Here’s a press release I missed while I was out of town Friday, which one of my colleagues nominates for the coveted Worst Metaphor Award. It occurs to me that you, not being a sworn-in, credentialed member of the Establishment press, might have missed it, too:
FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASEMarch 9, 2007
Wilson: Handgun Ruling
is
"Shot in the Arm"WASHINGTON –
Congressman Joe Wilson (SC-02), longtime member of the National Rifle
Association, today applauded the ruling by a federal appeals court striking down
the District of
Columbia’s handgun
ban:"Today’s decision by the DC Court of Appeals is a shot
in the arm for Second Amendment advocates. For too long DC residents have
been denied the fundamental right to protect themselves and their
families."This is truly a victory for law-abiding, gun-owning
citizens."###
Related Posts
Guess Wilson was shooting his mouth off again.
Hope you’re happy Randy, puns and word plays will come in rapid-fire now. We probably won’t see any smoking gun however. We may get challenged to a war of wits by Mary but it wouldn’t be fair – she’s unarmed. Heh heh. Ed
The gun grabbers will go ballistic over this.
Now let’s see some lawsuits to overturn the state violations of the right to bear arms in New York City, Chicago and Boston. Then a quick path to the Supreme Court to overturn about 22,000 gun control laws around the US.
Lee just didn’t get into the spirit of this post, did he?
Dave, Randy and Ed went for it lock, stock and barrel.
Lee got the central point while the four of you yukked it up over a few words in a press release.
Yeah, I was blown away. Ed
It zipped right past Lex, too.
I wonder what it sounded like. If a press release makes a “hiss,” you’re probably OK. If it makes a “snap” as it goes by, it was aimed at you.
If you feel a sting between the eyes and everthing goes black it hit its’ mark. My favorite movie is Gladiator. Maximus says that if you’re fighting hard one moment andsuddenly awake to find yourself alone and in a peaceful green pasture fear not, you’re dead and have passed into the afterlife. It was a good moment. Ed
Aaah my dear Brad, has it ever occurred to you that there are several other possible interpretations of that press release (and your thread) besides just the one you divined? Probably not, given your egocentric ideology but that’s OK. I may or may not have gotten your interpretation but I can see at least 3 other angles to the release. Can you?
Seems to me that just because Brad went with one doesn’t mean he didn’t or can’t see other angles. This is much ado about nothing. Ed
Joe Wilson applauded a court ruling that supported an NRA position. The sun rose in the east and set in the west today. About the same. No news. I focused on the thing that stood out. As a trained observer, I spotted it right away. THIS is why you want to get your news from experienced professionals, rather than those blogger amateurs.
Another way to say it is that I don’t tend to get excited one way or the other on these gun issues. Both sides are pretty predictable.
Some people just have no use for guns whatsoever. I’m not one of them. Other people wet their pants and think Orwell’s 1984 has arrived if anyone tries to do the teensiest thing to limit gun violence. I’m not one of them, either.
I MIGHT get interested in gun control if I thought there was any practical way to do any good. But basically it’s an economic issue — too many guns out there for regulation to have much impact. The only way to seriously dent gun violence would be to drastically decrease the number of guns in existence. That’s both politically and practically impossible, or close enough to impossible to make little difference. Rounding up all the guns and destroying them (and only destroying them would make a difference) is even less practical as a proposition as rounding up all the illegal aliens.
Oh, wait, I’ve got an idea — a ban on making and selling and owning ammunition. I don’t think the Constitution says anything about that.
Oh, now I’m just being facetiously provocative…
Does it ever occur to anti-gun nuts that the places where their policies have been implemented (like New York City and Chicago) are the very places where gun violence and armed crime rates are highest? Hmmm, I wonder why that is…could it possibly be that criminals don’t obey laws? Anti-gun laws do nothing but disarm law abiding citizens. Now, if you want to require mandatory training and the passing of an exam? Fine. If you want to revoke the ability to own when an owner does something stupid like let his gun get into the hands of a child? Fine. But just taking guns away from good people is a lousy idea. Ed
Ed, is this term, “anti-gun nuts”, directed toward anyone who wants regulation or just the perceived conspirators looking to undermine the American way of life?
