Posted on Dec 6, 2015
The Israelis and Swiss are cited as 'gun control' models. Would the 'Swiss model' work in the U.S.?
8.35K
24
32
9
9
0
If ever a nation had "a well-regulated militia," it is Switzerland. Nineteenth-century economist Adam Smith thought Switzerland the only place where the whole body of the people had successfully been drilled in militia skills. Indeed, the militia is virtually synonymous with the nation. "The Swiss do not have an army, they [ARE] the army, says one government publication. Fully deployed, the Swiss army has 15.2 men per square kilometre; in contrast, the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. have only .2 soldiers per square kilometre. Switzerland is 76 times denser with soldiers than either superpower. Indeed, only Israel has more army per square kilometre. Switzerland is also the only Western nation to provide shelters fully stocked with food and enough supplies to last a year for all its citizens in case of war. The banks and supermarkets subsidise much of the stockpiling. The banks also have plans to move their gold into the mountainous center of Switzerland in case of invasion. The nation is ready to mobilise on a moment's notice. Said one Swiss citizen-soldier, "If we start in the morning, we would be mobilised by late afternoon. That is why the gun is at home, the ammunition is at home. The younger people all have automatic rifles. They are ready to fight." Citizen-soldiers on their way to mobilisation points may flag down and commandeer passing automobiles.
Since 1291, when the landsgemeinden (people's assemblies) formed circles in the village squares, and only men carrying swords could vote, weapons have been the mark of citizenship. As a Military Department spokesman said, "It is an old Swiss tradition that only an armed man can have political rights." This policy is based on the understanding that only those who bear the burden of keeping Switzerland free are entitled to fully enjoy the benefits of freedom.
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html
Since 1291, when the landsgemeinden (people's assemblies) formed circles in the village squares, and only men carrying swords could vote, weapons have been the mark of citizenship. As a Military Department spokesman said, "It is an old Swiss tradition that only an armed man can have political rights." This policy is based on the understanding that only those who bear the burden of keeping Switzerland free are entitled to fully enjoy the benefits of freedom.
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html
Gun Control
Militia
Voting
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 8
2
2
0
I keep seeing how everyone on the right seems to support the Swiss-method for handling firearms based on how well it seems to be working... so, I decided to take a look at it, and here's what I found:
1. Requires licensing to purchase weapons and a separate license to carry. Automatic firearms are banned.
2. Has a database of all weapons licenses.
3. Military service is REQUIRED for all men as part of the militia (because its the militia element that makes the guns necessary). This is the "training" part of the law.
4. Each license application is for ONE weapon - so, if you want more than one, you have to get more than one license.
5. Three elements must be met to get a carry license:
a. Demonstrates a need to protect themselves or others or property.
b. Pass a knowledge and practical skill exam.
c. Is otherwise legally qualified.
6. The exam consists of:
a. A knowledge test of criminal provisions on violent crimes and self-defense, and necessity as a justification or excuse
b. Federal and cantonal (state) weapons law provisions
c. Types of weapons and ammunition
d. Security measures and proper conduct when carrying weapons.
e. Practical examination tests the applicant’s skill in handling the weapon, including loading, unloading, operating the safety device, and shooting.
If THIS is what the right-wing agrees is effective and reasonable gun control, then I'm all in! This is 99% of everything that the "anti-gun" left wants in gun control.
1. Requires licensing to purchase weapons and a separate license to carry. Automatic firearms are banned.
2. Has a database of all weapons licenses.
3. Military service is REQUIRED for all men as part of the militia (because its the militia element that makes the guns necessary). This is the "training" part of the law.
4. Each license application is for ONE weapon - so, if you want more than one, you have to get more than one license.
5. Three elements must be met to get a carry license:
a. Demonstrates a need to protect themselves or others or property.
b. Pass a knowledge and practical skill exam.
c. Is otherwise legally qualified.
6. The exam consists of:
a. A knowledge test of criminal provisions on violent crimes and self-defense, and necessity as a justification or excuse
b. Federal and cantonal (state) weapons law provisions
c. Types of weapons and ammunition
d. Security measures and proper conduct when carrying weapons.
e. Practical examination tests the applicant’s skill in handling the weapon, including loading, unloading, operating the safety device, and shooting.
