The neutral Swiss are armed to the teeth, with automatic weapons and plenty of ammunition
in most homes, yet their murder rate is a minuscule fraction of the US rate. Would the Swiss system work in the US? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
The neutral Swiss are armed to the teeth, with automatic weapons and plenty of ammunition in most homes, yet their murder rate is a minuscule fraction of the US rate. Would the Swiss system work in the US? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
Gun control vs. the right to bear arms
9/00
US Constitution excerpts:
Article 1, section 8: Responsibilities of federal government
10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:
12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:
13. To provide and maintain a navy:
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:
15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:
16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:
Amendments:
I - Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
II - Right to keep and bear arms
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
IX - Rule of construction of Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
X - Rights of the States under Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
US Constitution, full text link
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to
keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States
who are peaceful citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams, U.S. Constitutional Convention, 1788
I haven't made up my mind about this important issue. I can see at least 2 sides:
A. Guns kill several thousand people per year in the US. Most of the people killed are not criminals caught in the middle of a crime, violent or non-violent. A homeowner is several times more likely to have his kids killed by his gun than he is to confront a home invader. [look up stats] Clearly (despite the moronic quibbling from NRA types), if there were fewer guns around then fewer would be used for murder, suicide, and intimidation. It takes much more thought, work and person-to-person contact to use most other methods, so we wouldn't do it nearly as often. Americans have had a reputation for violence for centuries, which seems to be pretty well deserved, and they have not shown any inclination to responsible gun use and training. Would the Swiss system work here? Hell, no. It's interesting to contrast our expectations for responsible car driving, with training, fees, licensing, and constant police presence, to the trivial requirements and training most people have for their guns (and unregistered cars with unlicensed drivers are few compared to unregistered, unlicensed guns. But cars are bigger, harder to hide.) And the sort of people who blather about the big, bad gummint prying weapons from their cold fingers are the sort who most definitely shouldn't have weapons (or children).
But there's the analogy with the First Amendment: we defend, more or less, the right of fanatics and pornographers to publish. So, how far should we go to defend the gun droolers?
B. The US Constitution assumes that there will be state militias, and makes provisions for their control. Militias were a British tradition (don't know about other European countries), they were standard in the American colonies, and membership was mandatory for adult men. They were barely organized, barely trained, a first line of defense against bandits and invasion during an era before there were police, fast transportation, and instant communication. Hunting obviously is an ancient tradition, but is not relevant to the Constitution. If civil liberties organizations focused as much on the 2nd Amendment as on the 1st (and been as successful), there would be plenty of people walking around with flame-throwers and machine-guns. (Conversely, if the religious nuts and Mrs Grundy had had their way with the 1st Amendment, only the priests and police would be armed, literacy would be low, and all communications media would be licensed and censored.) Supposedly the Supreme Court decided that the National Guard has superseded the militias - did this ever get debated in Congress, or is it some lawyerly argument? Since the militias were a grass-roots semi-organization, with every (male) citizen involved, with implicit Constitutional endorsement, Congress can't abolish them (tho maybe the states can). But, in fact, there are no traditional militias now - they vanished more than a century ago in scandal and uselessness. How many governors pretend they control the National Guard in their states, except to call it out for disaster relief? It could be argued that this lack of militias is a breach of duty by the governments.
There seems to be a conflict between Article 1 and the 2nd Amendment, between regulation and right. I think the Amendment means that States have the right to form militias, (which was not a right universally accorded European subdivisions.) In general, even the worst gun nuts don't think that the "right to bear arms" applies to convicted felons, even after sentence completion (except in Massachusetts?) If the Amendment were intended to reverse the Article or seriously modify it, it would have been discussed 200 years ago - we'd know about it.
To the extent that the 2nd Amendment supersedes Article 1, the right to bear arms would be absolute. If it were so, and if gun control is desirable, the Constitution must be changed. But to me it seems that Article 1 specifically gives the federal government authority to regulate weaponry and training.
7/31/02 I received a polite e-mail about this page from "John Mayer" <mayer@usit.net>, alleged liberal, with unsupported criticisms and claims about the several times he'd defended his home with a gun. I spent some time writing a response, but the address is fraudulent! The reply is refused by the servers. Apparently this is personalized spam from the gun droolers.
What is it about firearms per se, anyway? Why is the debate only about smallish firearms? How about cross-bows, tear gas, Molotov cocktails, cattle prods, stun guns, blow guns with poison darts, hand grenades, nunchucks? Is the debate frozen at the 19th century frontier? Why is it illegal to have a sword-cane, but legal to have a pistol? I can only imagine a mishmash of contradictory excuses, involving military vs personal weapons, open vs secreted weapons, manly big-noise vs stealthy effeminate weapons, and the usual conflation of separate excuses to own firearms: self-protection, hunting, militia.
Quotes on rights
For an example of unrestricted gun freedom, read Edith Durham's High Albania.
Fact Sheet: Gun Ownership in Switzerland
from Swiss Embassy web site, Aug. 1999
Traditionally, in Switzerland a great number of firearms are in private hands. Among these are rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic rifles, pistols and revolvers. The issue of gun ownership is closely linked to the centuries-old Swiss system and tradition of national defense. This explains why gun ownership is far less restricted in Switzerland than in the other European countries.
All Swiss men, with the exception of those with medical exemptions, serve in the army between the ages of 20 and 42 (52 for senior officers). This compulsory military service is based on the traditional concept of the citizen-soldier. Women can join the army on a volunteer basis.
Members of the Swiss army keep their guns -- fully automatic assault rifles or pistols -- and a small emergency supply of ammunition at home. According to the Swiss Constitution, upon completion of all required military service, the gun becomes the property of the individual soldier. Assault rifles are then transformed into semiautomatic weapons. Therefore, military-issue firearms, often generations old, are kept in Swiss households.
Every Swiss municipality has a rifle or pistol range, where members of the army train on a compulsory or volunteer basis while in civilian life. These ranges are open to all members of shooting associations. Many Swiss, from age 16 to very old veterans, train there not only in marksmanship, but also in the safe and responsible handling of firearms. This includes the safe storage of guns and ammunition at private residences. Many privately purchased firearms are used for hunting or self-protection. Especially in the mountainous parts of the country, hunting is a very old right and popular tradition.
1. Firearms Legislation
Thus far, Switzerland has no federal firearms law. Any abuse of a gun or ammunition belonging to the army is, however, severely prohibited. In 1993, Swiss voters accepted a constitutional amendment that authorizes parliament to pass a gun-abuse law aimed at rendering access to firearms more difficult for criminals. The new law will preserve the right of the citizens to own guns, in particular Swiss military-issue arms. It will most probably ban certain categories of arms, for example fully automatic guns, and ammunition. The acquisition of firearms would be made subject to approval based on a record check, something that has been requested so far only for handguns and only on the basis of an agreement between the Cantons (States), and not of federal law. The right to carry a gun for other than hunting or training purposes could be made subject to proof of legitimate need. The access to gun purchases for non-resident foreigners would be made more difficult. The new law, once passed by parliament, could be subject to a new referendum.
Firearms and crime
The use of firearms in crimes in Switzerland is relatively rare and in recent years even decreasing. In 1995, 65 guns were used in attempted or successful homicides, 73 to inflict bodily harm and another 366 firearms in armed robberies. Population in 1997: 7.01M
Swiss Embassy
Legal & Political Affairs
2900 Cathedral Ave. NW
Washington DC 20008
vertretung@was.rep.admin.ch
Phone #: 202-745-7900
Fax #: 202-387-2564
Last Update: August 26, 1999
© 1996-1999 Swiss Embassy All Rights Reserved