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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

CR

Nah, that is all just sillyness.

Your firearms are not the means by which you protect yourselves against government tyranny. That's just a fairytale with no bearing on the real world.

The duties of the 2nd amendment - provided it speaks of one in the first place - are to do with that pesky bit about a well-regulated militia.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.



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

But it IS all about emotion. As witness the posters themselves.

In the gun debate one picks a side, and then afterwards one finds the corresponding statistics and interpretation of the 2nd to back up one's position. So there is no more point in me dragging up elaborate studies that prove me right than there is in you showing otherwise.


Also, the NRA has polluted study of both gun related statistics and legal and historical interpretation of the 2nd amendment. There are so many gun advocates and they feel so passionate about gun rights, that they drown out gun restriction advocates.
What's more, the encroacment of politics into science is a much more worrying phenomenon in America than elsewhere. Every contentious subject is contaminated by the work of activists who seek not the truth, but to twist the truth to their politics. I blame too much private funding.

[drone]

I'm sure guns are used in domestic violence in Switzerland, but even that statistic doesn't mean much with respect to this referendum. The question is: how many of the government issued weapons are used illegally? That will tell you if this is really a problem, or the first step to completely disarming Swiss citizens.

[Husar]

I think they already voted against it:

ZURICH—Following an emotional debate over gun control, Swiss voters firmly rejected a referendum that would have forced soldiers to end the longstanding practice of keeping army-issue firearms at home and tightened restrictions over civilian gun ownership.

According to exit polls, 57% of voters rejected the initiative. The referendum sparked a heated debate over the right to bear arms in a country that has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...857662716.html

What's interesting is that some of you seem to argue that this is some kind of government oppression of the people, while in reality the initiative was started by a civil initiative and the article also states this:

The Swiss government opposed the referendum, arguing that soldiers are now allowed to store their weapons on base and that civilian gun possession laws—once very liberal—are now tight enough.

Seems like the only ones who want to completely disarm swiss citizens are a part of the swiss citizens themselves...

[Cute Wolf]

Nah, simple minded over pacifist leftist socialist gay nuts should be blamed.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Nah, that is all just sillyness.

Your firearms are not the means by which you protect yourselves against government tyranny. That's just a fairytale with no bearing on the real world.

So the American Revolution is just a fairy tale?

The duties of the 2nd amendment - provided it speaks of one in the first place - are to do with that pesky bit about a well-regulated militia.

Actually, no. The amendment does not impose any duty on the people any more than it requires people to be part of a militia to have a gun.

But it IS all about emotion. As witness the posters themselves.

In the gun debate one picks a side, and then afterwards one finds the corresponding statistics and interpretation of the 2nd to back up one's position.

I pick my side based on the only intellectually honest position on the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

But it IS all about emotion. As witness the posters themselves.

So emotion - the emotion of guns, of fears hyped by anti-gun people, are more important than the actual facts?

Also, the NRA has polluted study of both gun related statistics and legal and historical interpretation of the 2nd amendment. There are so many gun advocates and they feel so passionate about gun rights, that they drown out gun restriction advocates.

So, having a majority of people feel passionately about an issue and stopping the other side from getting their way in a democracy is pollution?

I think they already voted against it:

Huzzah!

Seems like the only ones who want to completely disarm swiss citizens are a part of the swiss citizens themselves...

There's a lot of stupid people in the world.

CR

[Greyblades]

So the American Revolution is just a fairy tale?

Hah, if only....

[PanzerJaeger]

I think they already voted against it:

Excellent.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Nah, simple minded over pacifist leftist socialist gay nuts should be blamed.

The referendum was supported by women's groups, churches, and doctors.

A doctor working in first aid knows, he knows what is male adolescent fantasy and what is reality. Reality in first aid is treating shot wounds of children, drunks, family feuds. A doctor never gets to see those stopped criminals or government tyrants that are so prevalent in the realm of male fantasy.

Women know too. They know about domestic violence. They know that the men women and children need to fear most are - so very sadly! - not strangers, but their family and friends. In all statistics of violence, women need to fear the men close to them more than the anonymous stranger. If you want to protect women from criminals, then help women to get the guns out of the home.

Last are the churches. Churches in Western Europe are on the whole socially progressive. Protective of the weak.


