Gun Control Compromise

[JoeB131]

There is absolutely no ambiguity.
The Bill of Rights was only restrictions on the federal government, so could not possibly have been referring to the National Guard in the 2nd amendment, even if the National Guard had existed back then.
That would require the semantic meaning that the federal government was prohibited from disarming its own forces.

No, there was no national guard back then. That wasn't created until the Dick Act of 1903. Before then you had state militias that were mixed in levels of training, professionalism and equipment, and they realized that system really didn't work for a world power.

The meaning at the time was the meaning of the states wanting their own militias just in case this whole union thing didn't work out.

But frankly, I don't care what the intent was in 1903 or 1787. I really and truly don't.

Does it make sense TODAY in 2019 for a person like Adam Lanza or Nikolas Cruz to be able to buy a military grade weapon and military grade ammo? They aren't in a militia. There is really no good reason for them to have that kind of weaponry. Yet they did, and killed 26 and 17 people, respectively.

 

[JoeB131]

Clearly the US exists due to an armed population rebelling against tyranny, and since there were no police back then or even significant standing military, the obvious and well declared intent had to be for the preservation of the armed population.

again, don't really care what the Slave Rapists were thinking.

Today the government has tanks and fighter planes... so as dangerous as Lanza and Cruz might be to school children, there's no danger of them overthrowing the government.

 

[Rigby5]

I see your emotions are getting the best of you.

Just relax. You can always go live where you have no rights. We can't.

Uh, guy, here's the thing.

When I go into work (or at my old job before I started my own business) I had to walk through three security checkpoints designed to lock down the building in case of an "active shooter". At another job, we had active shooter training conducted by the Schaumburg PD. We live in a world of metal detectors, CCTV, security guards, all because of your fetish to put more guns out there in the hands of even crazier people.

This by you is "Free"?

And all these checkpoints caused harm?
I don't think so.

But when you start making federal gun laws, in violation of the Constitution, the result is things like 76 people murdered at Waco by BATF.
Do you not understand that the reason for the inconvenient and stupid checkpoints is because YOU and others like YOU, refuse to live up to their responsibility to defend themselves?
In a democratic republic, it is the people who are supposed to defend themselves, so that we then do not have to create a corruptable government force of bureaucrats who can easily create a dictatorship.
There are 3 main threats to society, criminals, government, and irresponsible lazy people.
Illegal and dangerous gun laws cause the first 2 to be dangerous, and the third group causes all the illegal and dangerous gun laws.

 

[JoeB131]

And all these checkpoints caused harm?
I don't think so.

Um, they make us all less free. that's for sure. Last job, I felt I was working in a prison more than a community.

But when you start making federal gun laws, in violation of the Constitution, the result is things like 76 people murdered at Waco by BATF.

Uh, dumb ****.... Those Cultists killed themselves after their crazy leader found out what they do to ChoMos in prison.

Do you not understand that the reason for the inconvenient and stupid checkpoints is because YOU and others like YOU, refuse to live up to their responsibility to defend themselves?

Uh, Dude, I was in the Army for 11 years... not even a nice try.

In a democratic republic, it is the people who are supposed to defend themselves, so that we then do not have to create a corruptable government force of bureaucrats who can easily create a dictatorship.
There are 3 main threats to society, criminals, government, and irresponsible lazy people.

Um, no, the real threat is crazy people who can get guns... The thing about it is, I guess I could have gone into work with a gun... and shot the crazy person when he came in the door... but frankly, that many guns in a workplace, you'd probably have more workplace shootings than prevented ones.

Illegal and dangerous gun laws cause the first 2 to be dangerous, and the third group causes all the illegal and dangerous gun laws.

Every other industrialized nation limits who can have guns.. they are just as free as we are and have nowhere near our crime rates.

 

[Rigby5]

There is absolutely no ambiguity.
The Bill of Rights was only restrictions on the federal government, so could not possibly have been referring to the National Guard in the 2nd amendment, even if the National Guard had existed back then.
That would require the semantic meaning that the federal government was prohibited from disarming its own forces.

No, there was no national guard back then. That wasn't created until the Dick Act of 1903. Before then you had state militias that were mixed in levels of training, professionalism and equipment, and they realized that system really didn't work for a world power.

The meaning at the time was the meaning of the states wanting their own militias just in case this whole union thing didn't work out.

