Here's a great piece on ProTell and how the Swiss view their arms. http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/754.html
the only country not to get bombed during world war 2...and the played the middle must of been doing something right!
I really suspect I was a fool to leave. When the head of the Kantonal Fremdenpolizei tells you, "You know, you don't have to leave Switzerland, we're looking for people like you." Somehow, a few decades later, you look at the mess that US politics is today, and think, DOH! The only other place I'd consider on the European Continent is the Czech Republic, they've had their fill of tyranny, and have no hold for it. Check out what the Czech president said about the Copenhagen meeting.
No actually, the town was Schaffhausen am Rhein. They took out some factories, "by accident." The factories were contracted by the Germans to perform work. At one point the Allies were also using Swiss labor under contract. Neutrality can pay, just not quite the way the Swedes played it. Ask a Norwegian about that... opcorn:
It is worth noting that, although firearm ownership is widespread in Switzerland, there is no right to carry for self defence. In the last ten years alone the restrictions on handgun purchase has become much more restrictive and expensive. I don't know the situation with rifles but suspect it is the same. ProTell is actually fighting a loosing battle. The opposition are the usual socialists and part of their argument is that they should harmonize their firearms laws with the EU. There are, or were, plenty of silly people in Switzerland who think they should join the EU. Perhaps the present economic shambles of the EU will persuade them otherwise and make them less easily persuadable towards silly firearms legistlation. English
This is what I found on the net. THAT the United States bombed the small, neutral state of Switzerland during World War II seems at first implausible, but such attacks did occur. There was a scattering of incidents in 1943. Then on 1 April 1944 the northern Swiss city of Schaffhausen was seriously damaged. As the Allied air attack on Germany intensified, the number of raids on Swiss territory increased, culminating in the nearly simultaneous bombings of Basel and Zurich on 4 March 1945.
I like the concept. We train all youth in the military then send their gun home with them. That's a militia.
My only concern is that regardless of proper training, I don't want 90% of our population armed. Allow me to clarify: there are vast segments of our population I prefer remain unarmed and untrained; for example, anyone who voted for our president. Do NOT misunderstand me; skin color has nothing to do with the above statements and everything to do politics and personal responsibility.
Like most things, it is easier to do when the population is so small. I have often heard it said that a country with a population of less than 10million will thrive on socialism.
I'm totally sympathetic to your feelings, however if we are going to have a responsible citizenry, then everyone must be able (baring conviction for an violent felony), to bear arms. You don't get to pick who. That's the problem with things as they currently are, people we don't necessarily like or agree with are picking who can carry. I'm willing to put a really, really stiff penalty on anyone who's the aggressor with a weapon. I'm willing to require a test - yeah, you can bet a 60% isn't going to let you carry. But I'm unwilling to use monopoly force (the government) to keep people I don't agree with from carrying arms. By the way, someone who can show a 20 year record of clean living should be able to get a felony exception for firearms - IMHO.
Allow me to clarify in light of another thread. I absolutely do not want the government dictating who can and cannot own or carry a firearm regardless of the party or beliefs of the people in power. However, there are vast segments of our population that have little interest in firearms and due to their political positions. I'm quite happy with that and will not encourage them to gain any more interest in firearms. Those of that political grouping who are interested in firearms show little interest in gaining any kind of tactical proficiency with their firearms, preferring to practice their posturing in front of a mirror to ensure they "look" good with it. Again, I'm quite happy with that and will not encourage them in gaining any tactical proficiency.
If you can show me any kind of Constitutional justification for that, I might agree with you. However, we both know it isn't there. The only way convicted felons are prevented from owning firearms is that they have "lost" their Constitutional rights, something I'm not sure the Constitution provides for either. As a country, we have gotten so very, very far from what the Constitution actually allows, it is absolutely staggering.
