stolen" in
> >response to some bureaucrat suddenly declaring me mentally unfit so he
> >could confiscate it.

> >No, it could also mean you recovered it.
>
> Well, *any* law depends on general compliance

Which is what NY found out after Sandy Hook. They passed sweeping
confiscation laws and got about 15% compliance. The overwhelming number
of gun owners said fuck off.

> In my opinion, any infraction that revokes (or might revoke) a drivers
> license (DWI, for example) should also remove guns;

That's nonsense. Speeding has nothing to do with gun use.

> if you can't be trusted with a car, I'd prefer that you not have guns,
> either.

This will be another flashpoint of trouble between state and federal
governments. Federal law says any illegal drug use makes you a
prohibited possessor. Several states have legalized marijuana and people
are openly using it without realizing the federal government considers
that use grounds for stripping them of their 2nd Amendment rights.

[trotsky]

On 4/2/18 7:12 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <or24cddf9sggdn76s...@4ax.com>,
> !Jones <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote:
>
>> x-no-idiots: yes
>>
>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 22:19:53 -0700, in talk.politics.guns BTR1701
>> <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No, it wouldn't. The moron I was replying to-- and which context you cut
>>> out-- was saying that you'd have to pass a yearly psych test to *keep*
>>> your gun. Which is where I said, "Sorry, officer. My gun was stolen" in
>>> response to some bureaucrat suddenly declaring me mentally unfit so he
>>> could confiscate it.
>
>>> No, it could also mean you recovered it.
>>
>> Well, *any* law depends on general compliance
>
> Which is what NY found out after Sandy Hook. They passed sweeping
> confiscation laws and got about 15% compliance. The overwhelming number
> of gun owners said fuck off.
>
>> In my opinion, any infraction that revokes (or might revoke) a drivers
>> license (DWI, for example) should also remove guns;
>
> That's nonsense. Speeding has nothing to do with gun use.

That's nonsense, DWI has nothing to do with speeding, but can accompany
it. You're extra full of bullshit today, Jar Jar.

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 05:12:54 -0700, in talk.politics.guns BTR1701
<atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>Which is what NY found out after Sandy Hook. They passed sweeping
>confiscation laws and got about 15% compliance. The overwhelming number

>of gun owners said fuck off. That's nonsense. Speeding has nothing to
>do with gun use. This will be another flashpoint of trouble between

>state and federal governments. Federal law says any illegal drug use makes you a
>prohibited possessor. Several states have legalized marijuana and people
>are openly using it without realizing the federal government considers
>that use grounds for stripping them of their 2nd Amendment rights.

Well, 2a was about a "well regulated militia", not individual rights.
As far as the freedom to own guns, that can be, and always has been,
stripped for almost any violation even without a jury sentence. If
you become a citizen of another country and remain a legal US
resident, gun freedoms are stripped. If you desert from the army, gun
rights are stripped.

The reason speeding is related to gun use is because it speaks to
responsibility. If your drivers license is suspended, see how long
you keep your pilot's papers! ... same thing. If you're irresponsible
in one area, you probably are in all areas. If you're a doper, you
shouldn't have a gun.

Jones

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 07:22:53 -0500, in talk.politics.guns trotsky
<gms...@email.com> wrote:

>That's nonsense, DWI has nothing to do with speeding, but can accompany
>it. You're extra full of bullshit today, Jar Jar.

The point is that I can look at the way a person drives and tell you
how he or she will handle a gun.

Jones

[BTR1701]

In article <qch5cdhea0f7g1h16...@4ax.com>,

!Jones <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote:

> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 07:22:53 -0500, in talk.politics.guns trotsky
> <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >That's nonsense, DWI has nothing to do with speeding, but can accompany
> >it. You're extra full of bullshit today, Jar Jar.
>
> The point is that I can look at the way a person drives and tell you
> how he or she will handle a gun.

No, you can't.

[BTR1701]

In article <nsg5cdhgv8ku0fipm...@4ax.com>,

!Jones <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote:

> Well, 2a was about a "well regulated militia", not individual rights.

Neither I nor the Supreme Court agrees with you.

[Just Wondering]

On 4/2/2018 6:06 PM, !Jones wrote:
>
> Well, 2a was about a "well regulated militia", not individual rights.

That must by why it says, "The power of the states to arm
their militias shall not be infringed."
Oh, wait, it says no such thing. Never mind.