But frankly, I don't care what the intent was in 1903 or 1787. I really and truly don't.

Does it make sense TODAY in 2019 for a person like Adam Lanza or Nikolas Cruz to be able to buy a military grade weapon and military grade ammo? They aren't in a militia. There is really no good reason for them to have that kind of weaponry. Yet they did, and killed 26 and 17 people, respectively.

The militias were more local than state.
And yes that system did work for the US.
What is did not work for was imperialism and colonialism that requires more corrupt, paid, mercenaries.
The creation of the National Guard, as well as creating a large standing military, is completely illegal and can only result in dictatorship.
The militia was not just for states in case the federal thing did not work out.
The militia, was for individuals, municipalities, etc., and was and is necessary against criminals, gangs, riots, attacks, pirates, border incursions, etc.

Adam Lanza or Nikolas Cruz did NOT at all buy any military grade weapon or ammo.
Military grade weapons are full auto, where you pull the trigger once, and it keeps firing as long as you hold the trigger back.
Adam Lanza or Nikolas Cruz obtained single shot weapons, where they had to pull the trigger for each and every single shot.
And in case you have not noticed, the technology genie is out of the bottle, and anyone can make any firearm into a machine gun in about an hour. Anyone can easily guy a Chinese machinegun from their local pot dealer. Anyone, like Timothy McVeigh can easily load a truck up with home made explosive fertilizer. Anyone, can easily kill mass numbers like the 87 killed in the Happyland arson, with just a gallon of gasoline. You are living in LA LA and if you at all think you can legislate safety by trying to make every nerf, and outlaw anything YOU think might be dangerous, instead of what the real dangers are, a dictatorial government that is ignoring the constitution.

Do you understand the difference between the assault weapon and most hunting rifles?
The difference is that assault weapons are much LESS powerful, because the military decided that wounding enemy causes them more problems than killing them. And the military wanted less power so there would far less recoil, less weight, etc.
Assault weapons have less than half the energy and range.
They are vastly less deadly.
Most hunting rifles are used at long range, with a scope, and with only a 1 shot kill.
You really do not know anything about firearms, so should learn something about them first.
Since assault rifles are just weaker, and there is no real other characteristic, if you allow them to be made illegal, then all firearms will have to be illegal. And that include shotguns and pistols, as they are historically some of the firearms most commonly used as assault weapons.

 

[Rigby5]

Clearly the US exists due to an armed population rebelling against tyranny, and since there were no police back then or even significant standing military, the obvious and well declared intent had to be for the preservation of the armed population.

again, don't really care what the Slave Rapists were thinking.

Today the government has tanks and fighter planes... so as dangerous as Lanza and Cruz might be to school children, there's no danger of them overthrowing the government.

Nonsense. Shows you clearly know nothing about history or current events.
The US military has NEVER once succeeded against a popular insurgency.
The insurgency always wins because then they can't use tanks or fighter planes against it.
And it is not Lanzas or Cruzes who need to overthrow a dictatorship, but any decent, moral person, because all governments always go corrupt and always have to be overthrown. That has always been true and always will be true.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is absolutely no ambiguity.
The Bill of Rights was only restrictions on the federal government, so could not possibly have been referring to the National Guard in the 2nd amendment, even if the National Guard had existed back then.
That would require the semantic meaning that the federal government was prohibited from disarming its own forces.

No, there was no national guard back then. That wasn't created until the Dick Act of 1903. Before then you had state militias that were mixed in levels of training, professionalism and equipment, and they realized that system really didn't work for a world power.

The meaning at the time was the meaning of the states wanting their own militias just in case this whole union thing didn't work out.

But frankly, I don't care what the intent was in 1903 or 1787. I really and truly don't.

Does it make sense TODAY in 2019 for a person like Adam Lanza or Nikolas Cruz to be able to buy a military grade weapon and military grade ammo? They aren't in a militia. There is really no good reason for them to have that kind of weaponry. Yet they did, and killed 26 and 17 people, respectively.

Lanza didn't buy anything. He killed his mother and stole her weapons.

 

[Rigby5]

And all these checkpoints caused harm?
I don't think so.

Um, they make us all less free. that's for sure. Last job, I felt I was working in a prison more than a community.

But when you start making federal gun laws, in violation of the Constitution, the result is things like 76 people murdered at Waco by BATF.

