Large Scale Central

Swiss Face Pump-Action Ban

General Discussion
#1

Swiss Face Pump-Action Ban

Friday, February 27, 2009

Radical anti-gun activists in this country have already called for pump-action firearms to be banned as “assault weapons.” Bills to that effect, based on draft legislation developed by the San Francisco-based Legal Community Against Violence, have been introduced at the state level, and Donna Dees-Thomases of the Brady Campaign-affiliated Million Mom March, a close friend of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has advocated a pump-action ban as well.

Now, the so-called Group for a Switzerland Without an Army—a coalition of pacifists, socialists, and religious groups that in 1989 forced a national referendum on abolishing Switzerland’s army—and got 36 percent of the vote—is pushing for a referendum to ban pump-actions, along with prohibiting the country’s citizen soldiers from keeping their service rifles and pistols at home, prohibiting the private acquisition of firearms by individuals who do not show a “need,” prohibiting the private possession of “unused” firearms, and requiring the registration of remaining firearms in private hands.

According to the group, “2.4 million firearms in private hands is 2.4 million too many,” and “we must finally break with the fatal manliness-ideal of ‘defense-capable is honor.’”

According to Stephen Halbrook, author of The Swiss and the Nazis: How the Alpine Republic Survived in the Shadow of the Third Reich (2006) and Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II (1998), “approval of the referendum would destroy the traditional Swiss militia, which relies on the ability to mobilize instantly to resist any aggressor.” Victory for the referendum would also deal a serious blow to private firearm ownership in that country.

Pro-Tell, the Swiss group dedicated to protecting the right to arms in their country, is fighting the referendum. Unfortunately, the voices of sanity are often drowned out by the louder voices of those who, though they know nothing, consider themselves entitled to dictate how others should live. As we prepare to defend our own right to arms from the attacks our opponents have promised, we wish our Swiss friends well.

#2
David Hill said:
Swiss Face Pump-Action Ban

Friday, February 27, 2009

Radical anti-gun activists in this country have already called for pump-action firearms to be banned as “assault weapons.” Bills to that effect, based on draft legislation developed by the San Francisco-based Legal Community Against Violence, have been introduced at the state level, and Donna Dees-Thomases of the Brady Campaign-affiliated Million Mom March, a close friend of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has advocated a pump-action ban as well.

Now, the so-called Group for a Switzerland Without an Army—a coalition of pacifists, socialists, and religious groups that in 1989 forced a national referendum on abolishing Switzerland’s army—and got 36 percent of the vote—is pushing for a referendum to ban pump-actions, along with prohibiting the country’s citizen soldiers from keeping their service rifles and pistols at home, prohibiting the private acquisition of firearms by individuals who do not show a “need,” prohibiting the private possession of “unused” firearms, and requiring the registration of remaining firearms in private hands.

According to the group, “2.4 million firearms in private hands is 2.4 million too many,” and “we must finally break with the fatal manliness-ideal of ‘defense-capable is honor.’”

According to Stephen Halbrook, author of The Swiss and the Nazis: How the Alpine Republic Survived in the Shadow of the Third Reich (2006) and Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II (1998), “approval of the referendum would destroy the traditional Swiss militia, which relies on the ability to mobilize instantly to resist any aggressor.” Victory for the referendum would also deal a serious blow to private firearm ownership in that country.

Pro-Tell, the Swiss group dedicated to protecting the right to arms in their country, is fighting the referendum. Unfortunately, the voices of sanity are often drowned out by the louder voices of those who, though they know nothing, consider themselves entitled to dictate how others should live. As we prepare to defend our own right to arms from the attacks our opponents have promised, we wish our Swiss friends well.


Ahhh the NRA doing a bit of propaganda work, is it? Complete with quotes that are as far from the target as is possible.

Thanks for the reminder! Two more days for people to sign up.

BK website said:
Volksinitiativen gehen nicht vom Parlament oder von der Regierung aus, sondern von den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern. Sie gelten als Antriebselement der direkten Demokratie.
Translation: People's initiatives are driven by the citizens, not by parliament or the government. Initiatives are understood as driving forces in a direct democracy. :) :)

To translate the concept: collect the required number of signatures (100’000) from eligible voters withing the allotted 18 months, then the initiative will have to go to a vote … and the majority decides regarding the requested changes in law. Bloody revolutionary, isn’it? :smiley:

BTW there’s another interesting Swiss feature on the municipal level. Expenditures i.e. new school, new fire hall, new community center, new communal swimming pool etc. etc. which exceed the treshold (may differ according to municipality) has to go to a vote and … again the majority rules.

