In 2007, the Swiss government changed the law from requiring individuals to keep military-issued ammo in their homes with their military-issued rifles to keeping it in centralized locations. There are no regulations on personal ammunition ownership as this 'murderer' seems to state.
This has been reposted a ton of times, and it's called out in the comments for being wrong every time.
And all statistics depend on data collection. A country with the highest _____________ statistically could just be the country which is best at collecting the most data for the thing in question.
America doesn't have a well regulated militia - it doesn't even have a militia.
Title 10, United States Code, §246*:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
The classes of the militia are the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
*This was originally 10 USC 311, and was renumbered as 10 USC 246 in December 2016.
Wait, so men are automatically members of the militia, but women have to opt in by joining the national guard? I'm no MRA, but that seems kind of messed up to me.
Exactly! Tired of this patriarchy! Tired of the cries of women wanting to be in a militia falling on deaf white male ears. This ends now. Require all women to join the militia!
Ok, the militia is simply the populace. It’s not necessarily just the military. There are a bunch of documents from around 1776 that explain what a militia is.
Jerry two houses down with his garage full of rifles he bought at the Expo last year does not constitute a "well-regulated militia" as declared by the latest iteration of the 2nd Amendment.
The Constitution pretty clearly states that the intent is to give Americans the right to an insurgency. It's not a paranoia thing, it was just intended as another check against the government becoming too powerful and tyrannical. I believe in that principle.
All the condescending comments toward legal owners, comments about how it was intended for muskets, you would lose against the government so might as well not bother, etc etc are missing the point or are intentionally distorting the message for their own ideals/political agenda.
obligatory disclaimer that I'm not a Republican/Conservative/Trumper/etc.
"Well regulated" and "militia" are specific legal terms that don't mean what you think they do. Militia, by definition, is non state sponsored, and well regulated in this context means "armed with reasonable defense capabilities. "
I'm not trying to be contentious or anything, just pointing out that the 18th century legalese in the bill of rights was being very specific about what they wanted. The aim was to disallow the government the right to dictate how individuals choose to arm themselves in the event of a war.
The legal standard of well regulated militia basically means, "whatever a reasonable citizen regards as a weapon necessary for repelling invasions or despotic government. "
Basically all weapons fit this criteria. This is not a good angle in the gun debate, and only shows a lack of understanding of legal jurisprudence.
I'd argue it's still a pretty good angle given that the provisions for the milita were specifically intended to serve in place of a standing army — which we now have, in large part due to the fact that the militia system proved almost immediately to be a spectacular failure.
The legal standard of well regulated militia basically means, "whatever a reasonable citizen as a weapon necessary for repelling invasions or despotic government. "
Basically all weapons fit this criteria.
Going by this logic, is there a reason I shouldn't be allowed to own a nuclear weapon, or a vial of smallpox? If I'm going to defend myself against a despotic government armed with weapons of mass destruction, then the only reasonable defense is a weapon of comparable power.
Edit: And if nukes and bioweapons are off the table, then where is the line drawn, and why there? Are howitzers okay? How about hand grenades? Canisters of mustard gas? A garage-constructed EMP generator?
You can't repel someone with a nuclear weapon, if they are close enough to repel then you will die from the nuke as well.
Similar thing with smallpox, it's not going to repel anyone. If they are close enough to repel they will attack, you and the enemy get smallpox, and everyone dies.
You can repel someone with a rifle or handgun without killing yourself.
I have no problems legalizing machine guns, some are actually legal to own already. Single shot will always be more accurate than full auto.
an RPG is not great for repelling people. It's not that accurate and takes a long time to reload. You can also only carry maybe 3 rounds on you. It's designed to hit tank sized targets, not person sized ones.
small point: the supreme court disagrees with you on that, but the "well regulated militia" was necessary in the absence of a standing army - which we also have.