But do call them all socialist gay nuts if you must.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So the American Revolution is just a fairy tale?

Dear oh dear.

The American colonists did not have an unrestricted right to bear arms. This is something which they secured for themselves after the revolution. A revolution which was succesful despite their not having guns.


More important are the crude notions about dictatorships and tyranny. Dictatorships are not instaklled and maintained by brutally opressing a disarmed population. Dictatorships are maintained because people support them. When they lack popular support, they crumble. It was not guns that brought down the Berlin Wall. Or Mubarak. Or European governments in 1968, 1848, 1830, 1789 etc

The idea that America is protected against tyranny by a few fat middle aged guys running around with guns in the Idaho Rockies is...well...best left to their own fantasy.

[HoreTore]

I believe cute wolf tried to make a funny, Louis...

[Louis VI the Fat]

I believe cute wolf tried to make a funny, Louis...

Ai, I missed that.



I blame it on Rabbit.

[Furunculus]

I think they already voted against it:

What's interesting is that some of you seem to argue that this is some kind of government oppression of the people, while in reality the initiative was started by a civil initiative and the article also states this:

Seems like the only ones who want to completely disarm swiss citizens are a part of the swiss citizens themselves...

good for them.

[Furunculus]

.......................................... double post.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Dear oh dear.

The American colonists did not have an unrestricted right to bear arms. This is something which they secured for themselves after the revolution. A revolution which was succesful despite their not having guns.

They did have a lot of firearms, though.

More important are the crude notions about dictatorships and tyranny. Dictatorships are not instaklled and maintained by brutally opressing a disarmed population. Dictatorships are maintained because people support them. When they lack popular support, they crumble. It was not guns that brought down the Berlin Wall. Or Mubarak. Or European governments in 1968, 1848, 1830, 1789 etc

And what of Hungary in 1956? Or a bunch of other uprisings crushed because the government did not back down in the face of protests?

It's nice when dictatorships are ended without violence, but that is not always the case.

The idea that America is protected against tyranny by a few fat middle aged guys running around with guns in the Idaho Rockies is...well...best left to their own fantasy.

You're the first one to bring up that idea.

By the by, I have yet to see any statistics indicating this referendum was anything other than fear-fueled hysteria devoid of factual foundation.

CR

[Greyblades]

They did have a lot of firearms, though.

Yep, hunting rifles, militia issued muskets and a variety of weapons left over from the 7 years war; either issed to then ex british soldiers and stuff salvaged by the locals from abandoned battlefields.

Still took the french giving you standard issue muskets and cannon to win though.

[Samurai Waki]

Yep, hunting rifles, militia issued muskets and a variety of weapons left over from the 7 years war; either issed to then ex british soldiers and stuff salvaged by the locals from abandoned battlefields.

Still took the french giving you standard issue muskets and cannon to win though.

I wouldn't count out the French's advisory role in the war either, American soldiers needed to be taught how to take out the British in the open field, something they didn't do often, and weren't very good at. But for that time a necessity, it wasn't enough to run around in the backwoods and take pot shots at British Soldiers Guerilla warfare style, they needed to show the British they could take them for real.

[Louis VI the Fat]

They did have a lot of firearms, though.



And what of Hungary in 1956? Or a bunch of other uprisings crushed because the government did not back down in the face of protests?

It's nice when dictatorships are ended without violence, but that is not always the case.

CR

I think you have become so focused on guns in your outlook that you overlook the more powerful workings of autocracies. Communism in Eastern Europe did not endure because of disarmed popyulations. It endured because millions worked in the secret service. Because the system rewarded those working for it, and punished those working against it. It worked because the alternatives had discredited themselves. It worked because of propaganda and every shortcoming of human nature.

Even disregarding the foreign tanks which crushed Hungary, there still remains the issue that there were plenty of arms in Hungary in 1956. There always are. There are always enough guns, in all dictatorshipships. And they are not wielded by martians or foreigners, but by the people themselves, their armies. The deciding issue then is whose side those with arms chose, whether there is civilian control over the army.


There are only a few very specific circumstances where an armed populace is a detriment to tyranny. Such as a foreign occupation in its early stages, before general accomodation has set in. On the whole, and in certainly in America, it is just a silly fairytale that private firearms prevent tyranny.