Uh, dumb ****.... Those Cultists killed themselves after their crazy leader found out what they do to ChoMos in prison.

Do you not understand that the reason for the inconvenient and stupid checkpoints is because YOU and others like YOU, refuse to live up to their responsibility to defend themselves?

Uh, Dude, I was in the Army for 11 years... not even a nice try.

In a democratic republic, it is the people who are supposed to defend themselves, so that we then do not have to create a corruptable government force of bureaucrats who can easily create a dictatorship.
There are 3 main threats to society, criminals, government, and irresponsible lazy people.

Um, no, the real threat is crazy people who can get guns... The thing about it is, I guess I could have gone into work with a gun... and shot the crazy person when he came in the door... but frankly, that many guns in a workplace, you'd probably have more workplace shootings than prevented ones.

Illegal and dangerous gun laws cause the first 2 to be dangerous, and the third group causes all the illegal and dangerous gun laws.

Every other industrialized nation limits who can have guns.. they are just as free as we are and have nowhere near our crime rates.

A checkpoint does not make you less free because of guns, but because of the government causing crime through things like poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity, lack of health care, lack of affordable education, lack of affordable housing, etc.
If you and others had been acting responsibly, there would be almost no crime, and no check points.

Liar, the Waco massacre was created by flamethrower tanks, and there are lots of videos showing it very clearly.
Nor was there any valid legal basis for an arrest or assault even.

Being in the Army for 11 years is not a sign of responsibility, as there is not supposed to be a significant standing military.
Being in the Army for 11 years means you wanted them to take care of you and give you a paycheck.
How many illegal wars happened by the US in those 11 years that you did nothing at all about?

Crazy people are supposed to be in hospitals, and were until Reagan eliminated all the federal funding for health care back around 1986.
And no, if everyone in the office was armed, there would be no problem.
All the employees in a police station are armed, and they don't get into arguments resulting in shoot outs.
And everyone else is far less violent than the police.
The police are the most violent in the whole society.

There actually are very few gun restrictions in any country except Japan, and they are not really free, but merely have benevolent dictatorships, like the UK. Crime rates NEVER have anything to do with weapons access. In fact, most rapes and robberies do not use weapons. The causes of crime are well known, and are poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

I see lefties frequently screech about how 2A supporters refuse to compromise. Well, that's because there's never BEEN a compromise, rather a one-sided chipping away of 2nd Amendment rights with nothing offered in return.

So here, I'll offer an actual compromise. You want universal background checks? I can get behind that. But in exchange I want universal reciprocity on CCW permits.

Deal?

**** that.

UBC for zero restrictions on all firearms.

If you can pass a UBC, you're safe with a machine gun, right?'


.

We have a gun trust and own class 2 .the feds will never allow the sale of new full auto to the public .

Hardly helps any whatever the feds say, because anyone with criminal intent can turn just about any firearm full auto in less than an hour.
Bolt action rifles are easy.
In WWI the Army even had a kit to turn all bolt action rifles into full auto for pistol bullets.
Called the Peterson device.
Pedersen device - Wikipedia

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The uptick happened because of the Ferguson Effect where police quit being proactive to combat crime. Now in many black areas, the cops only go out when called.

No, what happened was that there was no uptick, but there was a decrease in calling the cops, because you never know when you might get Officer McShooty showing up blasting all the kids he sees.

View attachment 240568

Oh right, and it just happened right after Ferguson. What a coincidence. Even the police in your very own city confessed to the Ferguson Effect and I posted a link to your local paper that had the article. Thanks to the Commies, police are now more afraid of the criminal than the criminal is of the police. Thanks Obama!

You are correct...obama, his Department of Justice, and the ACLU with a bunch of black lies matter protestors.....the Ferguson Effect...

Hard Data, Hollow Protests

The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect.

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it.

Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.

Thank you for the post. You can present Joe with facts, statistics and evidence, but the most you'll usually get is

I live in a black area and I see the Ferguson Effect right here. Don't get me wrong, our police are great. But why do extra for a job if doing it only gets you and your family targeted, the media bashing you, forced into resignation, or even killed?

We have a parking lot of an empty business where drug deals go down. It's on the intersection of two major streets and police drive past there all the time. I've witnessed deals go down while police were right there at the stoplight and didn't blink an eye. I've seen a vehicle right in front of me at a stop light, cross the double yellow line to pass the car in front of them, crash the light, and a cop going the other direction sitting at the same light doing nothing about it.