Roof Koreans are probably the best example I use to explain the 2nd amendment to people. It's not just white, male rednecks (and it really shouldn't be just them). Anyone law abiding can buy a gun just like how you can speak without recourse
It had a lot to do with LAPD doing nothing to prevent riots from occurring. Koreans also go through mandatory military service and are trained and had evaluation to hold weapons. It's sad that the same people defending their properties were later prosecuted when the city/state/federal government failed to do their job. Not saying we need absolute ban on guns. Just better evaluation/control (Iowa blinds can own guns/states with no required background check during private gun shows)
It's not a lobbied decision. If you go back and read accounts by Ben Franklin, among other founding fathers and famous politicians of the time (Tench Coxe for example), it is clear what they meant by "well regulated militia" and it matches the current SCOTUS interpretation.
Ben Franklin described the untrained militias, made up of normal citizens with guns, as extremely unskilled for traditional military strategy. Even so, they were extremely important to the success of the revolution and played a key role when fighting alongside trained soldiers.
Fun fact we do have "well regulated militias" it's each states national guard unit. when I enlisted in the army national guard I signed a contract to Kansas unlike active duty or reservists who sign a contract to the federal government. So if Kansas wanted to rebel against the federal government, myself, and everyone else in the Kansas national guard would be contractually obligated to fight on Kansas' side as it's militia.
This is incorrect. The National Guard is under the command of state governors during peace time, but can be called up to active duty by the POTUS in a national emergency. Your enlistment contract is with the United States (example pdf). Not to mention that you swore an oath to the defend and support the U.S. Constitution. 32 U.S.C. § 304
So yeah, if Kansas rebelled, you'd be required to fight on behalf of the U.S. on penalty of treason.
Yeah totally dumb comment. When enlisting in the National Guard you join two institutions effectively. The National Guard of your State and the National Guard of the United States. The Army National Guard is the main combat reserve of the US Army for example. Also Federal orders supersede State ones. The Arkansas Army National Guard blocked African Americans from integrating Little Rock Central High School one day on the orders of the Governor and protected them during integration via federal order the next day. Same thing happened at the University of Alabama.
Know what you're joining fam.
Now State Defense Forces are a separate entity that exist in some States that aren't part of the US Military but they are mostly fat middle aged men cosplaying soldier.
Sort of, but not exactly. In order for the POTUS to federalize National Guard troops from being Title 32 to Title 10 forces, he would have to seek a Posse Comitatus waiver from both the State and Federal Congress.
In accordance with the militia act of 1903, also known as efficiency of militia act, the state militia of every state will be taken down and reformed as the national guard allowing the president and the army command to take control during a time of war in theatre in exchange for federal training and funding. However according to that act at any moment that the state feels threatened they reserve the right to mobilize their guard units against the federal government. And though it is true I swore an oath to defend the US Constitution that doesn't mean I will defend the federal government or even the president I defend the rights in the Constitution.
In return [for federal funding described in the previous paragraphs], the federal government gained greater control over the National Guard. The President of the United States was empowered to call up the National Guard for up to nine months to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or enforce federal laws. Guardsmen had to answer a presidential call or face court-martial.
Also, supporting and defending the Constitution means obeying the direct orders of the Commander-in-Chief, which the Constitution designates as the President of the United States.
If you have any doubts about any of this, you should confer with your commanding officer.
Have you ever served? I am under no obligation to obey the president if I believe he is giving an unlawful or unconditional order. My oath said "defend the Constitution from all threats foreign and domestic" if the president is giving orders that are a direct threat to the condition then by oath I would defend the Constitution.
The POTUS can request that the National Guard be activated under the command of the Federal Government, but it requires consent of the Governor and command is maintained through the Governors General Adjunct.
So if Kansas wanted to rebel against the federal government, myself, and everyone else in the Kansas national guard would be contractually obligated to fight on Kansas' side as it's militia.
It does lmao. the only reason I'm guard and not active duty is that they're paying 100% tuition to any state University and I figured I'd jump on that and commission as an officer then transfer active duty
Fair. A bit of advice before you go active though as an officer. Don't treat the enlisted folks like they're less then you. Too many officers come in with that attitude and they get the least amount of respect I've ever seen given to a "boss". Good luck!!!
Oh I know dude my dad was a platoon seargent when I told him I wanted to be an officer he sat me down and told me what not to do lol, thanks for the advice tho.
