Posted on 02/13/2011 7:37:18 AM PST by Incorrigible
Actually allowing the retiring soldier to keep the weapon makes sense.
Good news...the Swiss do alot of things right. If I had to choose one country in Europe to live in, I’d probably pick Switzerland.
It has everything to do with it. The "Swiss model" is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind with the Second Amendment. No standing army, and organized state militias. They probably have the longest-standing militia in existence, from the days of cross-bows to todays assault rifles. The FF also had in mind the Republic of Venice, which was similarly organized.
You don't understand the purpose. These guns and their owners are "in place backup" for the existing organized militia. If the SHTF in Switzerland, these older folks will be "guarding the homeland" while the younkers will be off combating the invaders. They will be using the weapons they were trained with, which makes perfect sense.
Apparently you haven't been "ex-Dem" quite long enough to have acquired the necessary historical knowledge about militias and their history.
They take self defense seriously, and guns do not scare them. And, like the Israelis, have the lowest breaking and entering rates in the world since everyone is armed.
Then, by your reasoning, I should be allowed to keep everything the Army has given me. I have a combat helmet, poncho, equipment belt and all sorts of little pouches that clip to it (for the life of me, I cannot remember what it is called). Not only that, but I use a computer and phone as part of my everyday duties. So, I should get to keep them at such time as I leave the Army?
On this, I’m all for being frugal with taxpayer money. If I want a piece of Army equipment—well, they pay me, I can buy it. It really is not the government’s job to provide personal equipment to people just because they were in the military.
In the late '90's I attended a patriots' day celebration in Lexington and witnesses the following: A vendor was selling little toy muskets. A small boy 6 - 9 (not good at guesssing kids' ages) asked his mother for one. Not only was the child severly chastised for "wanting a gun," but then the mother went over to the vendor and smugly and nastily scolded him for daring to sell toy guns. One of the few times I wished criminal ativity on someone, thinking how maybe if someone broke into her house and did something to her it might open her mind.
Back away from the word “logic” as you are not rated for it. Especially if you attempt to use it by putting words in an other’s mouth.
I was talking about a single very important item; I was not babbling.
Just like our Second Amendment doesn’t mention ponchos neither does their law. The Swiss do not have a right to keep and bare arms but you are ready to take away the closest thing they have to it all over a few bucks that were theirs to start with. Finally, I don’t know about the Swiss but I doubt the average U.S. ex-GI can afford the $8000.00 the Army’s standard battle rifle would cost them after market not to mention the ridiculous paperwork.
You might want to rethink your position on this or remove the prefix “ex” from your pseudonym.
I’m not sure I agree. Outside of the Swiss concept of the Militia, does a Swiss citizen have the right to keep and bear arms? Here, I have an individual right to keep and bear arms that has nothing to do with any militia. At least that is what the Supreme Court said last year.
Yes. The shooting sports are among the most popular in Switzerland. Gun ranges abound.
If you’re all for giving away taxpayer money, it does not matter what the money is being given away for. You can’t pick and choose: it’s not okay to give away money in the form of firearms to former military just because of the conservative pro-2nd amendment position, any more than it’s okay to give away money in the form of food stamps and welfare to someone just because she keeps spitting out baby after baby (without a dependable father in sight).
If a former Swiss GI has his/her heart set on getting a top of the line 8000 Euro military style rifle like the one they had in the service, they’ll save their money and make it happen.
I don’t know what the Swiss law is on keeping and bearing (not baring) arms. But that’s not really the issue. The issue is the use of taxpayer money to provide things people should be providing for themselves.
If you’re all for giving away taxpayer money, it does not matter what the money is being given away for. You can’t pick and choose: it’s not okay to give away money in the form of firearms to former military just because of the conservative pro-2nd amendment position, any more than it’s okay to give away money in the form of food stamps and welfare to someone just because she keeps spitting out baby after baby (without a dependable father in sight).
If a former Swiss GI has his/her heart set on getting a top of the line 8000 Euro military style rifle like the one they had in the service, they’ll save their money and make it happen.
I don’t know what the Swiss law is on keeping and bearing (not baring) arms. But that’s not really the issue. The issue is the use of taxpayer money to provide things people should be providing for themselves.
Logic is clearly NOT your friend.
I don’t show chickens card tricks for the same reason.
The DEM part of your name is accurate in that knowing the difference between an armed militia and welfare is unclear to you.
Pity.
I don’t really give two hoots what the Swiss do. It does seem to me that if you are going to depend on the government to “give” you a gun, then you better be prepared for them to take it too.
At any rate I thought your reasoning was quite clear and your point well-made.
Better to be an ex-Dem than a current un’bare’able numbskull.
2nd one, pingin’ it anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.