I personally despise hunting, but support the right to own handguns and hunting rifles. I draw the line at weapons like the .50 caliber rifle. Does the public really have the right to own this?
Taking guns away from this “good people” may not be such a bad idea.
testing
testing
Now what about 300? Wonder what the gun control peeps would say about that. All that blood and gore even without guns.
Randy, I said I support mandatory training, and I support revocation of ownership rights for people who demonstrate irresponsibility. However, I don’t think there ought to be limits on what guns people can own. You for instance draw the line at a .50 caliber. Why? Because it apparently sounds to a novice or non-gun person like overkill or something a rational person would never need. But did you know that .50 caliber rifles were commonly used in the 19th century and todays gun owner may want to own one as an antique or to do reenactments, or just for the sheer joy of reliving the past. I believe that if a person is a law abiding citizen, we ought have no fear of any gun he owns. Ed
I like Chris Rock’s position on ammunition.
Charge $5,000 dollars a bullet. People would be getting there own ammunition out of folks after a drive-by. “I believe you have my property.”
Bottom line, anyone who advocates gun control has a seperate agenda, and it ain’t to save our kids.
Guns will continue to be abused, misused, and used in the commission of crimes by bad, bad people. Let’s focus on the bad, bad people, and not the guns.
Just like trans fat. Just like dictionaries. Just like blogs.
Some folks just will never learn how to properly use them.
But don’t try and deny my guaranteed (and protected ) right to OWN one. It’s not me you have to worry about.
We’re going to need them one day when the jihadists come to set up the caliphate.
Lex, give the “300” guns and the blood would have all been on the other side.
That’s the thing about guns; they make it a LOT easier to kill. You don’t have to be good at it at all. You don’t even have to be trying for that matter. Just a slip of the finger and oops.
Once again, I’m not here to advocate gun control — I was just posting a funny — but please, let’s not pretend there’s any parity between a broadsword and a semi-automatic. I’ll bet on the guy (or gal) with the gun (or rifle, to avoid trouble with any Marine drill sergeants out there) every time.
Newspapermen love those juvenile plays on words. Just look at the headlines they put on stories, especially on the sports page.
Even Jimmy Carter said, “If you don’t like guns, don’t buy one. It’s a free country.”
When Jimmy Carter gets it and you don’t, you’re in trouble.
Lex side steps the gun control issue.
Ed, the second link to a video I posted shows professionals explaining the destructive capabilities of this weapon. Your reference to 19th century 50 caliber is like comparing the pony express to email.
Watch the video.
Trajan, should we citizens be allowed to own military style weapons? It this constitutional right completely unlimited?
Thanks Randy, but I don’t need to watch any videos. I believe I made the philosophical point, specific guns notwithstanding. Taken to its’ logical and ridiculous extreme, your line of reasoning means that we ought to limit what cars you can buy because no one ever needs more than 200 horsepower. Or, I don’t like the house you’re living in because you consume way too much electricity…no one ever really needs more than a few dozen kilowatts per month. Where is the pursuit of happiness in all this? Gone of course. Why should you care if a fellow wants to shoot a .50 caliber gun? As a matter of fact I have read about these weapons in a gun enthusiast magazine, and they are very accurate out to very long ranges. If a fellow wants to put .50 caliber holes in a 3 inch circle at 1000 yds…why shouldn’t he be able to? You’re a fun Nazi Randy, and you ought to be ashamed. ed
oops, should have said kilowatt HOURS per month. Kilowatts is a measure of power. Kilowatt HOURS are the measure of the USE of power. Ed
Ed, you are comparing cars and electricity with 50 caliber rifles which are DEADLY accurate? That’s quite a stretch.
Why is cigarette smoking a public health concern? Why is drinking and driving a public safety issue? Why are there speed limits? Clearly, there is precendent for the government limiting us.
And Ed, answer my question. Should citizens be allowed access to military style weapons?
Regarding your “Nazi” comment, isn’t it my constitutional right to be critical of our laws? Funny how you whole-heartedly defend the constitutional right you like but turn on someone else for excercising their right.