Prior to Ferguson that was unheard of. Our police used to do routine traffic stops and get troublemakers before they caused trouble. They would find people with suspended license, warrants, and even a few times a stolen vehicle or plates. Not anymore. Evil has dominated our country thanks to the left, and they couldn't be more supportive.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right. After Ferguson, people stopped calling the cops because it was pretty clear the cure was worse than the problem.

Do you make up this crap as you go along or do you think about it first? There has been no decrease in police calls. If anything, an increase in high crime areas because now the black criminal has your support. Cops don't get into confrontations with callers, cops get into confrontations with criminals. If the people are not going to support their police department, WTF should they care about making your area a safer place to live?

Then maybe they need to find something else to do for a living, I'm sure we can find plenty of guys who'd happily take those 87K a year jobs and do them right.

Our police do the job right, but when they do, they have to deal with people like you and the media. Where are you going to find people to take a job where the only time they can use deadly force without retaliation is when they are just about dead themselves or severely injured?

You can pay me 100K a year, and I wouldn't take a job where I'm defenseless against harm and death because of evil people like yourself and the MSM. Since the Ferguson Effect, police assaults and murders have been on the increase, and you're just tickled pink with that.

We're at the point where I feel the country should just be divided in half; straight down the middle from north to south. On one side, we'll have the conservatives. On the other side, people like you. Nothing would make me happier than to never have to deal with the problems liberals create in this country every single day. And yes, we will build a beautiful Trump wall to keep people on your side from sneaking over to ours, because our side will be a safe place to live with armed citizens and police support. Our side will have lower taxes which means we will have all the jobs. Our side will have little federal government involved so we don't end up 20 trillion dollars in debt because of social goodies. Our side will completely stop illegal immigration while your side gets flooded with diseased, poor and more uneducated people.

Nothing would make me happier.

 

[Rigby5]

The uptick happened because of the Ferguson Effect where police quit being proactive to combat crime. Now in many black areas, the cops only go out when called.

No, what happened was that there was no uptick, but there was a decrease in calling the cops, because you never know when you might get Officer McShooty showing up blasting all the kids he sees.

View attachment 240568

Oh right, and it just happened right after Ferguson. What a coincidence. Even the police in your very own city confessed to the Ferguson Effect and I posted a link to your local paper that had the article. Thanks to the Commies, police are now more afraid of the criminal than the criminal is of the police. Thanks Obama!

You are correct...obama, his Department of Justice, and the ACLU with a bunch of black lies matter protestors.....the Ferguson Effect...

Hard Data, Hollow Protests

The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect.

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it.

Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.

Thank you for the post. You can present Joe with facts, statistics and evidence, but the most you'll usually get is

I live in a black area and I see the Ferguson Effect right here. Don't get me wrong, our police are great. But why do extra for a job if doing it only gets you and your family targeted, the media bashing you, forced into resignation, or even killed?

We have a parking lot of an empty business where drug deals go down. It's on the intersection of two major streets and police drive past there all the time. I've witnessed deals go down while police were right there at the stoplight and didn't blink an eye. I've seen a vehicle right in front of me at a stop light, cross the double yellow line to pass the car in front of them, crash the light, and a cop going the other direction sitting at the same light doing nothing about it.

Prior to Ferguson that was unheard of. Our police used to do routine traffic stops and get troublemakers before they caused trouble. They would find people with suspended license, warrants, and even a few times a stolen vehicle or plates. Not anymore. Evil has dominated our country thanks to the left, and they couldn't be more supportive.

I am with you on the inefficacy of gun control but the police not only were wrong in Ferguson, but it is illegal for them to stop and question people standing on street corners, and likely the whole war on drugs is totally illegal. Government is not the source of any authority. Only individual rights are. So then whose rights need to be protected with the War on Drugs? Protect people from themselves? That clearly is not at all legal, and always fails, like Prohibition failed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The uptick happened because of the Ferguson Effect where police quit being proactive to combat crime. Now in many black areas, the cops only go out when called.

No, what happened was that there was no uptick, but there was a decrease in calling the cops, because you never know when you might get Officer McShooty showing up blasting all the kids he sees.