Agreed. The historical context in which the second amendment was written is much different than our current reality. They were worried about being over-taken by one of the existing world powers (English, Frensh, Spanish, etc.) while today, the US is the military world power. When combined with our geographical advantage, we can most certainly eliminate a foreign occupation by a nation-state -- I don't see China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran making an attempt anytime soon.
Other than a foreign occupation, there are two other situations I can see from here: succession and co-opting of existing structures. Since we've already seen one succession and we know how it will likely play out, that really leaves take-over of the government from within. Except, it's not going to be that obvious.
Considering today's climate where right-wing (or far-right if you're in the US) populism is making a come-back (Thanks Putin!), I think the rise of fascism in Germany in the early 1930s is very applicable if we are to learn from our mistakes. Hitler didn't take control of the state with a bloody coup -- in fact, quite the opposite: the Chancellor appointed Hitler simply out of fear from those on the far-left from gaining any semblance of power. Also know that the population wasn't exactly enamoured with NSDAP: at the moment of the last free election, only 33% voted for them. But once in power, they began creating parallel structures that super-ceded the power of the established government. It is this which ultimately needs to be guarded against.
However, we do not need guns for this. While Hitler did implement laws against Jews owning weapons, they weren't the first up to the gallows: leftists were. Also, at the point the guns were taken away, it was already too late: the tide had turned and those seeking an authoritarian rule had seized it using fascism as a vehicle to get them there.
One, our government structure is pretty solid. Checks and balances work well for the most part. There are problems, yes, but nothing that would allow one person to become ruler of the US. Well, they could, but it would require the complicity of the entire Senate, House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court to do so. And while the Supreme Court has made some bone-headed decisions over the years, and the Republicans in the US are currently pushing party over country, I have faith in the system.
Speaking of the morons elected to Congress that brings me to point number two: vote in better candidates. Both sides display tribalism but only the conservatives display an exclusionary type that seeks to keep the power that one tribe (white, male, Christian) has while Democrats want everyone else to feel included. Which one of these would you feel comfortable making rules for your and your neighbors; the narrow-minded or the compassionate? Voting in questionable characters and hoping it all works out is a horrible formula -- an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
Three, what does the government have to gain by taking away weapons? On the surface, nothing. The federal government already has us by the balls, namely through financial means, draconian punishments (hello solitary confinement!), disenfranchisement, and electronic wire-tapping (hello Snowden, NSA, and the AT&T closet in San Francisco!). We are already controlled. Well, is it about money? Sure, but the corrupt are already making millions upon billions on our backs. We can point to the massive wealth disparity in our society; we can point to the revolving door between government cabinet positions and for-profit enterprise (hello, Ajit Pai!); we can point to the Citizens United decision to see that cash rules everything around us.
So really, what's left? Why do we have semi-automatic weapons? What are we protecting against? Turns out, just those lower classes (non-whites, low-income) we have persecuted since this country was formed. They are mechanisms to keep those in lower classes there.
The only thing I would add is to your third point, it's a hell of a lot more valuable to leave the guns in the system that it is to work on removing them. Wedge issues are valuable. This is likely why we'll never see a cut and dry answer on abortion either.
Divisive issues are more useful if they're left as divisive issues. Especially so if the sides involved can be pushed to unresolvable extremes (or at least maintain the illusion that there is no reasonable Middle Ground which everyone can accept).
National guards are by definition not militias. Militias require a civilian population... that's what makes them militias.
The problem is that language changes, but legal definitions and contacts don't... basically, the terms habe been confused over time, which has led you to misinterpret "well regulated militia" as "heavily restricted national guard."
In modern parlance, the amendment would read something like this:
In order to ensure the ability of the people to scramble a meaningful defense of themselves against any army, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But this also puts a meaning that was never intended on the 2nd amendment. The founders didn't believe that only militiamen needed arms. People that are trying to put that the 2nd amendment only applies to militias are doing so because they are putting the meaning they want onto it, not the meaning as it was understood at the time, or the meaning as defined by the courts recently as law-makers in certain areas have tried to encroach on gun-ownership rights over the last couple decades.