If THIS is what the right-wing agrees is effective and reasonable gun control, then I'm all in! This is 99% of everything that the "anti-gun" left wants in gun control.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Damajah Arnold
Great information. Who could argue against having so many controls, for the benefit of public safety?
(0)
(0)
Check out Dr. Edwin Vieira. We need to revitalize the institution of the Constitutional Militia in each State, immediately.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
We lack the homogeneity and single-mindedness the Swiss seem to enjoy, and which has worked for their society for centuries, to work for us--sadly. We are too narcissistic and therefore divided in our myriad agendas.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
What an absurd comparison. Switzerland is a landlocked mountainous country surrounded on three sides by large countries they have historical cultural, and linguistically ties with. It has no strategic value and no natural resources. Any country attacking it risks attack from the other two, as soon as it gets bogged down. Despite this, Switzerland has managed to maintain its neutrality by serving as the primary banker for the world’s most corrupt despots and money launderers, all protected by the country’s finance secrecy laws.
(1)
(0)
MSG Lonnie Averkamp
While, possibly, a bit blunt (and on that subject, I have little room to speak), I agree with most of what the Major is conveying.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Let us have all your assets and then we can negotiate on the guns. For some reason, the Swiss Bankers had the solution to world problems in WWII.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think that we could do something like that. Now we would not look like them it would need to be different for America but I think that the idea of most citizens armed is a good one that we should do.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I they had more that 20~M population combined.... maybe.
We have 320M.
Let's look at those numbers. Each of those countries have about 3%~ of our population. Can we really compared them?
We have 320M.
Let's look at those numbers. Each of those countries have about 3%~ of our population. Can we really compared them?
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
MAJ Bryan Zeski - Mandatory Training is a "hoop" you have to jump through, and if it is "controlled" by the Government.... there is no Check.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - I understand the intent and purpose of 2A. I don't agree with banning all weapons - or even most weapons. But I also don't agree that anyone and everyone should be able to just run down to Kmart and buy a gun. There must be a compromise that works for the people of the country as a whole. The problem we are running in to is this - one side will resist all efforts to change anything and will fight tooth and nail against any kind of compromise. The other side will continue to argue more and more vehemently every day, week, month and year for more restrictive gun control. Every accidental shooting, every mass shooting, every single time a gun is used to kill people illegally will be another straw added to the anti-gun pile. Eventually, the burden will be too great and the camel will break down. Harsh and exceedingly restrictive gun control will go into affect. It WILL happen. Right or wrong. Constitutional or not. It will happen.
This can be avoided by coming to a reasonable, rational compromise that addresses gun control and use in modern society.
The hard-core right-wing gun advocates can continue to push hard against it, but the more they do, the more strict the control will be when it eventually comes to fruition. I understand the principal behind the fight, but sometimes, you have to take a compromise and get the best compromise you can, while you can. If you wait too long, you'll end up with nothing.
This can be avoided by coming to a reasonable, rational compromise that addresses gun control and use in modern society.
The hard-core right-wing gun advocates can continue to push hard against it, but the more they do, the more strict the control will be when it eventually comes to fruition. I understand the principal behind the fight, but sometimes, you have to take a compromise and get the best compromise you can, while you can. If you wait too long, you'll end up with nothing.
(1)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
MAJ Bryan Zeski - Compromising one's right to self-defense has seldom, if ever, worked when dealing with tyranny in any of its myriad forms. Mexico is an excellent example of what happens when the populace is not allowed to defend itself either against a corrupt government or sadistic criminals (in this case one in the same). Imagine compromising with Hitler, Tojo, or Mussolini. FDR compromised with Stalin and we see how that turned out for Ukraine, et.al. No compromise on self-defense. Ever.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS - We've already compromised. The only question is how much compromise is acceptable. If there were no compromise, we could all have whatever guns we wanted. That is not the case. Are we going to say that we have the gun-situation just right like it is? I don't think that makes sense. No one thinks that makes sense. Everyone wants either more or less regulation on firearm - no one thinks it is good.
I want mandated training on firearms holders. I don't think wanting people who carry firearms to be trained on them is too much to ask.
I want mandated training on firearms holders. I don't think wanting people who carry firearms to be trained on them is too much to ask.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
While training, productive citizenship, and non-criminal status may be good qualifiers to the Constitutional right to having a firearm, let's start by applying that standard to the Constitutional right to vote first. Then we may not have to go any farther.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google