View attachment 240568

Oh right, and it just happened right after Ferguson. What a coincidence. Even the police in your very own city confessed to the Ferguson Effect and I posted a link to your local paper that had the article. Thanks to the Commies, police are now more afraid of the criminal than the criminal is of the police. Thanks Obama!

You are correct...obama, his Department of Justice, and the ACLU with a bunch of black lies matter protestors.....the Ferguson Effect...

Hard Data, Hollow Protests

The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect.

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it.

Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.

Thank you for the post. You can present Joe with facts, statistics and evidence, but the most you'll usually get is

I live in a black area and I see the Ferguson Effect right here. Don't get me wrong, our police are great. But why do extra for a job if doing it only gets you and your family targeted, the media bashing you, forced into resignation, or even killed?

We have a parking lot of an empty business where drug deals go down. It's on the intersection of two major streets and police drive past there all the time. I've witnessed deals go down while police were right there at the stoplight and didn't blink an eye. I've seen a vehicle right in front of me at a stop light, cross the double yellow line to pass the car in front of them, crash the light, and a cop going the other direction sitting at the same light doing nothing about it.

Prior to Ferguson that was unheard of. Our police used to do routine traffic stops and get troublemakers before they caused trouble. They would find people with suspended license, warrants, and even a few times a stolen vehicle or plates. Not anymore. Evil has dominated our country thanks to the left, and they couldn't be more supportive.

I am with you on the inefficacy of gun control but the police not only were wrong in Ferguson, but it is illegal for them to stop and question people standing on street corners, and likely the whole war on drugs is totally illegal. Government is not the source of any authority. Only individual rights are. So then whose rights need to be protected with the War on Drugs? Protect people from themselves? That clearly is not at all legal, and always fails, like Prohibition failed.

How were police wrong in Ferguson? Fat Albert robbed a store, pushed the clerk which is assault. When the officer tried to stop him for walking in the middle of the street, he reached into the officers car and tried to steal his gun at which point the gun went off. The officer tried everything to subdue the clown, but he was so high on pot he didn't know what he was doing. When he finally charged at the officer, the officer used his weapon in self-defense.

The officer did everything right, but as I said, evil left has taken over the country, and now we have more dead civilians and officers as a result.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

Wrong.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy and an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

And it is not a fact that ‘more guns’ contribute to ‘less crime.’

Study: Concealed Handgun Permits Don't Affect Crime Rate

You make no argument?
What of of the 6 paragraphs is supposed to be a "false comparison fallacy"?

Nor did I ever even mention concealed carry permits.
Obviously open carry would be more effective, but it is homes or businesses that usually are the main targets of crime.

What I was talking about was universal firearms, like Switzerland has, which clearly has been not only proven to reduce crime, but invasion as well.

The Swiss has one of the tightest gun controls on the face of the earth. ALL guns must be registered. ALL people that possess those guns must be licensed. Switzerland has had a severe decrease in people leaving the service and taking their service weapons with them. Plus, their private gun sales are very, very restrictive.

You are totally wrong.
Half my relatives are Austrian/Swiss, and there are no federal gun control laws at all there.
They are only local, by canton, and they are extremely lax.
All guns have to be registered when sold, but you do not register individual guns you own, but you get a license for yourself, and can then have all the guns you want, as a collector, sporting club member, etc.
And that included full auto machine guns.
And no, when people leave the service, they are almost required to take their service weapon with them.
They are also given all the free practice ammunition they want.
The only thing even remotely rigid in Switzerland is getting a concealed carry permit.
But even that is easier in Switzerland than in NYC.
Training and ownership is essentially mandatory and universal.
What you read about Switzerland in the media is total hogwash.

Oh, really now. I suggest you read up on this link.
Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Switzerland | Law Library of Congress
You will find that they have some pretty stringent laws that include requiring permits and licensing to buy the guns. Plus, they have banned many classes of firearms much like the US has.

Their law sounds really good the way it's written but underneath, it's many times more stringent than the average in the United States.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then you agree that it's a living and breathing document like our FFs envisioned. They left a back door. But a difficult to operate back door so not every tom, dick and harry could willy nilly change things to suit just themselves.

But I disagree to what the 2nd amendment says. It's up to interpretation and that's the problem. It's not cut and dried as you and others think it is. Some say to throw it out and some say that it is perfect and shouldn't be monkeyed with. I say that it's to ambiguous and badly needs to be kept up with the times. At least clean up the first 2/3rds of it that no longer has any meaning to it.

