I hate to tell you, but Switzerland has one of the most restrictive gun laws in Europe. That, of course, does not detract the least from Swiss men having weapons for their militia duty at home, but unless you are on the way to a shooting range or militia duty, you shouldn’t let yourself be caught with one out on the street. Even at home, they have to be stored disassembled with the lock in a separate safe.
As for private firearms, demonstration of specific need is required to get a permit.
Alas, gun advocates are quite frequently thoroughly misinformed on gun ownership in Switzerland, and about the ‘right to bear arms’ in general. The right to pick up arms in defense against oppression has no relation whatsoever to bear arms into the shopping mall across the street.
Sorry, but it’s not. The real question is whether you understand what a government is, and what the difference is between god-given rights, and rights that a given society grants its members.
There are god-given rights, yes. In fact, some of them are spelled out explicitly as such in the declaration of independence: Life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.
One could conclude that the universal declaration of human rights, being universal, also lists god-given rights, but it is very borderline.
We then have the rights that a society grants to its members. Members of the AAAS for example have the right to access the journal ‘Science’. In order to enjoy that right, they have to comply with the rules of the society, namely pay their membership dues. Members of the society of the citizenship of the united states have other rights. To enjoy those rights, they have to fulfill their membership dues: Pay into the big pot called taxes and abide by the rules. (Note how you can lose your right to freedom if you don’t obey the rules). They also have certain rights they also extend to others who happen to travel through or live in the US. These are laid out in the constitution. That these are NOT god-given rights, but rights given by the club called citizens of the United States is evident by the fact that they are valid only within the borders of the US. Go to Germany, and you have no right to a trial by a jury of your peers.
A god-given right would not be limited in its validity by geography and surely would be recognized by other godfearing countries. But you will be hard pressed to cite scripture in support of a right to keep and bear arms in light of the fact that christianity is a religion of marthyrdom which suggests that ‘who lives by the sword will die by the sword’ and to turn the other cheek.
I’m a die-hard leftist, but I absolutely do not think the second amendment should be repealed. All it says is that Congress will never make a law banning ownership of, or the right to bear, weapons.
I am in favor of this limitation of the power of the central government, as it makes it less likely that the government can be hijacked to any great effect by tyrannical forces.
According to the ninth amendment, rights concerning arms are therefore reverted to the states or the people. Since the 2nd Amendment specifically mentions “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of every free State”, let’s call it a state right.
So here’s what you do. Make everyone register their guns, and sign an oath upon registration to defend the State against all invaders. For the duration of time that you own a gun, you show up every weekend (or maybe twice a month, no excuses) for Militia training, where you are trained in the proper, safe and responsible use of your weapon, and become familiar with the command structure of the State Militia, so that when they call on you in a State Emergency, you know who to report to. Kinda like the Army Reserves on a more local level. Anyone found with an unregistered gun, or firing thiers outside militia guidelines, will be hauled off to their local militia training camp if convicted.
I see this proposal as absolutely sticking to the letter of the law. How 'bout you?
I’d agree if there were not one problem: It’s similar to what was originally done. The system was eventually abandoned because people would find every excuse not to have to show up to drills. Having to actually no what you are doing is far more exhausting and tedious than just brandishing the tools.
I just knew it! I knew it, but I forged on, anyway. I knew that people would get irrationally hung up on the “gun” matter and ignore the “rights” matter. Please go re-read the ENTIRETY of my post.
I just knew that people would knee-jerk hang up on the “gun” matter, but I did give it a try, anyway.
There are two issues:
Are rights merely granted by governments? If so, THEN NO RIGHTS ACTUALLY EXIST AND ALL GOVERNMENTS CAN LEGITIMATELY IMPOSE ANY RESTRICTIONS THEY WISH. In essence, if rights do no pre-exist a government’s recognition of them, then there is no basis, WHATSOEVER, for arguing that a “civil right” is denied by law.
