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

[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.

[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.

[Strike For The South]

Yet again, Louis wins the thread.

Louis saw my first post and went from there

pishaw

[ajaxfetish]

Well, it's being decided by referendum, so whatever the Swiss people want is what should happen. Public sovereignty ftw.

Ajax

[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

[HoreTore]

Well, it's being decided by referendum, so whatever the Swiss people want is what should happen. Public sovereignty ftw.

Ajax

Why?

Democracy is not so simple as tyranny of the majority, democracy is built on respect for minority positions, ie. forging policy acceptable to all.

[Furunculus]

and yet people often forget that it is the "representative" part of representative-democracy that is the important word, for the latter is only a mechanism, whereas the former is what brings about legitimacy.

[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.

[Ronin]

I wouldn´t want to live in a country that has such a permissive view towards firearms...specially things like assault rifles...

but the fact is that I don´t live there....so it isn´t my problem really.

[lars573]

1. What do you think about Switzerland's gun policy?
It worked for them in the past. If it needs tinkering to suit the needs of the modern society, then tinker away.

2. What do you think Switzerland's answer should be?
I'd need more information, specifically the rates of domestic gun violence among reservists. Otherwise it's not my buisness to comment.

3. What will you think about Switzerland if you don't get the answer you want?
I can see the merit's of either public arsenals or home storage. But as here is a related and interesting aside. There is a Canadian documentary series about the Hell's Angel's. And one episode about their expansion from Canada (where they were the only national criminal group) into Europe. Sweden kept militia arms in public arsenals. So that reservists could get to their infantry weapons quickly in the event of a soviet invasion. The Hell's Angel's in Sweden took to looting these public arsenals to arm their thugs for gang wars over drug trade. And this is my only qualm over public arsenals. Having fully stocked infantry small arms where criminals could, if they put their minds to it, get hold of them. And be as well armed as the Swiss army.

4. How would you like your government to react if you don't get the answer you want from the Swiss?
I'd be VERY upset if they reacted at all. What Switzerland does with it's militia arms is extremely far from any concern of her majesty's Canadian government.

[HoreTore]

The reason why weapon storages were looted by HA was not because the storages existed, but because the only security measures taken was a simple lock on a wooden door. No, I'm not kidding. That's how we store our weaponry now that the army is slowly and incompetently changing from a conscription mass infantry army to a technical proffesional one.

Heck, they've even looted weaponry directly from active army bases. You think a conscript earning ten bucks a day gives a crap about who comes and goes? Nah, they're way more interested in watching porn on their laptops.

[Beskar]

I agree with the proposed Swiss method of good control. Public Arsenals are the best place for weapons, not pointed at your family or neighbours.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've always wondered why they didn't do something similar in the USA. The idea is some concept of the people have the right to revolt, not the individual. So it makes sense that arms are kept in public and not private storage. Obviously they still have to be kept locally to prevent the central government having too strong control over them should the people ever end up fighting against it.

[PanzerJaeger]

I've always wondered why they didn't do something similar in the USA. The idea is some concept of the people have the right to revolt, not the individual. So it makes sense that arms are kept in public and not private storage. Obviously they still have to be kept locally to prevent the central government having too strong control over them should the people ever end up fighting against it.

You answered your own question. The power would transfer from the people to whoever has the keys to the arsenal.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You answered your own question. The power would transfer from the people to whoever has the keys to the arsenal.

idk, the text I believe goes:

"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."

Does that mean the people as in every individual, or a more abstract concept of the people. From what I know about resistance theories in the Early Modern period, the mainstream idea was more based on the latter, the idea of the people as a whole having a right to resist. That's what Rutherford said in Lex Rex and it was very popular with the founding fathers.

Surely if the guns were kept local it would be OK? Certainly, they would be able to defend states' rights that way. Let the people form militias and elect someone to keep the keys to the arms storage? That would also encourage them to work more together anyway if they ever did have to fight.

I do not like the way people in Britain are so complacent with the government, I would be happier if they had some system like the one I described in my above post. I don't know if its necessary to have them in individual households.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Founders of America believed the militia as in the 2nd amendment meant every male. "The people" in the text mean every individual, just like it does in every other amendment.