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 00:07:37 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <JustWo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>That must by why it says, "The power of the states to arm
>their militias shall not be infringed."
>Oh, wait, it says no such thing. Never mind.

My goodness, JW! This is a breakthrough! I mean, I see evidence that
you have actually read it and paid some attention to semantics; I have
never seen you do that before.

Let's take a careful look at United States history focusing on the
debates that were swirling in the latter decade of the 18th century,
shall we?

[Just Wondering]

On 4/3/2018 6:39 AM, !Jones wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 Just Wondering wrote:
>
>> That must by why it says, "The power of the states to arm
>> their militias shall not be infringed."
>> Oh, wait, it says no such thing. Never mind.
>
> My goodness, JW! This is a breakthrough! I mean, I see evidence that
> you have actually read it and paid some attention to semantics; I have
> never seen you do that before.
>
> Let's take a careful look at United States history focusing on the
> debates that were swirling in the latter decade of the 18th century,
> shall we?

Such as the concept that the Second Amendment was part of the Bill of
Rights, a group of amendments intended to protect individual rights?

[Shadow]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 19:06:17 -0500, !Jones <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote:

>x-no-idiots: yes
>

>

>Well, 2a was about a "well regulated militia", not individual rights.
>As far as the freedom to own guns, that can be, and always has been,
>stripped for almost any violation even without a jury sentence. If
>you become a citizen of another country and remain a legal US
>resident, gun freedoms are stripped. If you desert from the army, gun
>rights are stripped.
>
>The reason speeding is related to gun use is because it speaks to
>responsibility. If your drivers license is suspended, see how long
>you keep your pilot's papers! ... same thing. If you're irresponsible
>in one area, you probably are in all areas. If you're a doper, you
>shouldn't have a gun.
>

At last, someone that understands .....
I suspect the ones that disagree are shtting themselves at the
thought of having to do a psych evaluation. Because they KNOW they
won't pass.

[Shadow]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 22:19:53 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>No, it wouldn't. The moron I was replying to-- and which context you cut
>out-- was saying that you'd have to pass a yearly psych test to *keep*
>your gun.

I have no idea who that was. I suggested every two years.
Every 5 years would eliminate most of the psychotics, and a large
number of the sociopaths.

> Which is where I said, "Sorry, officer. My gun was stolen" in
>response to some bureaucrat suddenly declaring me mentally unfit so he
>could confiscate it.

If the guy registered the theft, and proved he kept it in a
safe place and not just lying around where any kid or felon could get
their hands on it, OK. Sht happens.
How many times does an individual have to get their gun stolen
before you would consider him too irresponsible to own a gun ?
"But I have the constitutional right to be reckless !!!!"
Yeah, right. You forgot your meds *again* .....

[Scout]

"Shadow" <S...@dow.br> wrote in message
news:823sbdt77bu0erfrq...@4ax.com...

Similarly they should be mandated for anyone that wishes to exercise free
speech, publish without censorship, meet in any assembly, would require a
warrant before any search, etc.

After all, if it's so vital, then such a condition should apply to the
exercise of ANY Constitutional right.

[Shadow]

Hey, your statement would make a great text for the exam.
People would have to analyze if there is a link between carrying guns
and free speech.
Can you think of any countries where free speech is allowed,
but the "right" to carry a gun is not ? If not, why not ?

[Scout]

"Shadow" <S...@dow.br> wrote in message

news:3f8dcdhk86o6ag8ie...@4ax.com...

They are both rights protected by the Bill of Rights within the Constitution
of the United States of America.

What more of a link do you need?

Oh, let me guess you want to impose double or even more standards for how
much we actually protect the rights which are to be totally protected under
the Bill of Rights.

[Shadow]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 02:28:21 -0400, "Scout"

You "forgot" to answer the question. In fact, you deleted it.
5 and counting.

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes

On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:05:14 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <JustWo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Such as the concept that the Second Amendment was part of the Bill of
>Rights, a group of amendments intended to protect individual rights?

Not exclusively *individual* rights; it limits government power. For
example, the right of the people to assemble peacefully is obviously a
collective right.

[Scout]

"!Jones" <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote in message
news:9e13cdpi6kfvqh4dn...@4ax.com...

> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 19:56:45 -0700, in talk.politics.guns BTR1701
> <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>You seem to be using the terms 'psychopath' and 'psychotic'
>>interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing. They are, in fact, two
>>very different things. Why would I want to hinge my constitutional
>>rights on the results of an exam by a psychiatrist who wasn't good
>>enough to succeed in the private sector and had to settle for working
>>for a government salary? Sorry, officer. My gun was stolen.
>
> The easiest approach would be to limit firepower by limiting magazine
> capacity and the type of gun that could be owned.
>
> Besides that, universal background checks with registration would stop
> the: "Sorry, officer. My gun was stolen," bit for the most part.
> Agree that some will be stolen... that will happen. If your gun is
> stolen and then you later show up with it, you have made a false
> police report.

No it doesn't. Just means he found it later.

[Scout]

"!Jones" <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote in message

news:or24cddf9sggdn76s...@4ax.com...

> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 22:19:53 -0700, in talk.politics.guns BTR1701
> <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>No, it wouldn't. The moron I was replying to-- and which context you cut
>>out-- was saying that you'd have to pass a yearly psych test to *keep*
>>your gun. Which is where I said, "Sorry, officer. My gun was stolen" in
>>response to some bureaucrat suddenly declaring me mentally unfit so he
>>could confiscate it. No, it could also mean you recovered it.
>
> Well, *any* law depends on general compliance; that's essentially the
> difference between civilization and a short, brutal existence. The
> psych test won't work; however, a gun owner has to keep his or her
> nose clean and this should be well-defined at the national level. The
> days of "my guns are none of your business" are quickly ending; gun
> rights with no responsibility have pretty well failed on every
> possible level.

Sweet, so list for us every possession and valuable you own, including where
it is stored, access codes, combinations, and instructions to access such
items.

After all, according to you there are no longer any rights to privacy,
unreasonable search, or even confiscation...

So show us how you comply with the world you envision.

[Scout]

"!Jones" <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote in message

news:qch5cdhea0f7g1h16...@4ax.com...

> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 07:22:53 -0500, in talk.politics.guns trotsky
> <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>That's nonsense, DWI has nothing to do with speeding, but can accompany
>>it. You're extra full of bullshit today, Jar Jar.
>
> The point is that I can look at the way a person drives and tell you
> how he or she will handle a gun.

Bullshit.

[Scout]

"!Jones" <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote in message

news:nsg5cdhgv8ku0fipm...@4ax.com...

> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 05:12:54 -0700, in talk.politics.guns BTR1701
> <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>Which is what NY found out after Sandy Hook. They passed sweeping
>>confiscation laws and got about 15% compliance. The overwhelming number
>>of gun owners said fuck off. That's nonsense. Speeding has nothing to
>>do with gun use. This will be another flashpoint of trouble between
>>state and federal governments. Federal law says any illegal drug use makes
>>you a
>>prohibited possessor. Several states have legalized marijuana and people
>>are openly using it without realizing the federal government considers
>>that use grounds for stripping them of their 2nd Amendment rights.
>
> Well, 2a was about a "well regulated militia", not individual rights.

"...the right of the people...."

are you claiming "the people" refers to the well regulated militia?


If so, then you don't get to vote Johns since only the people get to vote
and they are the well regulated militia.

Your bullshit assertion has been addressed by the Supreme Court of the
United States and found to be utterly without merit.

[Scout]

"!Jones" <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote in message

news:c7t6cd1b615le9bbn...@4ax.com...

Go for it, and show us that ONLY the militia were to have guns and other
arms, and then ONLY when actually in service.

Maybe you can explain how they were to appear bearing arms provided by
themselves... if they couldn't even have guns until in militia service?

[Scout]

"!Jones" <jo...@fobahor.com> wrote in message

news:86jfcdt88ibu3huun...@4ax.com...

So how does one person, who doesn't have a right to assemble, join in
assembly with another person, who doesn't have a right to assemble, in order
to form the assembly you then claim *poof* suddenly has a right that neither
individual had to form the assembly in the first place?

Because if no person has the right to assemble... then NO assembly could
ever be formed if the law prohibited individuals from assembling.

The notion that there exists any sort of "collective right" is a lame
attempt to deny such rights to individuals as if a group can somehow have
something that no individual can possess.

So in his desperation to deny people their right to keep and bear arms... he
would also deny them their right to assembly and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances.