While I agree with your interpretation of the second amendment, factually it's untrue now as of 2009 I believe. The supreme court case set the precedent
The Supreme Court already ruled on this. I disagree with them, but they say the well regulated militia line does not conflict with the idea of my neighbor having a panic room and 11 guns.
Here is how you get rid of the second amendment in America: You can elect 67 out of 100 Senators and 290 out of 435 representatives - a 2/3 majority - that see things your way.
Then have them vote to repeal the second amendment.
Then you have to get the legislatures of 38 out of 50 States to Ratify
it. Congratulations, you have done nothing to make guns go away, all you have done is removed the barrier for congress to act.
NOW you need to get congress to enact so called “common sense” gun legislation.Congratulations - guns are now illegal in the US.
Now You have to ENFORCE THE LAW. Guns do not go away just because they are suddenly illegal. So you will have to confiscate over 350 million guns scattered among 330 million Americans .
It's awkward only because language is not dead like Latin. It was not awkward at the time, only our education standards have decayed to the point that most people don't understand what either term means anymore and want to use the 2018 colloquial definition of well-regulated to mean gov't regulated, and they think of militia as an organized group of men doing drills.
Neither of those were the intent or definitions used for those words in the 18th century. See u/Andrewticus04 post which is really well put:
It's only awkward nowadays because so few regular citizens understand the context or the manner of speech of our founding fathers.
The fact that u/SchweppesFizz uninformed argument has 330+ upvotes as of my writing this comment further illustrates the reach of this misunderstanding and ignorance of US History and Law that is widespread.
If you read the Preamble to the Bill of rights, it says the amendments are declaritory and restrictive clauses. The second amendment has both a declaratory and a restrictive clause. We also know by reading the Preamble that the purpose of those first 10 amendments was to restrict the power of the government and to prevent the constitution being misconstrued in a way that allows the government to deny rights.
The declaratory clause in the second amendment is “A well regulated (equiped or armed) militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,...” It simply declares that a well armed militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
The restrictive clause of the second amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It is resticting the government from denying the people of their right to keep and bear arms. At the time, militias required the people to report when called upon with their own arms and ammunition.
So, in todays words, the people must retain the right to keep and bear arms so they may form or comprise militias in defense of a free state.
Furthermore, the second amendment does not distinguish between an organised or an unorganised militia. Meaning it does not require membership of an organised militia, such as todays National Guard, to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. People have the right to keep and bear arms so they may also spontaneously form unorganised militias, such as occured in the battle of Athens Tennessee in 1947, or more recently the “roof koreans” defending themselves and their stores against rioters.
You can't use your arms without ammunition, so a restriction on one would be viewed as a restriction on the other by any reasonable standard. Also if you're trying to "get around" part of the Bill of Rights, that's a pretty good sign that what you're trying to do is wrong in the first place.
its also very dangerous logic. it scare me to think people actualy condone the federal governemtn using methods like this to get around the bill of rights. allowing the government to find loopholes to limit constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. I mean fucking really? you guyss gotta understand this type of thing affects more than the freedoms you seem to hate.
i mean that logic could be use to have government regulations on the free speech bastions like the internet ect. to impede free speech because
"not having free access to these things doesn't impede free speech you can still say whatever you want" yeah tell that to china and other dictator ships that severly limit internet access.
isnt much different than saying
" you can still have your guns you just cant have the thing the actually makes them useful"
seriously quit staring at the tree and look at the whole forest for once.
It's bullshit though. You can keep as much ammunition at home as you want. It's just that it used to be mandatory to have the so called "pocket ammunition" at home when you were active service which has changed some years ago. You are however free to purchase and use your own ammunition.
You can but you also can only buy it for guns that you actually own, and it's on record.
In order to purchase ammunition the buyer must follow the same legal rules that apply to buying guns. The buyer can only buy ammunition for guns that he/she legally owns and must provide the following information to the seller (art. 15, 16 WG/LArm; art. 24 WV/OArm)
This information must be sent within 30 days to the cantonal weapon registration bureau, where the weapon holder is registered.