The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to have citizens own personal infantry weapons. If it protects any property, it protects battle rifles, rugged handguns, and trench shotguns.
George Washington wanted to make the ownership of militia weapons mandatory, as it had been in England for centuries, and still was in Switzerland and the German states at the time our Constitution was modeled on theirs.
The .50 BMG makes a powerful personal rifle, but that’s what you need to suppress rogue governments which will use much more powerful weapons against unarmed women and children.
“Ed, you are comparing cars and electricity with 50 caliber rifles which are DEADLY accurate? That’s quite a stretch.”
No stretch at all, Randy. Cars and electricity certainly can be DEADLY accurate also, if you have the proper training.
Lex, a paperclip in the hands of Jason Bourne is deadly and is just as much of a stretch.
We’re talking the innocuous purpose of a car as opposed to the mortal purpose of a 50 CALIBER RIFLE as detailed by the Navy Seals demonstrating it’s use in the link to the video posted previously.
Lex, I’ll pose the same question to you. Should citizens have access to military weapons or is there a limit?
“Should citizens have access to military weapons or is there a limit?”
Yes, no limit. However, anyone convicted of abusing that constitutional right by injuring or killing others should be punished at least the same way. None of that cruel and unusual stuff. If the criminals can’t take the capital punishment, they shouldn’t inflict it on their victims.
Yes, unleash hell on the terrorist who uses military style weapons in a suicide attack. That will show him for abusing that constitutional right!!
According to Lex, M-1 tanks, B-52s and hydrogen bombs are ok in private hands.
Gun Don’t Kill People-
Gaping Holes in Vital Organs Kill People
Guns
Guns Don’t Kill People-
They Just Make It Very Easy
“Yes, unleash hell on the terrorist who uses military style weapons in a suicide attack. That will show him for abusing that constitutional right!!”
Yet that’s precisely the Dems’ approach to fighting terrorism! I’m glad you finally realize that it wouldn’t work. We do need to be fighting terrorism “over there” and we do need to engage in preemptive actions when necessary.
BTW, we weren’t talking about tanks and B-52s before. We were talking about military -style guns and handguns.
“fighting terrorism”? Oxymoron.
The rest of us need to be armed precisely because you slackers have no intention of fighting terrorism, crime or tyranny.
That’s the way it’s always been with the slackers. Under democracy, they just have the vote.
So Lex you admit that we must draw the line somewhere when it comes to what weapons we allow private citizens to own. So what we’re really talking about is where that line should be drawn. I suggest something that allows a law abiding citizen to defend his home from a common intruder, say a handgun, hunting rifle or shotgun. Anything with semi to fully automatic capability should not be allowed.
Lee writes “The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to have citizens own personal infantry weapons.”
The rest of the story: the Second Ammendment exists to guarantee the existence of armed citizen militias. “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.”
In essence, the Second Amendment guarantees right of people in government sanctioned and organized militas the right to bear arms.
If you are an “able-bodied man, between the ages of 17 and 45”, you are subject to call to arms at any moment. Older people can also be called up by the governor.
Every man is a member of what the law defines as the unorganized militia. The Second Amendment acknowledges their natural right to the means of individual defense, and their obligation to maintain themselves to join in common defense.
The organized militias are the full-time services, reserves, National Guard units and state guard units. Only the state militias, federal navy and Marine Corps existed at the time the Constitution was written.
The state and colonial militias predate the Constitution by over 160 years. Modifications of military units and commands change all the time, just as radio, television, and the Internet have changed since the First Amendment was written.
Americans have as much right to use a 21st century weapon for defense as they have to use a 21st century means of communication to discuss politics.
Making big bad guns widely available makes it easier for terrorists to kill. If they are willing to commit suicide, they are hardly concerned about petty threats to unleash hell on them with cruel and unusual punishment.
Bud got my point, there is clearly a limit to what weapons citizen’s can own so now the debate is where the limit is.