If that is the case, then there is no right to bear arms. There is no right to free speech. There is no right to expect reasonable limits on search and siezure, etc.
However, if rights do pre-exist a government’s recognition of them, then the real argument is whethe or not having guns is a right or a privilige.
Because unless it was mandated, law abiding citizens who own firearms would be completely clueless about firearms safety and responsible use?
The NRA teaches firearms safety courses that are completely voluntary and millions of people have taken these courses, the firing range I have a membership at is a busy place nearly every day of the week with people practicing, trying out some of the rental guns, learning to shoot under instruction by a range master, or taking various courses in everything from hunter safety to security guard training to armed self defense. None of this is at all inexpensive, and neither are most firearms. Myself and the hundreds of other members of just that firing range have each put up at least $300 per year for membership fees, we still pay for ammunition, we buy safety gear like decibel lowering ear muffs and shooting glasses, we maintain our firearms, properly casing and storing them for transport to and from the range and we take them apart to clean them periodically.
The point here is that people who choose firearms as a hobby have a pretty good grasp of the investment of time and money that it takes to keep a firearm in safe, working order and to use it in a responsible manner. You wouldn’t have to mandate that we practice those things because they are a large part of having firearms as a hobby, and they are things voluntarily undertaken by your average law-abiding gun owner. Your suggestion only makes sense if buying the firearm, loading it, and tossing it in a drawer is the extent of the hobby, but it isn’t. The countless hours of practice and probably thousands of dollars a year many of us spend with and on our firearms is as much or more important to the person with the firearms hobby than the purchase of the actual gun.
When you look at people who put that much effort and money into ‘proper, safe and responsible use’ of their weapons voluntarily, why do you think making it ‘mandatory’ would be better?
Well, no, because Washington, Madison, Jefferson, et. al. were Liberals in the tradition of Locke and Hobbes. Conservativism, whose best classical spokesman was Edmund Burke, rejected the language of universal rights, and based the idea of rights on custom and tradition. I just wanted to point this out because the idea isn’t a new one, as you seem to suggest, but in fact, older than the Liberal idea.
And when did I say that, as a rule, gun owners didn’t know how to use their guns? I said no such thing. I’m just spelling out the duties of my hypothetical state militia. NRA instructors would be an obvious hiring choice for the militia.
The number of child gun deaths in homes annually does point to the existence of a certain number of people who get a gun out of some vague unease about security but do not have the dedication fo the NRA members you describe. They don’t know how to use or store their guns safely, and tregedy results. My State Militia concept would get across the idea that, if you want to own a gun in this State, be aware you are taking on a great deal of responsibility. No one who didn’t want to be really dedicated to the social responsibilities of owning a gun would buy one.
I think the number of guns floating around, improperly secured, waiting to get stolen by criminals, would go way down, and we’d have a security force with direct attachments to their community.
You’d fund it by lobbying Congress to pass a bill that says if a State passes a law to start a well-regulated militia, that the Fed grants a certain large percentage of the funds used to support that State’s National Guard would be diverted, with the NG providing initial startup assistance and continuing communication toward coordinating efforts. The NG soldiers could option to switch over to be State Militia Commanders, you hire NRA instructors to teach the civilians who want to own guns, and drag anyone caught convicted of waving a pistol in the Kwik-E-Mart down to the nearest State Militia site for a little “boot camp”.
I think there’s something for everyone here. Who would sign on for this? Most likely current NRA members. They’re the ones with the dedication to weapons. What’s the incentive, given that they’er a little more under someone’s thumb? Well, the President already has the constitutional right to call up the State Militias in the event of some national emergency. So it would be in the government’s best interest to make low-level advanced weaponry available to the State Militia for training purposes to increase preparedness. You’re a gun nut? You get to fire machine guns, maybe even a grenade launcher just for owning a Luger.
And think about it: how many “State Emergencies” are there going to be? What you’d have, in effect, is a bimonthly gun enthusiast social club paid for with tax dollars! It’s the NRA’s wet dream! And we lefties can feel safer in the knowledge that guns are well-regulated.
