Who said this; "Only a disarmed people can be oppressed"?

[Furunculus]

And this; "The real purpose of this initiative is to weaken the militia army and withdraw the state's confidence in its citizens,"

No, not a yank as first impulse might lead one to presume, but rather a Swiss citizen:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...744837,00.html

The Swiss vote in a referendum this Sunday on a measure to collect military-issue weapons. The aim is to store guns in public arsenals, rather than at home -- and cut down on domestic violence. But it could end a tradition of gun ownership associated with Swiss independence and the legend of William Tell.

Switzerland is an exception to many clichés about Europe, but gun control is one of the most unexpected. In stark contrast to the neighboring European Union, and in spite of the country's placid image of cow pastures, Alpine landscapes and official neutrality in war, every third Swiss household owns a gun.

That may, however, change on Sunday, when Swiss voters decide on a measure to end a tradition of sending military-issue rifles home with reserve soldiers. Most Swiss men are reservists because Switzerland has a mandatory draft and only a small standing army. Sunday's "weapons initiative" is aimed at rounding up those weapons and storing them in public arsenals. The idea is that the weapons can be retrieved in case of war, but not used for impulsive domestic violence.

1. What do you think about Switzerland's gun policy?
2. What do you think Switzerland's answer should be?
3. What will you think about Switzerland if you don't get the answer you want?
4. How would you like your government to react if you don't get the answer you want from the Swiss?

My response:
1. Fine with me, i've been to Switzerland and met reservists who have an assault rifle at home. *shrugs*
He was the eminently respectable CTO of an international biogas equipment supplier
2. Up to them, i am not a citizen of Switzerland
3. No change, i respect their deeply representative form of democracy, and that democracy made a choice
4. No response needed, an internal matter

[HoreTore]

Egypt just proved that a tyrannical oppressor can be brought down without a single gun.

[Strike For The South]

So you want them to keep their guns and you say you will respect there sovrigenty

Groundbreaking

I'm glad you Brits are finally learning not to meddle

I like you but 3 & 4 made me spit 2nd breakfeast out

[Greyblades]

I'm glad you Brits are finally learning not to meddle.

Now if the son would learn the lesson of the father we'd be golden.

[Furunculus]

I like you but 3 & 4 made me spit 2nd breakfeast out

why

[Strike For The South]

why

Why should any country have any say on such a benign domestic matter? The UKs response should be "good for the Swiss, now lets get a nice english breakfeast with a spot of earl grey and then maybe later we can watch the muslims riot becuase the perfume ad showed ankle"

What will I think about Switzerland? Oh democracy worked again today! Yay!

[Greyblades]

Why should any country have any say on such a benign domestic matter? The UKs response should be "good for the Swiss, now lets get a nice english breakfeast with a spot of earl grey and then maybe later we can watch the muslims riot becuase the perfume ad showed ankle"

Wait... isn't that exactly what he said he thinks should be done?

[HoreTore]

Yet again, Louis wins the thread.

[Furunculus]

The UKs response should be "good for the Swiss, now lets get a nice english breakfeast with a spot of earl grey and then maybe later we can watch the muslims riot becuase the perfume ad showed ankle"

Why should any country have any say on such a benign domestic matter?

What will I think about Switzerland? Oh democracy worked again today! Yay!

While i agree;

I ask the question because Switzerland's neighbours have decided to stick their nose into democratically decided internal matters before, such as the minarets referenda, so;

I am trying to assess if the principles demonstrated in one instance are applied equally to the other.

--------------------------

i might remind you that one of your contributions to that debate was as follows:

Clearly those posters imply the want to kleep Switzerland archeticture intact.

After seeing those and the minaret itself I'm now convinced that this is just about teh browns.

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. If the GOP came out with those posters it would be a death kneel.

How can they get away with such blatant racism and still have the referendum pass? I realize they are a fringe party but they were cleary strong enough to get this passed.

Switzerland has prided itself as being a European metling pot but I guess that only counts if you're a little bit pink

[Louis VI the Fat]

While i agree;

I ask the question because Switzerland's neighbours have decided to stick their nose into democratically decided internal matters before, such as the minarets referenda, so;

I am trying to assess if the principles demonstrated in one instance are applied equally to the other.

National sovereignity has become an object of perennial alarmism, not to say outright hysteria. The slightest international harmonisation of policy, a mere whiff of foreign interests being taken into account in a national debate, foreigners 'sticking their nose in' - to the more populist European right and left this amounts to foreign meddling, to enemies at the gate, catapulting massive stones to breach the great walls of national sovereignity.



In reality, responsibilities and possibilities, and thus policies, of European countries are intimately tied, as a matter of course. So much so that international cooperation stands completely aloof of these populist reservations.

For example, neutral Switzerland is not an EU member. Regardless of that, Switzerland implements an enormous amount of European law. As a result the country is mostly indistinguishable from an EU member state.
Of course it would be grossly unfair if Switzerland would receive these European services for free. So Switzerland pays the EU hundreds of millions annually for regulatory and administrative services rendered, for the EU legislation which it adopts. Switzerland even pays billions towards EU structural funds, that is, subsidies for less developed EU regions.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I ask the question because Switzerland's neighbours have decided to stick their nose into democratically decided internal matters before, such as the minarets referenda, so;

I am trying to assess if the principles demonstrated in one instance are applied equally to the other.

Speaking of sovereignty....


As is customary, there were great differences between French and German Switzerland. More specifically, the political dividing line in Switzerland is young/female/urban/French/progressive/Protestant versus old/male/rural/German/conservative/Catholic.

Switzerland is just a confederacy, should the Germans have this much say over the French cantons? Or the many peasants in their valleys over the cities?


Mind that the vote of the ultra-conservative Swiss peasantry prevented female suffrage all the way until...1971. To the despair of those on the perennial losing side in Switzerland, the young/female/urban/French/progressive/Protestant.

[Louis VI the Fat]

1. What do you think about Switzerland's gun policy?
I applaud Switzerland for upholding the traditional Republican ideal of a well regulated citizen militia, necessary for maintaining a free republic, to membership of which gun ownership is tied, and limited.

2. What do you think Switzerland's answer should be?
Store the arms in public arsenals. The best of both worlds. The arms are still in the hands of the public, but out of reach for impulsive domestic violence.

3. What will you think about Switzerland if you don't get the answer you want?
I shall hold Switzerland in contempt forever and never talk to a Swiss person ever again.

4. How would you like your government to react if you don't get the answer you want from the Swiss?
We shall have to invade.