More to the point, I live in a rough area of Lexington County. There are many meth labs and thugs in this area, and a lot of crime taking place. There are also a lot of old timers like me who have been here for decades, who are law-abiding citizens. I think about 80% of homes like mine have weapons in them, and I like that very much. It makes me feel good to know that I and many other good citizens in my area are armed and can defend hearth and home should the need arise. And you can bet the thugs out here know it too. I daresay a lot less crime happens out here than would happen if good folks weren’t allowed to possess firearms. Anyone who threatens me or my wife had better have things straight with their Maker, because I will arrange a meeting for them if need be. Ed
Smarter men than bud and Hurl have already figured out the proper arms for individuals to own: the individual arms of the infantry.
Squadded weapons, such as mortars, tanks and cannons, are not individual militia weapons, and are by their nature offensive rather than defensive.
Terrorists in our midst are a good reason American citizens need to be armed. If airline pilots had not been disarmed by Congress in August, 2001, those September hijackings might have ended quite differently.
Israel stopped the PLO attacks on public schools by arming the teachers.
There is very little crime in Switzerland, and only by dumb foreigners, who don’t realize until too late that every Swiss citizen has a rifle or handgun at work and at home.
Ed, you don’t need a 50 caliber rifle or military weaponry to protect your home nor for hunting. That’s my point.
I support the right to bear arms. I also believe in limiting the types of weapons that are floating around.
Randy, I have successfully made the philosophical arguement that devastates your point. Your line of reasoning is faulty, and you know it. Your obvious agenda is to regulate gun ownership out of existence, and I’ve exposed it for what it is: Sophistry. Ed
ed, you’ve done nothing of the sort.
No one on here is advocating confiscating weapons. It’s a strawman argument.
I fail to see where you’ve advanced any “philosophical argument.”
You have extrapolated from some unproven anecdotal evidence that people in your neck of the woods are “safer” due to gun ownership.
If you’re basing your argument on the “pursuit of happiness” phrase in the Declaration of Independence then you’re sadly mistaken. Those meth addicts are pursuing happiness too, ed. Why not legalize it?
Thanks for proving my point, Lee.
An “unorganized militia,” by definition, is not “well regulated” as required by the Second Amendment. Being “able-bodied” and “between 17-45” years of age doesn’t make you a member of a “well-regulated” militia.
But, if that’s what you want to hang your hat on, fine. Of course, the implication is that 46-year-olds (and older people) don’t have an absolute right to own a gun.
(BTW, ed, how old are you?)
Citing Switzerland just buttresses MY position, Lee. At 18 years of age every Swiss male is conscripted and gets 18-21 weeks of training. Thereafter they’re part of well-regulated militia and train annually. The Swiss government gives each a rifle and ammunition to facilitate government mandated mobilization– not for crime prevention.
The Swiss model is far closer to what the Founders had in mind than guaranteeing every boob with $100 and an itchy trigger the “right” to buy a gun.
Why is a “well-regulated militia” necessary? It’s for the “security of a free state,” NOT your personal security.
You can’t just pick and choose which phrases to read in the Second Amendment, Lee. There’s a reason that they’re strung together in a sentence. ALL the phrases are part of a logical thought.
Brad, RTH in answering Lee makes this point which is something I hadn’t thought about:
**********************
Every man is a member of what the law defines as the unorganized militia.
Thanks for proving my point, Lee.
An “unorganized militia,” by definition, is not “well regulated” as required by the Second Amendment. Being “able-bodied” and “between 17-45” years of age doesn’t make you a member of a “well-regulated” militia.
**********************
This supports what many of us have been saying about the importance of the blogs as information sharing entities. Nice job RTH.
On the other hand. I do think there is room in the 2nd Ammendment to allow ownership of firearms for home protection. Nothing specifically precludes that and although it’s a bit of a stretch this seems like a reasonable interpretation to me.
Where I object to the NRA types is when they adamently refuse to recognize the need for some basic regulation of firearms. Clearly the 2nd ammendment does not make it unconstitutional for states to require registration, trigger locks, outlawing of assault rifles and other common sense regulations.
