Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

oralloy wrote:
"Gun collecting" was one of the three purposes that did not require a further detailed statement was it not?

That's correct.

But I think, you've a very different idea about "gun collecting" to us here.
Here, it means that you collect (intransitive verb, from the Latin colligere) weapons.

They must be kept at one secure place (which is all regulated in various by-laws), the breechblock at a different. (And in Switzerland, you need a new 'allowance', if you want to store them e.g. in your second home in a different canton.)
So, shooting with them is just for show ...

Those are the rules for deactivated military weapons like machine guns (that people would not be allowed to legally own in their fully functional form).

Guns on this chart would not be subject to such limitations:

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

What we see in this thread, however, is the gun advocates refusing to discuss any issues of control, or making any attempt to meaningfully address the issue of gun violence in this country--they basically promote their own self-interest, and their personal interest in guns, above all else, including the general welfare.

As if harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip in any way endangered the general welfare.

firefly wrote:

So I don't think the level of discussion coming from the anti-control group in this thread is at all typical of what's likely to occur on a legislative level in this country,

You might want to familiarize yourself with the power of the NRA and GOA.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:

SCALIA: We'll see. I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/07/29/justice-antonin-scalia-issues-facing-scotus-and-country

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

The 2nd amendment has been a non-issue for 150 years. The idea that the "people" could stop the a federal force is ludicrous. It didn't turn out too well at all for the South now did it?

It's a little more complicated than that. The Framers did not envision the militia defeating tyranny by fighting against the federal government. They envisioned the militia defeating tyranny by fighting for the federal government.

They wanted a system where the federal government nearly always had to use the militia as their main source of strength.

They felt that militiamen would always refuse to execute a tyrannical order, so by forcing the feds to always have to use the militia to impose their will, they would be making tyranny impossible.

That said, unless a government is willing to commit genocide, guerrilla warfare can be quite difficult to deal with.

2 Replies

My condolences to the victims of the shooting spree in Switzerland a few hours ago.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

A multiple murder is not a "shooting spree".

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

A multiple murder is not a "shooting spree".

A crazy guy shot five people. Three are dead.

Looks like he used a bolt-action rifle. That is significant because in Switzerland, you can get bolt-action rifles and double-barrel shotguns without any background check.

He would only have faced a background check if he'd wanted something like a semi-auto.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

When YOU say so, the Swiss certainly will do what YOU say.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Looks like he used a bolt-action rifle. That is significant because in Switzerland, you can get bolt-action rifles and double-barrel shotguns without any background check.

He would only have faced a background check if he'd wanted something like a semi-auto.

He wasn't allowed to have any weapons at all (legally). And his old weapons were already destroyed.

According to the arms and weapons register, he didn't own any weapons 2005.

(Your ideas, oralloy) about how the Swiss deal with weapons, weapon ownership and weapon owners would be amusing if it wasn't so serious.)

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Looks like he used a bolt-action rifle. That is significant because in Switzerland, you can get bolt-action rifles and double-barrel shotguns without any background check.

Well, what do you call this:

Quote:

Ich erlaube der zuständigen Behörde die Informationen nachzuprüfen, insbesondere bei der Polizei, den Straf-, Vormundschafts-, Fürsorge- und Verwaltungsbehörden.

"I authorise the authorities to verify the information, in particular the police, the juridical, custody, social care and administrative authorities." NB: English is not an official language in the Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft/Confédération suisse/Confederazione Svizzera/Confederaziun svizra/Confoederatio Helvetica. So you won't find any background check there.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

It didn't turn out too well at all for the South now did it?

Doesn't that depend on how "the South" is defined.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

When YOU say so, the Swiss certainly will do what YOU say.

You are reversing cause and effect.

It is not a matter of me saying something and then the Swiss doing it.

It is a matter of the Swiss doing something, then me accurately stating what the Swiss are doing.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The Framers did not envision the militia defeating tyranny by fighting against the federal government. They envisioned the militia defeating tyranny by fighting for the federal government.

They could hardly have envisioned the situation in Syria.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

You are reversing cause and effect.

No. I'm just reading the law.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

He wasn't allowed to have any weapons at all (legally).

That prevented him from having a semi-auto/pump action/lever action, etc, as he would have had to pass a background check to purchase such a gun.

It was less of a barrier to him buying a bolt action rifle.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

(Your ideas, oralloy) about how the Swiss deal with weapons, weapon ownership and weapon owners would be amusing if it wasn't so serious.)

What is amusing about pointing out facts?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, what do you call this:

Quote:
Ich erlaube der zuständigen Behörde die Informationen nachzuprüfen, insbesondere bei der Polizei, den Straf-, Vormundschafts-, Fürsorge- und Verwaltungsbehörden.
"I authorise the authorities to verify the information, in particular the police, the juridical, custody, social care and administrative authorities."

I'm not sure. I need a bit more context.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
When YOU say so, the Swiss certainly will do what YOU say.

You are reversing cause and effect.

No. I'm just reading the law.

I doubt the law says anything about the Swiss doing what I say.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I'm not sure. I need a bit more context.

There isn't anymore. We (in German speaking countries) allow with this that (named) authorities make a "background check". (I'm not copying/pasting the French, Italian and Rhaeto-Romance versions of that sentence.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

oralloy wrote:
I'm not sure. I need a bit more context.

There isn't anymore.

Is it the background check used in buying a gun according to this process?

http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/514_54/a8.html

1 Reply

The only way to reduce gun related violence is to have more citizens armed in more places. We need to do away with these ridiculous 'gun free zones' that are magnets for mentally disturbed individuals. We need to allow the people to defend themselves and others - this is America and Americans use guns.

2 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know