This is one nifty way to make sure change happens and change is decided upon by those who are really interested in the process. The others can keep on snoozing and then bitch about loosing. :wink: :lol: :stuck_out_tongue: :lol:

PS Swiss who reside abroad are entitled to vote on federal matters, including elections, referenda and initiatives. All it takes is the interest and the initiative to sign up with one’s locality of origin and the renewal of the entitlement at regular intervals.

PPS David, if you need the factual errors in the quoted NRA text pointed out, let me know. There are enough of them! :stuck_out_tongue:

#3

I like the budgeting requirements the Swiss have. I do not like the democratic votes to change laws, difference between a republic and democracy I suppose.

I don’t see the purpose in banning hunting shotguns. But that is not my problem. Just information about people telling others how they should live, and that bothers me.

#4

It wouldn’t hurt if you would do a bit more reading. :stuck_out_tongue:

Switzerland said:
Switzerland is a federal republic consisting of 26 states called cantons.

Of course you could have paid attention, since I mentioned in another thread that I was born and grew up in a republic that is democratic. As I wrote then the terms are not mutually exclusive.:slight_smile: It’s like having the cake and eating it too.

#5
David Hill said:
I like the budgeting requirements the Swiss have. I do not like the democratic votes to change laws, difference between a republic and democracy I suppose.
How else would laws be changed, except by a democratic process of the people voting?
#6

Mike,

David probably missed the fact that in CH there are two streams;

a) the two houses of parliament

b) peoples’ initiatives

the very democratic wrinkle is that “path a” is not cast in stone i.e. a referendum can be petitioned for and providing the necessary signatures are collected, that law will go to a vote of the electorate at large. If it doesn’t pass … too bad for the politicos. Better luck with the next attempt.

Same goes for “path b”, that goes up for a vote as well. If it doesn’t pass … too bad, better luck next time. In essence neither the politicians nor any of the many special interest groups get to push through laws which the majority disagrees with.

It is quite possible that David would have a real problem with that, there are fringe groups in CH, too, who chafe under that yoke. That’s how direct democracy works. Too bad, the fringe groups don’t get their way.

BTW any crank can start an initiative, if he/she thinks there are another 100’000 cranks of the same persuasion that may even fly. :wink: :stuck_out_tongue: :smiley:

#7
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
It wouldn't hurt if you would do a bit more reading. :P

Switzerland said:
Switzerland is a federal republic consisting of 26 states called cantons.

Of course you could have paid attention, since I mentioned in another thread that I was born and grew up in a republic that is democratic. As I wrote then the terms are not mutually exclusive.:slight_smile: It’s like having the cake and eating it too.


I read you post claiming Switzerland is a republic, but the post references laws being passed by a majority vote which would be a democracy. Or did I misunderstand.

#8
mike omalley said:
David Hill said:
I like the budgeting requirements the Swiss have. I do not like the democratic votes to change laws, difference between a republic and democracy I suppose.
How else would laws be changed, except by a democratic process of the people voting?
By electing representatives that vote for laws. Not by popular vote.
#9
mike omalley said:
How else would laws be changed, except by a democratic process of the people voting?
Mike: I'm truly surprised that as a history professor you don't know that our federal laws are (mostly) made (and changed) by our elected representatives rather than by a direct vote. :) ;) :o

An exception would be the initiative process available in some states. Here in California, the legislature is so entrenched and so polarized due to the gerrymandering of political districts that they are generally unable to accomplish anything beyond collecting their paychecks, expense money and graft.

That situation has lead to a series of poorly conceived, poorly worded and sometimes illegal initiatives on a variety of issues. These initiatives are usually designed to benefit some special interest or purpose. They all have some lofty title, but usually fall far short of requiring or producing the result they seem to promise.

A few recent examples were the successful 2007 “Children’s Rights Initiative” that put a multi-millionaire actor / supporter (not Arnold) in charge of a totally new legally mandated organization that is funded forever through general fund tax monies. That one, like most, requires the funding by force of law, but doesn’t specify where the required revenue will come from. Those kinds of ill-advised and special interest initiatives have gone a long way toward our now $42 billion budget deficit.

There were 12 initiatives on the November 2008 ballot in California. One initiative was sponsored by T. Boone Pickens and would have required California to spend $50 million (with no identified revenue source) to subsidize the replacement of older trucks and equipment with newer machines that are claimed to be more fuel efficient and less polluting. One feature of the (failed) initiative was that the trucks didn’t need to be registered in California to qualify. Guess who owns a large fleet of non-California registered equipment that would have qualified for the subsidy. Fortunately that one went down to defeat.

The November 2008 election saw the passage of an initiative backed by millions of dollars in church provided advertising that changed the California constitution to legalize discrimination against gays. Much of the financing came from outside California, with the largest chunks from Utah. This one was pushed by the very same right wing Christians who claim they want less government control. That is, until it suits their archaic religious purposes. That Constitutional amendment question is now tied up in the court system with the lawyers and judges making millions off the taxpayers. That debate will continue into the distant future.