I could continue to try to educate the cowards and shirkers from my own 35 years of study on this subject, or refer you to some American and English legal scholars who explain the concept that every citizen is a member of the militia, and most are subject to call into the organized militia, but it seems to be quite over the heads of those whose “education” is limited to some mind-stunting drivel from public schools and the socialist media.
Continue to shirk, but don’t think you have a right to bring the rest of us down to your level. Just face up to your inferior status as demi-citizens.
I also favor returning to our Founders’ model of having EVERYONE be trained in the military at age 18 and REQUIRING that they buy a proper military handgun and battle rifle, practice monthly in public formation, and keep 200 rounds of ammunition at home, as the Swiss still do.
Are you liberals on board with that?
Brad, if Mary Rosh gets the axe, then surely some of Lee’s posts ought to get it as well. That next to the last one was only intended to insult, and he didn’t even counter the issue. But then, that’s par for the course for him.
Oh, RTH, I think you nailed it with Switzerland. I was going to write to several Swiss people I know and quote Lee’s statement for comment; Swiss don’t take so kindly to misrepresentation of their culture. But you saved me the trouble. Well said.
Hurl, insinuating that the Swiss dont benefit from crime prevention by the arming of their citizens is really laughable. Since the last time the Swiss were attacked may have been when a few drunken Krauts decided to head for the Alps to get some Swiss cheese, why do you think they mandate arms in each home? It truly is for crime prevention because they know they are surrounded by the drug havens throughout Europe. Lee is exactly right on about Swiss culture. Herb, you are wearing that mother hen hat again.
I doubt that Dave and Lee are as well informed on Swiss culture as they think. From my experience at dealing with the Swiss, they impose a high degree of unwritten social control within their communities. So, while they have a large percentage of their citizenry under arms, their low crime rate is more a function of social control than of weapons ownership. But far be it from me to suggest that these two gents ever twist statistics to make a point . . .
RTH, I really believe that I HAVE successfully made the arguement that devastates your point. And Randys. In fact, I’ll go further…neither you nor Randy (nor anyone else who believes that no one could ever “need” a .50 caliber rifle or whatever other gun you happen to dislike) actually HAVE a point. You don’t have a point, you have an opinion. In your OPINION, .50 caliber rifles are unnecessary. By extension, your opinion means that no gun that anyone in authority finds objectionable should be allowed. The problem is that your opinion is no better than mine or anyone elses. My ARGUEMENT (and it is unassailably correct) is that the right to keep, bear and use firearms is a right conferred to men by God. It was and is endorsed and ratified in the constitution of our country by founding fathers who saw the wisdom in having an armed populace that had a healthy distrust of government and nannies and meddlers who attempt to force their opinions on others through the misuse of government. You have an opinion about the acceptability of weapons you don’t like (which can mean ALL of them at some point when you decide you’ve had enough) and I argue from the strength of God given rights to exercise freedom, as defined and endorsed in this countrys’ founding document. The country you want this to be is not the country the founding fathers envisioned. Thankfully, there are enough of us gun owners around that your side is going to have a tough time of it. Ed
Ed writes:
*********
My ARGUEMENT (and it is unassailably correct) is that the right to keep, bear and use firearms is a right conferred to men by God.
**********
Huh?? That makes not sense at all outside the confines of religious doctrine. And anyone that doesn’t subscribe to that particular brand of religious doctrine is not bound by it. Therefore your argument is nothing but a strawman. My god says guns should be banned by the government.
Herb is correct. Some of Lee’s posts are way beyond any standard for civility. He fails to argue in any coherent manner. Typical gun nut. No wonder we have the highest murder rate in the world. People like Lee worship the almighty gun as some sort of god.
Better kill another cow then, Baal is hungry. Ed
Ed, I suggest that you re-read my analysis of the logically reading the Second Amendment.
In your terms, that’s my argument, not my opinion. OTOH, your justification can not be considered anything BUT an opinion derived from religious faith.
My point (and bud’s point, also, I think) is that owning a gun is NOT an ABSOLUTE right for individuals. My reading of the U.S. Constitution and understand the logic of written English is that it’s a right for individuals to own guns in order to create a “well-regulated militia” as a cornerstone for the “security of a free state.”