But the first 2/3rds of it still has all its meaning if you look at it through the eyes of the Founding Fathers who wrote, signed, and ratified it. The Founding Fathers feared a standing army that could be used for good or evil. It certainly would have ability to overthrow a lawfully established government structure should it choose to do so.

As it turned out, their fears were unfounded when a standing Army of freedom loving, patriotic, flag waving, and ethical Americans was created. And, because the military respects the Commander in Chief who is civilian, we no longer fear a military coup in this country. (Whether lack of such fear is wise, might be considered when we see a rogue FBI leadership attempting such a coup these past two plus years.)

But the Founders didn't live to see that. They did see the central government and every state as possibly having need to call all the U.S. citizens to arms from time to time. An unarmed citizenry would not be of much use in such emergencies, but a well armed citizenry would make a formidable Army when called to service to defend their homeland or any part of it. So that was their rationale to ensure that no misguided government leaders would have constitutional authority to disarm or otherwise restrict the ability of the citizens to be armed.

Oh, I agree. But since then, the first two parts of the 2nd A have become worthless. They need to be completely taken out and the last 4 words need to be expanded and clarified. It's been a very long time coming but our chicken livered government won't grow a pair and present that.

I wouldn't have a problem with a Constitutional amendment that would leave less wiggle room in interpretation. But as long as we have a majority of SCOTUS justices who interpret law according to the INTENT of the Constitution there is no problem. It is only those who say it says something other than what the Founders intended who are a problem.

Therein lies the problem. We all have our own ideas to the original intentions of the FFs. Just those 4 simple words are just too vague.

Not vague at all for Constitutional scholars of which all Supreme Court Justices should be. A Constitutional scholar will be well grounded in the founding documents that inform us of what the Founders intended with each clause in the Constitution. And Constitutional scholars--that is REAL ones and not pretend ones--all agree that it was never given to courts at ANY level to make law, change law, or interpret law in any manner. Even when they rule that a law is unconstitutional, that was never intended to invalidate the law but was meant to inform those constitutionally authorized to make law where they were in error and fix it.

All good judges will be Constitutional scholars at least to the point that they know what the letter and intent of the law is so that they can determine whether we are within the law or are breaking it.

It's so vague that the Supreme Court avoids the 2nd amendment rulings like the black plague. And they hint that Congress is remiss in dealing with it.

 

[basquebromance]

The Second Amendment protects the natural right to keep and bear arms, the same type of arms that crooks and thugs might use against you, and the same type of arms that government agents might use against you

We also know that the first thing tyrants do when they come to power is to disarm the population. Sometimes tyrants are jackbooted thugs. Sometimes tyrants are the majority in an elected government

To the framers of the Constitution, an armed population is the best defense against tyranny

 

[mikegriffith1]

Let's remember that Obama heartily endorsed Australia's gun confiscation law, and then he complained that he couldn't understand why conservative accused him of wanting to take away people's guns. What other inference did he expect people to draw?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Second Amendment protects the natural right to keep and bear arms, the same type of arms that crooks and thugs might use against you, and the same type of arms that government agents might use against you

We also know that the first thing tyrants do when they come to power is to disarm the population. Sometimes tyrants are jackbooted thugs. Sometimes tyrants are the majority in an elected government

To the framers of the Constitution, an armed population is the best defense against tyranny

No, it limits the Federals powers. Nothing in the constitution deals with Natural or God Given rights. I suggest you read the constitution again without your preformed ideas about what you think it says.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Let's remember that Obama heartily endorsed Australia's gun confiscation law, and then he complained that he couldn't understand why conservative accused him of wanting to take away people's guns. What other inference did he expect people to draw?

Ah, the Russian connection strikes again.

 

[JBond]

I'd be fine with that too. The point I'm making is that none of our existing laws were "compromises". They are one-sided restrictions.

^^^^^This. OK, I'll compromise. Repeal NFA 1934, GCA 1968, the 1986 full auto ban, and every state, and city law that restricts the Second Amendment, then they can have UBC's which is really just thinly veiled REGISTRATION.

I think we need full registration.

Too many drunk drivers are killing sober drivers. Let's ban sober drivers. Problem solved. That is how gun control works.