Just a few examples of how the initiative process works and / or is abused when the elected representatives fail to do their jobs.

Happy RRing,

Jerry

#10

If the Swiss decide to ban everything pump action, their population will soon begin to decline. Just sayin’…

#11
David Hill said:
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
It wouldn't hurt if you would do a bit more reading. :P

Switzerland said:
Switzerland is a federal republic consisting of 26 states called cantons.

Of course you could have paid attention, since I mentioned in another thread that I was born and grew up in a republic that is democratic. As I wrote then the terms are not mutually exclusive.:slight_smile: It’s like having the cake and eating it too.


I read you post claiming Switzerland is a republic, but the post references laws being passed by a majority vote which would be a democracy. Or did I misunderstand.

David,

It’s not what I claim, it’s an established fact, Switzerland is a Republic, like it or not. As mentioned, you need to do more reading http://www.all-about-switzerland.info/swiss-government-politics.html

And it has some rather unique democratic instruments which give the populace the means to keep the politicians more or less on the straight and narrow. Not twice removed like some other systems. :stuck_out_tongue: :wink:

#12
Steve Featherkile said:
If the Swiss decide to ban everything pump action, their population will soon begin to decline. Just sayin'...
Trust the NRA to phrase things in a manner that all their members understand it i.e. dumb it down for the "not so smart" - being factually correct is in that case just a nuisance, which may or may not play into constructing a catchy text. But you knew that already, didn't you?
#13

Ya could always switch over to “lever” action…

(http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/31oge-rQoRL.AA280.jpg)

:wink:

#14

How does banning the ‘pump-action’ disarm the population? I believed that all male residents were required by law to partake in military training and have possession of a weapon in their homes. A downside of this is the reportedly high suicide rate. I do not think that a party receiving 36% of the votes in an election should be ignored. Maybe it is time for a new NRA chapter in Switzerland and maybe take down some of those purple ‘Milka’ cows. I hate purple cows!

#15

Yes Tim, :lol: :lol: Yes every able bodied man of sound mind (? :wink: :slight_smile: ) get’s to join the militia army and as a result gets to take home his assault rifle with ammunition which has to be left sealed and accounted for. In short who would resort to pump action stupidity if you can use an assault rifle instead? There is no need for pump-action rifles. :slight_smile: :wink: :slight_smile: On those Milka cows, they are purple because they had to explain the same story time and again to the tourists who couldn’t figure out why they were blue.

(http:///F-PIX//icon_tc.gif)

(http:///F-PIX//icon_tc.gif)

#16
David Hill said:
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
It wouldn't hurt if you would do a bit more reading. :P

Switzerland said:
Switzerland is a federal republic consisting of 26 states called cantons.

Of course you could have paid attention, since I mentioned in another thread that I was born and grew up in a republic that is democratic. As I wrote then the terms are not mutually exclusive.:slight_smile: It’s like having the cake and eating it too.


I read you post claiming Switzerland is a republic, but the post references laws being passed by a majority vote which would be a democracy. Or did I misunderstand.

You misunderstood. Nothing new there. :wink:

#17

Yes, I’m aware of the difference between a democracy and a republic. The sense of David’s post, and the sense of my response, was “democracy” in the broad sense, as in "system of government in which the will of the people is the source of political authority.

Here’s the definition from Merriam-Webster:

“1 a: government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections”

That’s the the sense in which I meant “democratic process.”

#18

Mike,

You may have to run that by them a few more times. I don’t know if it’s the lack of literacy or the lack of comprehension … or some other lack.

#19
Tim Brien said:
A downside of this is the reportedly high suicide rate.
Gloria: "65 percent of the people murdered in the last 10 years were killed by hand guns" Archie Bunker: "would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was pushed outta windows?"
#20

For the thick-headed among you, you know who you are:

A republican form of government has foundation, a constitution or laws. In a representative republic, the citizens elect officials that in turn consider and vote on bills, sometimes irrespective of what the majority of their constituents wish. In which case, they may be defeated during the next election cycle.

In a democratic form of government, the citizens are permitted to consider and vote on bills. The majority vote wins or defeats the bill/proposal/initiative.

Based on that description alone, and not your personal opinion, what type of government is Switzerland? How does Switzerland enact laws, by the representatives voting in Parliament, or by the citizens voting, majority rule?

The article you posted, Oh Wise One, stated the Swiss voted to enact a law. That by definition is a democracy. I’ll ask my initial question again show me where am I wrong. Simple question even a multi-lingual idiot can understand that.