The number of child deaths (children between 0-14) due to guns in 1997 was about 500. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that every single one of those deaths was due to negligence. That’s still only about 1% of the total number of child deaths per year - not exactly a huge number. Vastly more children die in cars due to negligence - should we force all drivers to go to bi-weekly driver training classes (no excuses, of course)?
There’s probably also a “certain number of people” who use golf balls as murder weapons, but they, too, are a small enough minority that I don’t think we need to create further legislation to address the issue.
As to the OP, repealing the second ammendment is a great idea, if your goal is to ensure a nationwide ban on all firearms. Right now, gun owners are already in a fierce battle with those who would prefer that only criminals get to have guns. Eliminating the gun owners’ biggest weapon - the consitutional protection they enjoy - would be the death of them (in more ways than one).
Jeff
Well how many state emergencies will it take for a person to realize he shouldve had a gun?
…just the one he was caught in without one.
Examples:
Los Angeles Riots after the verdict was handed down that white LAPD officers where not guilty of abusing Rodney King. Stores were looted from South Central LA to Hollywood. A local Electronics Store owned by Koreans (prime targets for the looters) was guarded by the owners family armed with rifles and handguns. That store is still standing today.
A north Hollywood Bank is being robbed by 2 gunmen armed with automatic rifles (illegal) and wearing bullet proof vests. LAPD with their low grade vests and handguns are powerless to stop them. Certain officers go to a local gun shop and BUYS semi-automatic rifles. Robbers are taken down. Had the 2nd ammendment have been repealed then, that store wouldve been nonexistant but those robbers certainly would still be there.
These all happened in my lifetime and in my backyard. Repeal the 2nd ammendment in your neck of the woods. Im fine with it here.
Did the police buy them? Or did the police commandeer them? Or were the AR-15s offered by the gunshop when the police were in need? Sadly, B&B Sales (the shop) closed their doors last year or a couple of years ago.
Cite? Can you show any group that advocates that only criminals have guns? Oh, I get it, it is a simple extension of the axiom, “if you outlaw guns…”, right?
I don’t get it. Why is there an assumption that the repeal of the second amendment equates to gun control/banning guns?
What’s the problem with allowing each state to determine the level of acceptable firearm proliferation and regulation? Are gun advocates afraid of democracy?
The reason we have a representative government instead of a truly democratic one is that the Founding Fathers feared “the tyranny of the masses”. That is, they thought that an uninformed public might be swayed by emotional appeals made in the heat of the moment, rather than consider things rationally. By having educated legislators, the FFs hoped to avoid passing laws that were popular but ill-advised.
The Department of Health and Human Services says the number of deaths in the US among those under 20 due to firearms was 4,223 for that year. But why quibble over a factor of ten? The point was not to punish gun owners for something they didn’t do, it was to keep the State Militia well-trained.
As for golf balls, I am unaware of their potential use as a murder weapon other than to bore someone to death through their proper use…
Johnny L.A., thanks for the civics lesson, but my reference wasn’t to a pure democracy, but the representative version we currently enjoy.
So I’ll ask again. Why does the suggestion of the repeal of the second amendment assume gun control or the banning of guns?
Since the constitutional right to bear arms hasn’t been tested since Miller, a decision that clearly believes the phrase “A well regulated militia” meant something, I wonder how much the status quo depends on the second amendment.
Well, according to the CDC the number of deaths for children between 0-14 (all intents) in 2000 was 436, although it seemed that you were talking about safety (accidents), where the number would be 86.
Regardless of intent, there were a total of 7,236 deaths for the 0-14 group (due to all injuries, not counting disease, etc.), which makes the percentage around 6%. Not exactly a factor of ten.
Of course, it helps that you added in the 15-20 year old “children”, which raises the number drastically (another 3,458) since the majority of these deaths are gang related shootings.