Even freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment isn’t without limits. The courts have decided that yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is beyond the limits of free speech. They could also decide that owning a 50 caliber rifle or a RPG launcher– except to participate in a “well-regulated militia”– is beyond the pale, also.
If it wasnt for what some of you call the gun nuts, we would all be living in a police state right now. And my arm can function as an RPG launcher for that matter. Trying to outlaw specific pieces of weapons equipment is a silly exercise.
Comparing your arm to an RPG launcher is a silly statement.
Where can you point to a situation in history that privately-owned fire arms prevented the U.S. from becoming a “police state.”
Do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle served that purpose?
A rocket propelled grenade (RPG) is a loose term describing hand-held, shoulder-launched anti-tank weapons capable of firing an unguided rocket equipped with an explosive warhead. RPG is the Russian abbreviation of “Ruchnoy Protivotankovy Granatomyot” (Ручной противотанковый гранатомёт, РПГ) and is translated into English as “handheld anti-tank grenade-launcher”. The commonly used term “rocket-propelled grenade” is a mistranslation, is technically incorrect to use, backformed from the acronym RPG, and does not follow correct naming conventions used by English speaking militaries to describe these weapons.
The RPG launcher is a hollow tube that concentrates the rocket exhaust to create an over-pressure within the tube. This over-pressure propels the warhead at a higher speed than from the specific impulse of the rocket alone. This higher speed is necessary for the rocket to be stable in flight.[…]
The HE (High explosive) warhead is a general-purpose explosive warhead for use against unarmored targets such as infantry, unarmored wheeled vehicles, and fixed positions. The HE warhead detonates upon impact. The warhead case and charge generate a moderate amount of fragmentation.
The HEAT (anti-tank) round is a standard shaped charge warhead, similar in concept to those used in tank cannon rounds. In this type of warhead, the shape of the explosive material within the warhead focuses the explosive energy on a copper (or similar metal) lining. This crushes the metal lining and propels some of it forward at a very high velocity. The resulting narrow jet of metal can punch through Rolled Homogeneous Armor (RHA) used in many armored vehicles including some types of main battle tanks. Although the warhead on RPG systems is too small to penetrate the main armor of most modern battle tanks, it is still capable of causing secondary damage to vulnerable systems (especially sights, tracks, rear and roof of turrets) and can also penetrate most lightly armored or unarmored vehicles.
An RPG is an inexpensive way to deliver an explosive payload a distance of 100 yards with moderate accuracy. […]
Hurl, I’ve said all I can say about this. I believe that ownership and use of firearms IS a God given right, along with other rights that are included and endorsed in our founding document. I don’t see how you can get around that, although clearly you’ll try. Again, your opinions don’t hold sway over rights given by our Sovereign Power and Creator. “Endowed by our Creator…” is the way the fathers put it I think. Buds’ god (little ‘g’) is apparently one that tells him the founding fathers of this country were wrong, which essentially seems to be what you believe. I disagree. Ed
ownership and use of firearms IS a God given right – Ed
“He said let there be guns, and there were guns. He saw the guns and they were good.”
You need write no more, ed. You believe as an article of faith.
No logic will sway you. Faith isn’t based in logic.
It’s ironic. I offer logical arguments. You offer faith. Yet, you must dismiss my position as “opinion” and yours as…what? “Faith-based fact?”
The debate is short when one side says…”Because God said so.”
Just ask the victims of the Taliban.
Hmmm, no mention of firearms. It’s not until the Second Amendment of the Constitution that the all-important (to gun obsessives) mention of firearms.
The irony is that a close parsing of the Second Amendment actually circumscribes the right to bear arms.
I read what Jefferson and the Founders wrote in eloquent and logical prose in the Constitution. This is how I determine what the Founders thought– from the words that they approved.
Those words quite obviously to me provide the right of individuals to bear arms as a cornerstone to a “well-regulated militia” and a “secure free state.”
You somehow divine an absolute right to bear arms for individuals as an article of faith, unsupported by the words of the Founders. You insist on the individual’s unrestrained right to weapons which quite obviously could pose a threat to the existence of a “secure free state.” Oswald didn’t need an RPG launcher to assassinate JFK but it would certainly make a terrorist more effective in wiping out the entire leadership of the country at, say, the inauguration in 2008.
