A right to keep and bear arms for all?

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter

paullud

Veteran Expediter
This is the link if it doesn't work in the original post.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vVduMK5lRc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
I saw another video that talks about the fact that Switzerland requires young men to own a gun and in other countries obviously they make it almost impossible to get hand guns, we seem to be the moderates when it comes to guns.

Who Knew
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I saw another video that talks about the fact that Switzerland requires young men to own a gun and in other countries obviously they make it almost impossible to get hand guns, we seem to be the moderates when it comes to guns.

Who Knew

Yes, Switzerland REQUIRES ownership of a rifle. They are REQUIRED to keep that rifle AT HOME, AND, attend MANDATORY annual firearms training. It is meant to deter invasion. It has worked for a LONG time.
 

EASYTRADER

Expert Expediter
The US intentionally tried to copy the "swiss" defense model, a small stsnding army with well trained officers suplemented by a well regulated militia, regulated used to mean suplied its meaning has shifted since the constitution was written. In the early US all able bodied men were required to own a militarily suitable rifle. Communities maintained large stores of powder and shot for the use of the militia.

This arangement changed after the Civil War, when proponemts realised the militia style army served to prevent centralised power. The last militia style wsr was the Spanish American war, the rough riders were essentially the last true militia.

The US government punted the militia for an oppressive ENGLISH style system, in order to enforce our merchantilism on other countries. It also serves to keep the States in line, the fact is as Justice Roberts pointed out, the constitjtion doesnt meat **** anymore, in the united states polotical power proceeds from the barrel of a gun.
:)
Sent from my GT-P3113 using EO Forums
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Yes, Switzerland REQUIRES ownership of a rifle. They are REQUIRED to keep that rifle AT HOME, AND, attend MANDATORY annual firearms training. It is meant to deter invasion. It has worked for a LONG time.

Mandatory.= forced...some freedom....
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Mandatory.= forced...some freedom....

Seems that I did NOT mention freedom. I do wonder about ANYONE who would refuse to defend their nation from attack, on other than religious grounds.

I also wonder about ANYONE who would not defend their STATE against the tyranny of the FEDERAL government. Then again, I am NOT a modern, neutered American Metrosexual.

The thing is, the Swiss have 100% gun ownership and low crime, guns do not cause crime, government causes crime.
 

BigCat

Expert Expediter
How many times has a crime been committed by a legally possessed gun? I'm sure much less than a gun bought off a street corner in Chicago or Detroit.

They should actively try to remove these guns instead of cracking down on those of us with ownership papers. Until they do that my guns stay with me. I would like to at least attempt to defend myself.


Mayfield Express

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Seems that I did NOT mention freedom. I do wonder about ANYONE who would refuse to defend their nation from attack, on other than religious grounds.

I also wonder about ANYONE who would not defend their STATE against the tyranny of the FEDERAL government. Then again, I am NOT a modern, neutered American Metrosexual.

The thing is, the Swiss have 100% gun ownership and low crime, guns do not cause crime, government causes crime.

still it takes away a choice aka freedom....it is FORCED ownership....you are actually advocating that big government should force something unto someone?....
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
The thing is, the Swiss have 100% gun ownership and low crime, guns do not cause crime, government causes crime.

I thought it was criminals that caused crime. I guess if you define crime as the breaking of laws or rules, and these laws or rules were put into place and enforced by a government, then sure, the government causes crime.

If there were no laws or rules, there would be no crime and no harm. If there were no harm there would be no fowl. If there were no fowl there would be no layout shooters. If there were no layout shooters, you would not exist, QED! Try and duck that logic!
 
Last edited:

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
I thought it was criminals that caused crime. I guess if you define crime as the breaking of laws or rules, and these laws or rules were put into place and enforced by a government, then sure, the government causes crime.

If there were no laws or rules, there would be no crime and no harm. If there were no harm there would be no fowl. If there were no fowl there would be no layout shooters. If there were no layout shooters, you would not exist, QED! Try and duck that logic!

heck no...don't force people to buy insurance, force them to buy guns...make it mandatory too...

I am I the only one that sees a contradiction here?
 

paullud

Veteran Expediter
heck no...don't force people to buy insurance, force them to buy guns...make it mandatory too...

I am I the only one that sees a contradiction here?

Well it is legal if it is a tax... :D

I think he was just making the point that their system has worked for them but not that he would necessarily say it is right. It is the same idea we face with the FMCSA, some programs work but we lose our freedoms because of the old "its for safety" line.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
still it takes away a choice aka freedom....it is FORCED ownership....you are actually advocating that big government should force something unto someone?....

Did I say to do that here? I don't think so. GEEZ! I don't think it is a good idea. Crime would, however, likely go down if it was.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Well it is legal if it is a tax... :D

I think he was just making the point that their system has worked for them but not that he would necessarily say it is right. It is the same idea we face with the FMCSA, some programs work but we lose our freedoms because of the old "its for safety" line.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

Losing a freedom....

Like the seat belt law?
Child booster seats?
DUI....08?
Must have a drivers license?
Rules of the road?
Patriot Act

all little freedoms....whether they be state or federal...
 
Top