The U.N. Gun Ban Treaty - Gun Owners Beware

but guns and hunting are a big issue in the U.S. election this year. Why do you think ol' John-boy went out and whacked a goose with a borrowed shotgun?

So as a gun owner I fear Kerry and the U.N.

I like the Switzerland model, as their militiamen keeping automatic rifles at home are exactly the sort of thing that was envisioned when the Second Amendment was written.

oralloy wrote:

I like the Switzerland model, as their militiamen keeping automatic rifles at home are exactly the sort of thing that was envisioned when the Second Amendment was written.

I'm glad to find again someone, who liks the "Swiss model".

So you are one of those, who are

- pro draft,
- private guns only allowed durcing military (reserve) services.

Nothing against that.

Those statement, like yours, only prove again that you have no idea about what is going outside the USA:

- it seems, you bever heard of the Swiss Firearms Control Law (last alteration: June 20, 1997 - SR No. 514.54 - Federal Law about Weapons, Weapon Attachments and Amunition ['Weapon Law" WG])

- it seems, you don't know that the Swiss army is a militia army, and soldiers and officers keep their personal weapons (traditionally) only at home, because they use them during their regular annual service of two or three weeks per year. (With a special admission, they can use them after the left the army in order to continue practicing at rifle or pistol ranges managed by local communities.)

The rules rules governing hunting and sporting rifles are similar to those in other Eurpean countries.

(With a special admission, they can use them after the left the army in order to continue practicing at rifle or pistol ranges managed by local communities.)

By the way, if you knew Swiss gun laws as well as I do, you would have mentioned that the automatic rifles are rendered semi-auto-only if they keep the gun after leaving the militia.

But I *am* aware that Switzerland does not even come close to restricting private guns to only military uses.

oralloy wrote:

By the way, if you knew Swiss gun laws as well as I do, you would have mentioned that the automatic rifles are rendered semi-auto-only if they keep the gun after leaving the militia.

I didn't know that you studied Swiss (Public) Law, too. Sorry.

oralloy wrote:

But I *am* aware that Switzerland does not even come close to restricting private guns to only military uses.

Well, I've only the 2004 copies (= 2003 issues) of the Swiss laws to look at.
And their website* doesn't mention any changes until the date of today.
* there printed in copy, as you certainly will notice :wink:

dlowan wrote:

You are calling for mass murder.

Hardly. I am calling for a military strike against foreigners who apply pressure on us to violate our civil rights.

Certainly you are correct.

But for all other weapons (as defined in the law), you must obtain a "Waffenerwerbsschein" ('permit to purchase'), which is exactly the same as in other European countries, like e.g. the UK, Germany ...

But at the same time, I'm realistic. There is NO place in the civilian (excluding ex-law enforcement) world for Uzis, Tec-9's, Mac-11s, Skorpions, ect.

If you need a weapon that powerful for home defense, either A. you are

C. You are elegible for a Class III permit, which would allow you to keep an MP5A5 9mmX19 fully automatic submachinegun in your home

Civilians don't need armor piercing bullets, silencers, 75 round mags ect.

The problem is, if you ban assault weapons, hi cap mags, people who really want to get them will still get them. And when the go to that black market dealer, they'll also pick up some grenades, body armor, and who know what else. I'd rather the psycho bought a semiauto AR-15 and a 30rd bannana mag loaded with nosler BTs than going to a black market dealer and getting a silenced AR-180, grenades, a machine pistol, striker shotgun loaded with armor piercing slugs, and interceptor body armor. The first guy would kill a lot fewer people before the cops took him out. The cops would have a much harder time with the second. But if the guy wants to kill a bunch of people, he is going to do it some way, and believe it or not, if he buys his weapons legally, he'll wind up with less killing power.

Some guns should never be sold, but banning them will never stop the psychos, it just might make it worse. So ban, but use discretion. And don't ever screw over the people who go through 3 years of backround checks for a class III permit.

oralloy wrote:

dlowan wrote:

You are calling for mass murder.

Hardly. I am calling for a military strike against foreigners who apply pressure on us to violate our civil rights.

Hold on, hold on, back up the truck.

As examples of "foreigners who apply pressure on us to violate our civil rights" you have mentioned IANSA, "the one pushing this gun-ban treaty" and Rebecca Peters, its Chief Executive, who "is pushing to have us adopt a treaty that would violate our rights".

What do these people do? To quote cjhsa, they "bring world attention on the humantarian impact of these weapons". Eg, they do a publicity campaign, might organise a petition, will debate with politicians to see if they can be persuaded. They talk. And you consider that reason enough for a military strike against them?

Your Congressmen and President will have the final say. They have the right to tell Rebecca no, if they dont agree. You have the right to try to convince them to say "no", just like some fellow-countrymen of yours will be trying to convince them to say "yes". In any case all the IANSA can do, too, is talk - debate, campaign, lobby - try to persuade people.

That's what democracy is: people trying to convince each other, and when the vote comes, those who have convinced most people get their way. Rebecca Peters and her colleagues don't do anything different from what the NRA honchos do - organise supporters, persuade politicians. In the end it'll always be up to the voters and the officials they elect, cause thats how democracy works.

And to you this sinister enough to want to, what, shoot them? Bomb them? What would this "military strike" be like? A sniper aiming for Ms. Peters' head?

They may not "need" them, but they certainly have legitimate use for them, particularly armor-piercing rifle bullets, which are beneficial for self-defense if you face a home invasion team wearing heavy armor.

I hadn't really thought about it. Just tell the Pentagon to get rid of them and let the generals work out the details.

oralloy wrote:

They may not "need" them, but they certainly have legitimate use for them, particularly armor-piercing rifle bullets, which are beneficial for self-defense if you face a home invasion team wearing heavy armor.

And what exactly would one need to have done in America to get to face a "home invasion team wearing heavy armor"? What scenario are you preparing for here?

oralloy wrote:

I hadn't really thought about it. Just tell the Pentagon to get rid of them and let the generals work out the details.

So, does that work the other way round too? I mean, if some American NGO or government official tries to talk yer Bulgarian or Zimbabwean politician into implementing something that a Bulgarian or Zimbabwean of your mindset would consider a violation of their constitution, would he have the right to shoot this American official?

State Department diplomat expresses the US's dissatisfaction with the Zimbabwean elections, tells Mugabe to change the law so as to give the opposition a fair chance - does that give Zimbabwe the right to kill Powell in a military strike? After all, he was trying to "talk" Mugabe into changing the country's laws?

Or does the right only apply outwards, from America to other countries trying to interfere?

There are strong arguments either way here for and against the laws

I do feel good about the laws.

I have never understood the theory about feeling 'safer' via the stockpiling of weapons. The - 'if they come for me I'll be able to protect myself' arguement. Who is going to come for you and why do you assume they are going to be coming in shooting?

It seems this reasoning is only legitimate in a culture of fear, where the freedom to bear arms crosses into the grey area of the need to bear arms.

I look at the American situation and I see a history of fear mongering and government mistrust that has led to the most paranoid state of mind, all predicated on the excuse of a sacred 'right' that has become untouchable even though it undermines the freedoms it supposedly supports. How free are you when you must build your own private barricades and arm yourself to the teeth?

I just do not swallow the arguement that because someone in another age far removed from mine helped put together a law that in context was a necessity, I should two hundred years later, in a far different time be able to point to that law and demand to own something so obviously designed to take a life.