By the by, I have yet to see any statistics indicating this referendum was anything other than fear-fueled hysteria devoid of factual foundation.

Firstly, I claim it is the no-vote is fear-fueled hysteria devoid of factual foundation, mistaking an electoral wish to curb domestic violence and suicide for a tyrannical disarmament of the population.

As for statistics, try this one: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf


Mind that Switzerland is a very tranquil, very happy society. Despite that, Switzerlanmd has some very surprising, very depressing statistics concerning homivcide rates, gun violence, and suicide both in genral and fireamrs related.
Some are determined to end their life. They will find a way somehow. But many suicides are done on a whim. A few difficult days, wrong medication, drugs or alcohol, a family fight. The availability of an instant, clean method really does push up Switzerland's suicide rate.

[Strike For The South]

Focusing soley on the "revolution" is so passe

A gun is a tool

[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.

[PanzerJaeger]

Some are determined to end their life. They will find a way somehow. But many suicides are done on a whim. A few difficult days, wrong medication, drugs or alcohol, a family fight. The availability of an instant, clean method really does push up Switzerland's suicide rate.

Is this really a reason to strip a right/privilege from the vast majority of the population that has not and will not use a gun for suicidal purposes?

Nearly everything - from cars to alcohol to speedboats - can be considered a contributing factor to stupid human behavior that results in injury and death. The ultimate responsibility for stupid human behavior is stupid humans, though.

It sounds selfish, and maybe it is, but I'm somewhat unwilling to sacrifice my own enjoyment (not to mention security) for a hypothetical drop in the suicide rate. I would, in fact, be more willing to return to prohibition (if it had a chance of success), as there are so many more innocent bystanders killed by drunks than guns. The fact is, gun deaths, even in the Wild West US, represent an incredibly tiny number of people in relation to the population. A cost/benefit analysis is in order.

[Louis VI the Fat]

...and the freedom of parents to choose which toys to buy for their chidren is subordinate by safety laws.

...and there are restrictions on alcohol to prevent some of its more adverse effects.





There are all sorts of restrictions responsible people have to endure to protect people against themselves. Sadly, guns are a totem subject to many men. Which means that moving those enormous army killing machines outside of the domestic sphere is not an option for men whose identity is tied to wielding that massive gun. Me I get the same feeling when I plug in my guitar, crank the volume up to eleven and rip off my shirt in front of the mirror. I instantly dream of rockstar greatness. A bit similar, perhaps, to Clint Eastwood fantasies of gun owners. But my fantasy doesn't kill!



Also, congratulations to the Swiss government. They managed to evade the cost of having to store the guns publicly. Much cheaper to have people store their army equipment at home. Well done to the government!

[PanzerJaeger]

You are aware that there are plenty of restrictions on guns here in the States too, right?

I don't understand the insulting characterizations of gun owners. Some of us just enjoy them, no macho fantasies or mental penis replacement involved.

[Strike For The South]

You are aware that there are plenty of restrictions on guns here in the States too, right?

I don't understand the insulting characterizations of gun owners. Some of us just enjoy them.

Yes but we all have insecurties about our manhood

Between this and the weights Im surpised every morning when I wake up and realize I havent sprouted a vagania

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think you have become so focused on guns in your outlook that you overlook the more powerful workings of autocracies. Communism in Eastern Europe did not endure because of disarmed popyulations. It endured because millions worked in the secret service. Because the system rewarded those working for it, and punished those working against it. It worked because the alternatives had discredited themselves. It worked because of propaganda and every shortcoming of human nature.

Even disregarding the foreign tanks which crushed Hungary, there still remains the issue that there were plenty of arms in Hungary in 1956. There always are. There are always enough guns, in all dictatorshipships. And they are not wielded by martians or foreigners, but by the people themselves, their armies. The deciding issue then is whose side those with arms chose, whether there is civilian control over the army.

And if this army, formed by the dictator and led by loyalists, doesn't choose the side of the people, then they're just SoL, hmm?

My point is that the deciding issue should never be "whose side those with arms chose". That puts the freedom of a country at the whims of a military force trained to oppress the people.

If everyone has a weapon, then everyone gets to be part of deciding which side wins.

There are only a few very specific circumstances where an armed populace is a detriment to tyranny. Such as a foreign occupation in its early stages, before general accomodation has set in. On the whole, and in certainly in America, it is just a silly fairytale that private firearms prevent tyranny.