Faith is inherently immune to logic or contradiction.
Just don’t expect to convince anyone else except simple-minded people who confuse Moses and Charlton Heston.
I sent a Swiss friend RTH’s comment (not for use as crime prevention) on the Swiss situation. Here is his reply:
This is not exactly what libertarians have in mind, I don’t think.
Please note that I am not commenting at this point on the 2nd amendment or its meaning. I am only stating the facts as far as Switzerland is concerned.
Randy, exactly! Did you give Baal a snack yet? Ed
Yes, Herb, Swiss soldiers (the entire citizenry) have to account for every rifle, pistol, round of ammunition, machinegun, vehicle, grenade and tank issued to them – just as soldiers do in every army.
They are free to purchase other personal weapons, and encouraged to buy their own ammunition and practice often. Every small town has a public rifle range and park, where the Swiss gather and shoot rifles today, just as their ancestors practiced with bow and arrow and crossbow.
You can go to the Columbia gun show today and purchase one of the surplus K-31 rifles which has been supplanted by the SIG 550 and 551.
I don’t think it proves your point, Lee. I think it proves RTH’s point. The weapon cannot be used in self-defense. It can only be fired upon command. You cannot take it out of a closet and shoot an intruder with it.
Since I have been studying this subject since 1967, and have worked in Switzerland, I don’t need to guess about it like those of you who can only try to conjur up speculative scenarios to justify you shirking of your responsibility to act like whole citizens.
Just as in America, a Swiss citizen can have a SIG 550 machinegun and 200 rounds of ammunition in a sealed tin issued by the government in his closet, and also have a SIG-500 fully automatic battle rifle which he purchased with his own money, along with a can of ammunition.
Hurl, Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. The 2nd amendment is the amendment that protects all of your rights. And didnt someone say once that “Happiness is a warm gun”
So anything that makes me happy is a constitutional right? Well that certainly opens alot of doors…
Dave! How’s that throwing arm? Have you tried throwing a grenade 100 yards with reasonable accuracy?
Re-read the Second Amendment s-l-o-w-l-y. (Lee advises that improves comprehension.)
The Founders meant for the Second Amendment to protect the “security of a free state”– not individual protection.
“Well-regulated militias” maintain the state, which, in turn, guarantees “Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.”
Sorry if that’s too “statist” for you but, after all, the Founders were writing the constitution of a STATE– not the Anarchists Manifesto.
Lee, I’m not guessing. I actually researched the Swiss system.
Since Herb has had a Swiss citizen confirm my version I think that it stands as accurate.
Yep, they can buy ammunition at the range– but they have to use that ammunition at the range.
More info:
Switzerland, with more machineguns in the hands of civilians that in the USA, has only about 20 murders a year, a most of those are committed by foreigners. Many of the suicides in Switzerland are also foreigners.
Incidentally, with over 250,000 privately-owned machineguns in the USA, there has not been a crime committed with one since 1934.
Canada, with a much smaller population has about 25,000 machineguns in private hands, and likewise has not had one used in a crime since police statistics have been maintained.
Yet in Rwanda, a tiny country, over 450,000 people were murdered in one year, mostly by bludgeoning and machete.
Civilized people don’t commit crimes, savages do. It is a culture thing.
Suppressed news of the day:
That killer in Salt Lake City who shot up the shopping mall last month… was a Muslim from Bosnia.
He was stopped because an off-duty policeman in civilian clothing had a handgun and shot the murderer.
Hurl, If I stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon, I bet I can throw a grenade that goes much further than 100 yards. The factual situation is that American citizens who legally carry guns help to deter many crimes every single year, and many of those times that gun is never fired. The most gun controlled cities in the nation are the most dangerous places in America, D.C., NYC, Los Angelese. What more proof does anyone need?
Lee, I’m not sure how you can say the Utah shooter’s faith and country of origin were “suppressed.” I heard about it and read about in the first reports that could identify the shooter and provide background.
