US Government wants to take firearms away by force!

Post Reply New Topic

We are in debt to much more than china its called the federal reserve dont let the name fool you it has very little to do with the government.

You cant compare this entirely. Every Switzer who joined army is forced to keep his weapon at home and care for it. But they are not allowed to hord bullets at home. The Switzer are very local in everything, so every local area has its own place where the bullets are kept, the locals decide on their own who of them they want to be responsible for the bullets. At home they are only allowed to as far as I know 6 bullets for their army weapon, these 6 bullets are meant for reaching the bullet keep if an armed conflict would break out or other mergencies. Only there they get the rest of the bullets for their army weapons. The rest of the weapon the Switzer own are normally classical hunting weapon or handarm weapons. So if a switzer goes mad on a rampage with his halfautomatic army (Or whatever it is, I dont know much about weapons, I think you could compare it with an STG7 or 77, thats the austrian modell.) weapon, he is at last limited to these 6 bullets with his army weapon. Then he needs to change back to "normal" weapons.

I think that their way is quiet good, so on one side they are thinking about concerns that people could use their army weapons to go on a rampage and do something against it. On the other side its not a far away government, that is controlling their local defense power, but its the locals themselves that decide who of them they want to be responsible for the bullets, and when they want to "arm their army". So at least if someone is freaking out, he needs to relie on standard weapons, which is a help for the normal police, because normal police in our areas (Switzers are neighbors of mine.) is not trained to fight against assault weapons and doesnt have the propper gear for it. (So they have normal security vests for emergencies, but not that armored body gear, normally they also have their normal police handguns.) So there are naturally special forces that are trained for such things, but unlike the local police they first need to get into an area, before they can do something.

You go you fact somewhat skewed Switzerland does not have a close to zero homicide rate, in fact it not as modest as people seem to think.

Israel has some of the strictest gun laws.

That exactly the point it is not really about guns at all.

So it works both ways. Those that think that banning guns, and those that think that arming the population will solve these crime are vastly overoptimistic.

Reality is it about culture.

Interesting what it does show is often there is no practical differnce between gun rights and gun privilege other than cultural acceptance history, and semantics.

Well, let's see what kind of army they have.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

So he can keep manipulating stupid people. And insult the intelligent ones.

Because if you are diagnosed with suicidal depression, the doctor doesn't ask if you own a firearm, and you go home and blow your brains out, the doctor can then be held liable for failing to take a simple precaution to save your life. (The doc can't take your gun either, of course - but he could notify a family member of the danger...)

Welcome to the wonderful world of litigation. It's not as much fun as paranoid fantasies about governments seizing firearms by force, but it's rather more realistic.

The instances where I was told this question was asked was during medical visits for reasons other than psychiatric.
A doctor treating someone for a common sports injury has no need to know if that person has a gun at home.
Most everyone that told me they'd been asked that question said that they'd lied and answered no since there is no way of knowing for sure where that information might actually go.
Either that or they told the person asking that it was none of their business.

Having a gun at home increases your likelihood of gun death, whether by your own hand or anothers'. It is a reasonable question to ask as part of a comlete patient history. A lot of background questions seem very invasive when one is taking a patient history - your sex life, your mental state, number and type of pets, etc - and all would be relevant for a complete general history, even for an immediate complaint of a sports injury.

Here we go again......

Yeah, forget that it can and often is used to defend oneself and just go with The Brady Center's "statistics"......NOT.


Try and rationalize it all you want, and I'm sure you will, but if it's not relevant to the issue at hand then it's none of anyone's business. Period.

Your statement is not accurate. It might not be relevant for an ER visit (ie, where they stabilize an injury and ship the patient out to someone else), but the standard of care for a GP requires that they treat the whole person, not just "the issue at hand." It might not quite be medical malpractice to avoid a complete history, but it certainly is sloppy at best.

Seriously, the government only considered banning assult rifles, which it did not do in the end. Who needs an assult rifle anyway? If you need protection, get a shotgun, aim in the general direction of the person invading your house, and fire. You would practically have to try to miss.

That would have been only the first step. That step would have been in-effective in crime control which would serve as justification for more gun control and it would continue until we were down to sharp sticks and throw-able stones.


It's up to the individual if they want or need an "assault rifle".
You don't even know how to spell assault rifle let alone define it.


Oh really?
I guess I missed that detail in the thousands of shotgun shells I've spent.

Maybe you need better sources of information than movies, cheap novels, and the liberal news media.

Raptor, you have sucky aim (or are aiming farther away. If something is 5 feet in front of you, it would be hard to miss so long as the gun has a reasonable spread). An assult rifle is a bit extreme. And you say that taking them away would be the first step, but they never did, so no step occured. "Liberal media", really, going for that old arguement?

At 5 ft there's going to be little to no spread.
At the distance where a shot pattern becomes comprehensive enough to do what you and other misinformed individuals like to think it'll to the pattern is to thin to be counted on as effective.
Not all threats are going to be at 5 ft.
A shotgun is not always the ideal defensive weapon.


How? Please be specific.


I for one won't stand by and have anything of mine taken.
The fact remains that gun control is a step process, one category at a time.


It is what it is.

How is an "assault rifle" extreme, you ask?

If you need something that lets you spray&pray for home defense, either you live in one of those multimillion-dollar mansions we occasionally hear about in the gossip portion of the news (in which case you can probably afford armed security guards instead), or you have really bad aim and need lessons.

And if you're worried about evil gub'mint troops coming after you, you don't want weapons that let you stand in one place and shoot; that makes you a target for things like grenades and mortars. Such a conflict would have to be carried on guerrilla-style.