What an absolute elitist liberal you are. I’d bet you’re the same type of person who thinks a 20 dollar driver’s license “disenfranchises” people of their right to vote. That’s how you get a two-tiered system where poor black folks in tough neighborhoods in NYC can’t get carry permit to save their lives… but A-ROD got one in a few weeks. Why do you hate the poor and people of color?!
Incorrect. The best argument against reactionary gun control is that free people don’t ask permission to be armed. Living in a free country is dangerous as fuck.
Some of the worst mass shootings (Beslan, Paris etc…) happened in highly gun controlled countries. Arms exist, wishing they don’t with a legislator’s pen is silly.
Yeah! now the government reads all of your communications, kills it’s own citizens without due process, controls what you may or may not ingest, has suspended due process if they have “probable cause” if they suspect drugs, has secret island prisons and CIA black sites where people are held with no charges or trial, taxes and regulates everything that moves in the economy and deflates the currency at 3,000 percent per century.
How much more tyrannical does it need to get before you start wanting constitutionally protected freedoms to actually… ya know… limit the power of government?
Most of the actual Swiss gun laws would be considered tyrannical by the 2A crowd in the US - you’re only allowed to purchase three firearms per person, magazine has to be carried empty and separately from an open carry firearm and only for a valid purpose - going to a gun show, shooting range or training, a detailed written contract between parties submitted to the government for purchase/sale of both firearms and ammunition …
I think you missed the part about “scholarships” for poor folks to buy a gun.
You make America sound pretty far off the deep end. Why haven’t you started fighting back and using your guns for what they were meant for (according to that post)?
Eh, I’ve never had a moving violation, let alone a misdemeanor, but I’ve also never taken a gun safety class, or a shooting class in general. So I guess I’m drawing the line pretty far behind me, and also a little ahead.
And yes, i think only people I prefer (sane, responsible, non criminals) should own guns. You think the same thing, just prefer different people… We agree on the sane part, and probably could meet on responsible… Sounds like it’s only the crminal part we disagree on.
I actually never said that in this exchange. I said that free people don’t need permission to be armed. You made the point that the founders feared a tyrannical government and that life is different now. You’re correct, the government is more tyrannical now than previously.
Arms are indeed a check on government overreach. I think the tipping point on when bloody revolution becomes a moral imperative is somewhere between where we are now, and Venezuela/China. In the mean time I’ll keep the option to have arms as a free person. Arms are also a great hedge against looters and other violent actors.
But Donald Trump is literally Hitler. Did voting and legislation protect the Jews?
How about for all of the other rights in the BOR? DUI at 18, you no longer have a right to a jury of your peers. Underage drinking, no more protection against illegal search and seizure.
That may all be true. Switzerland is a sovereign country about 1/10 the physical size of California, with a pretty homogenous population about the size of New York City’s.
I’ve never understood why this concept is so difficult for some people. The founders talked about armed citizenry being a check on tyrannical government a lot.
Switzerland is very decentralized and has only recently been formalized on the federal level. Link in English:
Also, they have some very interesting rules about public carrying:
Carrying a weapon
If you wish to carry a weapon in a public place, you must obtain a permit do so from the cantonal authorities. The permit is valid throughout Switzerland and you must have it on you at all times.
Your application to carry a weapon will only be granted if you can prove that you must carry a weapon, for example if you are a private security officer, in order to protect yourself, other people or objects from tangible danger. You must also pass an exam on how to use weapons and the legal requirements for doing so.
You do not require a permit to transport weapons, for example if you are a hunter on your way to a hunting ground or a target shooter on your way to the shooting range.
Mostly from Europe. I imagine plenty of U.S. states would ban gun ownership for immigrants if they were permitted to do so. You’re trying to compare what is basically like a relatively small U.S. state’s laws to laws governing the entire U.S.
Mostly from countries whose immigrants would use guns to kill their historical enemies - you don’t want centuries old feuds being played out on streets of Zurich or Geneva.
Yes, but I’m illustrating that there are some common sense elements of gun laws - the exam part being one - that do not prevent the Swiss from being one the most armed populations on the planet per capita.
Surely you do realize they are one of many ways…they are A tool, not THE ONLY tool…
yet earlier in the thread you wanted it to be as difficult as possible … The issue is the weak, vague phrasing “undue hardship” … what does that mean? Be specific in your definitions as that phrase means different things to different people…
Given the flimsy state of the psychology profession as of late (“Toxic masculinity” anyone?) and it’s seemingly politicized nature, No. I think this is a dangerous road to go down when these definitions of who is and ins’t mentally stable seemingly changes with the wind…
Smoking weed is a federal crime and illegal is some States as well…Surely you haven’t thought this through…
What is this, Britain?
yes, for reasons I’ve already given. I do not trust the flimsy methods used in the psychology world to dictate whether or not I’m mentally fit to own effective means to protect myself.
ooooorrr … and hear me out, you’re just doing a piss poor job of communicating your poinit … OOOOORRRRR we just flat out disagree with your position and we are actually intellectually able to understand quite well what you’re saying … all viable possibilities…
Maybe you should take a step back and really think about what you’re advocating for…It really seems like you haven’t thought this through even though there are multiple people here trying to walk you down that path…
You’re advocating for an Un-elected (politicized) governing body have ultimate say over who has the privilege of owning means to effectively protect themselves. I’d say that’s pretty ‘progressive’.