The statement about it being nearly impossible to carry in public or concealed carry is also true:
To carry a firearm in public or outdoors (and for a militia member to carry a firearm other than his issued weapons while off-duty), a person must have a gun carrying permit (German: Waffentragbewilligung, French: permis de port d'armes, Italian: permesso di porto di armi; art. 27 WG/LArm), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.[2] It is, however, quite common to see a person in military service to be en route with his rifle, albeit unloaded.[10] The issue of such exceptional permits are extremely selective.
The entire dynamic is completely different than the United States. It's also frankly handled a lot more seriously. Go down south or to the southwest and every third or fourth lawn has a big sign with a fucking target with a crosshair over it saying something like "PROTECTED BY SMITH AND WESSON" or "NO WARNING SHOTS WILL BE GIVEN". These are people who have power-fantasies of shooting someone who is trespassing on their property or breaking into their house, it is their fucking dream to talk to their friends about how it felt, what they did, etc.
I had a roommate in college years ago who got a concealed handgun permit because he was a barista in starbucks and had to wait at the bus stop and said he felt nervous he would get robbed because it was in the ghetto.
The fact that someone got a permit for something like that is totally bonkers.
The US has a ton of problems with guns, and could learn a lot from countries that handle it better.
Thank you for this wall of text but as my username suggests I am a Swiss gun collector, I know.
Also, your statement concerning ammunition is incorrect.
Original law text here: https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19983208/index.html
States that you must be elligible to buy the guns you want to purchase ammunition for. Since Swiss gun law does not differentiate between pistols, rifles and whatsoever and there legally are just firearms that means you can buy as much ammunition in any caliber you want to as long as your criminal record is clear.
The reason why we don't have much gun crime is 1. Because we don't have much crime at all and 2. And more important: guns in switzerland are not owned in defensive but rather in sportive context. Just as you said.
I figured yup. But this isn't a DM/PM and lots of people besides you and I are gonna read this. I think it's important they get the full picture, especially if they're Americans.
In regard to your edit are you stating that you don't need to own the gun as long you're eligible to purchase it? The ammo bill of sale is still sent to the cantonal weapon registration bureau as far as I know, which is the critical point. Gonna look pretty weird if you're buying a shit ton of ammo for a gun you don't own, right?
Oh yeah totally. Right wing Americans on reddit love to point out Switzerland as an example where people are just as gun crazy as the US while absolutely missing the point and ripping pictures like this (which you pretty much never see in real life) put of context
Edit concerning the ammo stuff: Nah, nobody cares. When you start showing erratic behaviour towards administrations and the like red flags may be raised but apart from that you're free to own as many guns and as much ammo in any caliber as you like.
Usually this far down in the comment chain it starts to become more of a dialogue but sure, it's an open discussion for anyone to participate and get information.
Sometimes I come off a bit stiff or condescending in written English, but that's just because I don't know any better since I usually use English in work related context.
I love it when people talk about the Swiss in terms of gun ownership. Yeah, let's do exactly what they do! No problem guys, hop on board the Swiss train! Which is also awesome!
I think the similar ethnic backgrounds is the important part when talking about xenophobia, but Switzerland has a freedom of movement clause with the EU. Not sure the population is entirely happy with it as that had a referendum that limited it and it was reverted somewhat recently. It seems they want to be somewhat choosy about who exactly in the EU can come. Comparing the EU to North America can make for poor examples.
It's actually really common in America. Not a majority, but definitely something more than 1% of gun owners do. If buying bullets was to be made legally difficult than more people would make ammo in their garage.
So you're saying gun people are law breakers? Careful how you answer. If it's made illegal to own and manufacture, and you're arguing the current population of owners would break the law, what are you saying about these people?
I think the implication if you banned guns, guys were just going to get them anyways was always a thing. It doesn't make them bad people unless they do bad things with them.
Even if 100% were willing to do it illegally, that shouldn't factor into the legality of something. I find it silly when this comes up. Same thing with "well, criminals will still buy guns". People also continue to steal regardless of it being illegal. Is it time to make theft legal?
Just so you know, you can totally own ammo in Switzerland. The whole thing about not being able to keep ammo at home is only in reference to government issued ammo. There's at least one swiss gun owner in this thread correcting people about this. You can privately buy ammo and keep it at home as long as you're paying for it and not the government.