Why should I give this or any of your other unfounded assertions in this thread any credence? America has prevented the rise of tyranny seen in a majority of other American nations. How can you say guns did not help prevent that?

Firstly, I claim it is the no-vote is fear-fueled hysteria devoid of factual foundation, mistaking an electoral wish to curb domestic violence and suicide for a tyrannical disarmament of the population.

As for statistics, try this one: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.full.pdf

Mind that Switzerland is a very tranquil, very happy society. Despite that, Switzerlanmd has some very surprising, very depressing statistics concerning homivcide rates, gun violence, and suicide both in genral and fireamrs related.
Some are determined to end their life. They will find a way somehow. But many suicides are done on a whim. A few difficult days, wrong medication, drugs or alcohol, a family fight. The availability of an instant, clean method really does push up Switzerland's suicide rate.

There is no mistake. There are many anti-gun people who want to take away all civilian guns step by step. It is what has happened in countries around the world and certain American states.

The table in the study you link doesn't mention domestic violence at all in Switzerland. Have you then conceded that point?

Suicides (by all means) per capita in Switzerland are only a bit higher than France. Finland is noticeably higher than both. All of those three are higher than the US.

And why should the rights of others be curtailed because some want to harm themselves?

There are all sorts of restrictions responsible people have to endure to protect people against themselves. Sadly, guns are a totem subject to many men. Which means that moving those enormous army killing machines outside of the domestic sphere is not an option for men whose identity is tied to wielding that massive gun. Me I get the same feeling when I plug in my guitar, crank the volume up to eleven and rip off my shirt in front of the mirror. I instantly dream of rockstar greatness. A bit similar, perhaps, to Clint Eastwood fantasies of gun owners. But my fantasy doesn't kill!

How many times have you fired a gun, Louis? Do you own one? Do you want to own one?

CR

[Furunculus]

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.

if they feel that strongly about the matter they'd better have a civil war and seek partition..........................

switzerland has strong gun laws already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland

[Louis VI the Fat]

You are aware that there are plenty of restrictions on guns here in the States too, right?

I don't understand the insulting characterizations of gun owners. Some of us just enjoy them, no macho fantasies or mental penis replacement involved.

I am exploring new language to control reality. Guns, like abortion and gays, are not about statistics and reason. It is all about emotion.

The gun lobby (in America) has erected a ful discourse about government tyranny, constitutional minimalism, personal rights. The result is that any gun restriction is fought over in terms of government tyranny, of 'disarming the populace'.
Imagery from the very acitve gun lobby has even spilled over into general US political discourse. notably the contitutional minimalism, the thought of the federal gocvernemtn as opressive and out to curb your freedom, and governmental tyranny which needs to be resisted.


Reality in mature democracies is rather more mundane. For example, in Switzerland, the government is not at all interested in 'disarming the populace step by step'. In the conrary, the government would love for all conscripts to have to take care of their military equipment privately. For simple budgetary reasons. It is expensive to store the all thiose rifles publicly.

How many times have you fired a gun, Louis? Do you own one? Do you want to own one?

My manicure will not let me anywhere near a gun, it might ruin my nails. Guns are also noisy.

[gaelic cowboy]

Bah storing guns in the house is a big government plot I tell ye, sure if the government comes to oppress you then know the guns are

True believers keep them hid like my Grandad

[Major Robert Dump]

Fail. 56% against

[Crazed Rabbit]

I am exploring new language to control reality. Guns, like abortion and gays, are not about statistics and reason. It is all about emotion.

The gun lobby (in America) has erected a ful discourse about government tyranny, constitutional minimalism, personal rights. The result is that any gun restriction is fought over in terms of government tyranny, of 'disarming the populace'.
Imagery from the very acitve gun lobby has even spilled over into general US political discourse. notably the contitutional minimalism, the thought of the federal gocvernemtn as opressive and out to curb your freedom, and governmental tyranny which needs to be resisted.

Reality in mature democracies is rather more mundane.

Have you so quickly forgotten my threads about police brutality and the TSA?

My manicure will not let me anywhere near a gun, it might ruin my nails. Guns are also noisy.

So you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about then?

Also, what do you say about women who own guns?

CR