Nice to hear from the paranoid edge of reality, though. Keep the reports coming in.
From a Babelfish translation of this 8/7/2007 swisspolitics.org article.
I’m sorry, Lee. You were saying that you knew what you were talking about?
Lee claims:
******
Suppressed news of the day:
That killer in Salt Lake City who shot up the shopping mall last month… was a Muslim from Bosnia.
******
Here’s some advise, so you don’t make a complete idiot of yourself anymore: If you have a claim to make, support it. Provide a link or a reference to a book, magazine, TV piece, something that we all can check. Otherwise your claims carry zero pursuasive power, none, nada, zip.
bud, are denying that the Utah mall killer was not a Bosnian Muslim?
Or are you just issuing a blanket denial of reality as a bluff?
News flash for Hurl: soldier get killed in training. In fact, the US military is losing fewer soldiers to training accidents while we are at war with the terrorists in Iraq. The combat death tolls in Iraq are about the same as our training deaths would be during peacetime, so this is a pretty safe war for America soldiers.
Control control is actually People Control. That’s why the laws begin with a minority being the target. The Jim Crow laws included laws restricting the means of self defense available to black people. Gun control in New York City began just disarming the Irish. White Democrat politicians lied to the black citizens of Washington, DC (90% black) when they required gun registration. Then they used the lists to confiscate the firearms, leaving the gangs in control of the city.
Again with the unsupported paranoid fantasies, Lee. I echo bud’s suggestion.
Why should I waste my time debunking another of your series of baseless allegations?
As I wrote above, I heard AND read news reports specifically mentioning the shooter’s ethnicity and religion.
At the time I thought: “Oh, God, here go the wingnuts and gun-fetishistas.”
Sure enough.
This 2/13 (day after shooting) report says that the shooter was originally from Bosnia.
AP moved the following story on 2/15:
Yeah, it was certainly suppressed, alright.
Lee raises an interesting point so let’s go with it. We can view the Utah attack in one of two ways. Either (1) this was an isolated event by a disturbed individual and should be treated as a crime. Or (2) This was a terrorist attack. If it’s (1) then we’re talking about yet another gun nut run amok which is apparently acceptable to the second amendment fanatics. But to the pragmatists this shows how dangerous guns can be to the safety of our society.
Or, as Lee suggests, this was a terrorist attack (because the individual happened to be Muslim). If that’s the case then the standard battle cry of the neo-con — “They haven’t attacked American soil since 9-11” — is no longer true. In which case we have yet another argument by the conservatives who support stay the course in Iraq rendered false.
Of course there have been plenty of terrorist attacks on Americans and other western nations since 9-11 so the conservatives claim that this is not occuring is patently false. We had the anthrax killer, Malvo and Muhammud’s killing spree in DC, the shoe bomber, the attacks on London and Madrid and now apparently the Utah mall shootings. And probably others. So to continue supporting the quagmire in Iraq on the basis of reducing terrorism is to argue something in spite of the facts.
Apparently being a pro-Muslim, anti-American bigot requires believing that all the Muslim terrorists were justified reactions to US interference with Islamofascism, and that our American troops and law enforcent have not prevented any other Muslim attacks.
We know the mall shooting in Salt Lake City was a Muslim terrorist attack because the killer left hate notes saying so.
He was indoctrinated in a mosque, just like the other you terrorists in the US, England and Europe whose parents are decent people, but whose children are brainwashed in mosques and by anti-Western tracts and web sites.
Liberals don’t have any problem attacking Christian churches all day long for disagreeing with the sexual promiscuity and drug abuse of liberals… but mosques funded by rich radicals in Saudi Arabia, and dictators like Hussein and Qaddaffi are sacrosanct and off limits.
bud ignores the more than 150 major attacks thwarted by the US and its allies since 9-11-2001.
Just as he ignores the attacks which went unanswered by the Clinton regime.
Any impartial accounts of such?
There are lots of news accounts of the Muslim in Utah killing shoppers. Why do you think none of them are impartial, especially since you haven’t read them?
The facts are the facts, regardless of who reports them, or if the facts are not reported, or if you are ignorant of the facts.