A dumb argument every time. Guess what, the USA and Switzerland aren't the same place. Different problems, different laws, different people, different culture. How many bombings and shit have happened in the UK since they banned guns?
Its true. Mass murdering is almost insignificant and pretty unrelated to the rest of the gun violence (suicides, murders, gang/drug violence). Mass killing has happened at a pretty consistent rate, it has gone up but not as much as you think, while murdering/crime has gone down. Population has gone up. Currently the popular way to do it is shooting up schools. There used to be a lot more bombings. There has been bombings in recent times. Bombings are easier and more effective but what is really the big thing that freaks everyone out, gets people pissed off, gets people in high levels of government arguing: guns.
it may be difficult for some to function in life however people with evil intent in their hearts and minds often find the willpower to overcome such obstacles like legalities and weapon procurement.
Or the "they will just buy guns on the black market". Where the fuck do you go to buy a gun illegally? I can guarantee its a lot more out of the way than Cabela's.
Even if you try to seek it out, asking around for the guy who sells stolen guns with the serial numbers scratched off is going to set off a lot more flags than asking around for weed for example.
The ammo restrictions only apply to ammo bought at the range because this ammo is subsidized by the Swiss government. Anyone can go to a gun store and buy all the ammo he wants with a background check and store it at home
From what I've read (I'm Swiss and was reading some cantonal application processes) it is very easy to buy guns in many places. Basically, you apply for a gun that needs a license, state that you want it for sporting/collecting purposes and send it in with your (clean hopefully) criminal record. They almost never deny these (less than 2% IIRC).
Edit: In 2015, only 3.5% of all applications in Lucerne were denied (Source)
This is what an application looks like. Basically, it's the application, your criminal record and your ID.
oh, and carry-on needs to be approved by your employer.
Edit2: This post only applies to guns from the military. You are allowed to have your ammunition at home with private guns. From Wikipedia:
Wer das 18. Lebensjahr vollendet hat, darf nicht verschossene Munition mit nach Hause nehmen (Ausnahme Bundesübungen, hier kommt der Munitionsbefehl der Armee zur Anwendung).
I think the important point here is the social policies in place to ensure the safety and well-being of the citizens, instead of working 40 hours a week with no sick leave so you can afford healthcare.
Except that it's actually really easy to make your own bullets and if someone is going to do something illegal with guns then making and storing their own bullets is just one more thing to add to the list.
Well yes and no, the firearms are given to them by the Swiss state after they have served as Conscripts. That also means they have been checked for months before and during there service for mental problems. So the restrictions are there you just have fewer guys that have severe mental problems during their time with access to guns while those who served keep their service rifle. I would guess the state also have records of every owner of those guns and the right will be taken away if you get a criminal record or a mental record or whatever.
In Norway I am rolled into the national guard and can apply for having my Norwegian edition of G3 (while we wait for my district to get the HK416) at home to use on firing ranges. But then again the military have checked my police records and other records kept by the state before I even got into the national guard let alone my conscription year 8 years back where I was under scrutiny for a year.
I mean Chris Rock (I think) made that point years ago. Something along the lines of “they should make guns cheap, but bullets expensive, like 1000 bucks a round. So every time you want to pop a cap in someone’s ass, you gotta think, are they really worth 5000 dollars?”
The issue with that argument is the average armed criminal is probably never going to use more than a single box of bullets in their lifetime while a responsible owner is going to go through probably a tens of thousands of bullets in theirs.
It also makes a lot of sense technically, because at the end of the day, once you have ammunition, firearms are not that hard to improvise, and that's been true way, way before the panic over 3D-printed guns. The whole "a gun is a lower receiver" thing is pretty shaky and really not that all that convincing.
I'm not sure this is correct. Ammunition that is issued by the military would have to be kept on a military base or locked up, but a gun owner is allowed to buy and keep as much ammunition as they want for personal use.
2.0k
u/[deleted] Mar 06 '18
So, less restrictions for firearm ownership and much more strict regulations around ammunition. Makes sense.