But let's see what SCOTUS had to say on the matter.

""Right of the People." The first salient feature of the operative clause is
that it codifies a "right of the people." The unamended Constitution and the
Bill of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times, in the
First Amendment 's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment
's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar
terminology ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"). All
three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not
"collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through
participation in some corporate body."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.


".... All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual
rights...."

So no, despite Jones' assertion it is NOT obvious at all that the right to
assemble is reserved for some dubious "collective" but rather a right that
can be exercised at will by any person. Because even a single person can
still petition the government for a redress of grievances and doesn't
require any collective to do so.

[Scout]

"Shadow" <S...@dow.br> wrote in message

news:es28cddd5ietd1s83...@4ax.com...

And if the government should decide to administer a loyalty test in order to
vote?

Further, the government CAN impose a psych evaluation if they can show in
court reasonable cause to do so.

The problem is, you want people subjected to such without cause, and without
need simply to deny them their rights.

What other rights can the government then deny by requiring you to pass the
tests they establish for you?

Freedom of Speech? Press?

[Scout]

"Shadow" <S...@dow.br> wrote in message

news:j438cdh9qre4jeggh...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 22:19:53 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>>No, it wouldn't. The moron I was replying to-- and which context you cut
>>out-- was saying that you'd have to pass a yearly psych test to *keep*
>>your gun.
>
> I have no idea who that was. I suggested every two years.
> Every 5 years would eliminate most of the psychotics, and a large
> number of the sociopaths.

Just pick up the liberals... you would collect 90% right there.

[Scout]

"Shadow" <S...@dow.br> wrote in message

news:3f8dcdhk86o6ag8ie...@4ax.com...

Who needs a link?

After all, we can establish a link between free speech and all sorts of
crimes including riots, insurrection and even civil rebellion.

[Scout]

"Shadow" <S...@dow.br> wrote in message

news:j8tecd972ie7mgijs...@4ax.com...

The question is what other rights can be subjected to an arbitrary test....

[The Biden Disaster]

On 10 Jan 2022, "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>

>
>
>
> "Shadow" <S...@dow.br> wrote in message

> news:3f8dcdhk86o6ag8ie...@4ax.com...

> Who needs a link?
>
> After all, we can establish a link between free speech and all
sorts of
> crimes including riots, insurrection and even civil rebellion.

Like the links in Portland, Seattle and San Francisco?

Portland was virtually destroyed. Seattle and San Francisco became
feces covered festering monuments to Democratic party governance
failures.

[Nem Tudom]

On 1/17/2023 1:54 PM, The Biden Disaster wrote:

> Portland was virtually destroyed.

That's a lie. All the demos were concentrated on a couple of downtown
blocks. That was a couple of years ago. Now? Bupkis.

You obviously don't live in Portland, so fuck off.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

It's a crime-ridden shit hole of a city.

(NewsNation) — As leaders grapple with growing violence in Portland,
some business owners say they have been forced to shut down due to
crime.
DEC 6, 2022
Meanwhile, a store is drawing crowds of customers and long lines due
to its sales of psychedelic mushrooms, KPTV reported. It’s happening
even though it’s illegal in Oregon to operate and sell the
hallucinogenic component in mushrooms.

[Baxter]

Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in
news:cudeshdol074mfkff...@4ax.com:

You're behind the times - they raided and closed down that shop some time
ago. Because it was illegal and Dems/liberals DO believe in the Rule of
Law.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

LOL No, they don't. They HATE the Constitution, for example.

[Scout]

"Baxter" <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:tq7ogu$1fvu$5...@gioia.aioe.org...

>Because it was illegal and Dems/liberals DO believe in the Rule of
> Law.

And yet you hate the Constitution and seek to ignore the Rules of Law it
establishes, particularly as it applies to this newsgroup.. Our right to
keep and bear arms.

[Baxter]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:tq99f8
$vrrd$4...@dont-email.me:

Scut displays his stupidity.

[phil]

On 18 Jan 2023, Baxter <bax02_s...@baxcode.com> posted some
news:tqabjh$15o2$2...@gioia.aioe.org:

At least he didn't wave his penis and really insult your womanhood.

[Kenzel]

phil <ph...@batstool.com> wrote in news:tqaq0c$99kq$3...@paganini.bofh.team:

Baxter has a penis? That works? Rudy should ask for his number.