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

And I can drive across the US without ever needing an airbag.

The Swiss should not put their guns in public arsenals, which will increase access to criminals and is really just the first step to more gun regulation.

The idea that passing this law will lower suicides or domestic violence is stupid. Those committing suicide or violence will just use another violent tool. Blaming guns as the problem ignores the real problem and thus this avoids fixing the real problem by dealing with domestic violence.

Public arsenals removes arms from the people and give them to whoever has the keys.

CR

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Founders of America believed the militia as in the 2nd amendment meant every male. "The people" in the text mean every individual, just like it does in every other amendment.

Well it does mention right before a "well regulated Militia". This suggests to me more a local force than every guy keeping a shotgun under the bed.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't want to diverge this thread so I'll just post these links:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

http://volokh.com/posts/1199810389.shtml

http://volokh.com/2009/11/23/academi...f-in-mcdonald/

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well that's America Rabbit. But Switzerland is not a McRepublic. In Switzerland, as in other traditional republics, the right/duty to bear arms is tied to the responsibility of a well regulated citizen militia. The Swiss are not interested in American sophistry why one should really have an unrestricted right without the accompanying duty.



The consequence of gun storage in the homes of members of the Swisss militia are some very sad statistics about domestic violence, traumatised children, suicides.


As with the Minaret referendum, this referendum will be decided by women. To many men, gun ownership is tied to their identity. Weak and insecure, they need the substitute might of a gun to feel a strong, assertive man. Women suffer from no such complexes. So their priority is the safety of their families. Women will vote to move the guns out of the house, and into local arsenals.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't want to diverge this thread so I'll just post these links:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

http://volokh.com/posts/1199810389.shtml

http://volokh.com/2009/11/23/academi...f-in-mcdonald/

CR

Fair enough then.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well that's America Rabbit. But Switzerland is not a McRepublic. In Switzerland, as in other traditional republics, the right/duty to bear arms is tied to the responsibility of a well regulated citizen militia. The Swiss are not interested in American sophistry why one should really have an unrestricted right without the accompanying duty.

You also trot this line out, as though Americans are not fulfilling what you consider their duty when they own guns. Considering the reason for the second amendment, that would be overthrowing the government and/or resisting government tyranny. If Americans aren't fulfilling their duty, that means you think we ought to be overthrowing our government.

The consequence of gun storage in the homes of members of the Swisss militia are some very sad statistics about domestic violence, traumatised children, suicides.

Why don't you share some of those statistics; are the numbers worse than any other country?

This bill would only remove state issued weapons. People would still be free to keep their own guns at home.

Which, of course, means we will see calls for removing all guns to prevent domestic violence.

As with the Minaret referendum, this referendum will be decided by women. To many men, gun ownership is tied to their identity. Weak and insecure, they need the substitute might of a gun to feel a strong, assertive man. Women suffer from no such complexes. So their priority is the safety of their families. Women will vote to move the guns out of the house, and into local arsenals.

Any proof of that?

And if safety is a priority, why insist on removing the one tool that allows weaker people to hold off physically stronger people? That says irrationality to me.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

This is a poster for those against storing guns publicly. Aimed at insecure gun toting men, for whom taking away their substitute big gun amounts to a symbolic castration:






Here is a poster aimed at moving guns out of homes. Aimed at women and family men.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This is a poster for those against storing guns publicly. Aimed at insecure gun toting men, for whom taking away their substitute big gun amounts to a symbolic castration:

The measure is the government and people saying they do not trust the serfs "citizens" with guns - that they would indeed rather see the people powerless.

You keep saying insecure, but from what I've read written by both pro and anti-gun people, it's often the anti-gun folks who are more insecure around guns and the concept of using force to defend themselves. Maybe that's why they try to deny that right to others.

Here is a poster aimed at moving guns out of homes. Aimed at women and family men.

Ah, the appeal to emotion over reason and logic. Trying to sell the measure based on fear and not rational thought. Like something the TSA would use to justify their useless existence and constant invasions of privacy.

I couldn't help but note that you didn't address my queries for actual data on the subject.

CR