What's your opinion of gun control?

[Forester618]

I don't think that can be discussed about the use of weapons against migrants. Only when they commit crimes. The weapon is almost every citizen of Switzerland because they are all reservists in case of war are bound to come to the Assembly point.

Why not? Guns are for hunting. But they are also for protection.

With the low birth rate in Switzerland, soon most of the people will be foreigners. They will want to take guns away from the Swiss people who remain. There will be too many of them for the Swiss people to fight, even with the guns.

That is what gun control is all about... taking the guns away. Usually governments do it to their citizens. In the case of Switzerland, it will be the foreigners. Some Swiss will fight, but they will lose.

Protection means aggression.

Migrants aren't aggressing you. They're fleeing the war you started that's all.
Technically they're the one in need of protection... From you --'

Migrants fleeing from war, and would have to defend their country. I have no respect. They are traitors. Why should they even allowed into the country? Unless we have given permission to the government to risk the country's economy for the sake of the cowards?

[Sithara007]

Migrants fleeing from war, and would have to defend their country. I have no respect. They are traitors. Why should they even allowed into the country? Unless we have given permission to the government to risk the country's economy for the sake of the cowards?

100% agreed. Look at the so called "rapefugees" in Germany. Somewhere around 80% and 90% of them are adult males. IMO, Germany should have given preference to the women and children.

[Altas]

I fell that gun control needs for the peace of country. If we allow all the people to have gun, for simple reasons they will use it. So, there comes violence and there should not be any tolerance among the people. But the governments has response to safe guard its people from violence. 

[ValeryBark]

I fell that gun control needs for the peace of country. If we allow all the people to have gun, for simple reasons they will use it. So, there comes violence and there should not be any tolerance among the people. But the governments has response to safe guard its people from violence. 

Do you know any legal weapon leaves traces which can be traced to the owner? Who will use legal weapons for criminal purposes? Therefore, law-abiding citizens should have the opportunity to defend himself. To every person the police will not put.

[Xester]

Did you notice that almost every mass shooting occurs in a "Gun Free Zone"?

In addition to that, the majority of the shooting attacks occur in states which are dominated by the Democrats (such as California and Washington). Why there are no mass shootings occurring in Oklahoma or West Virginia?

The bulk of the executions going on in the zones free of weapons. Where the offender knows that he will not get a response of resistance. This underlines the importance of the right to arms. The more weapons among the population the less crime.

Never offenders did not commit the crime of registered weapons. Always there was a black market to acquire all that is needed. That is why I also think that the legalization of weapons does not change the situation for the worse.

I agree with you. Moreover. I'm sure that all of the attacks on the law on weapons come from corrupt politicians who are afraid of their own people with weapons. They don't care how many people die importantly by the sleep

So these political fatty snout to fear not only for their stolen wealth, but also for his life. People who lose their patience, looking at the mess, can go to any politician or bureaucrat, and to call to account for the full program.

This fear. Let's see, the liberal in the country gun laws, the more democracy in the country. Switzerland is the most armed country in the world. Look like there the power belongs to the people? And the crime rate is not high.

The birth rate isn't high in Switzerland either. When there are only a few Swiss left, their guns won't stop the Muslim immigrants, and the population will grow again... with Muslims. Then there will be lots of gun control in Switzerland.

I don't think that can be discussed about the use of weapons against migrants. Only when they commit crimes. The weapon is almost every citizen of Switzerland because they are all reservists in case of war are bound to come to the Assembly point.

Why not? Guns are for hunting. But they are also for protection.

With the low birth rate in Switzerland, soon most of the people will be foreigners. They will want to take guns away from the Swiss people who remain. There will be too many of them for the Swiss people to fight, even with the guns.

That is what gun control is all about... taking the guns away. Usually governments do it to their citizens. In the case of Switzerland, it will be the foreigners. Some Swiss will fight, but they will lose.

Gun control is not just about banning of guns but also the use and ownership of gun. Just like you said a country can ban the use of guns for civilians if they see that it is necessary to protect their citizens. But for other countries arming the citizens is just the kind of protection they give for their constituents but gun possession is coupled with regulations, training and responsibilities.

[Challenger2015]

I'm not afraid that people have a right to weapons. I have weapons and I never used. You will fear me. It is very rare for crimes are legal guns In countries such as Moldova and the Baltic States after the legalization, the crime rate has decreased in two times.

[BADecker]

Did you notice that almost every mass shooting occurs in a "Gun Free Zone"?

In addition to that, the majority of the shooting attacks occur in states which are dominated by the Democrats (such as California and Washington). Why there are no mass shootings occurring in Oklahoma or West Virginia?

The bulk of the executions going on in the zones free of weapons. Where the offender knows that he will not get a response of resistance. This underlines the importance of the right to arms. The more weapons among the population the less crime.

Never offenders did not commit the crime of registered weapons. Always there was a black market to acquire all that is needed. That is why I also think that the legalization of weapons does not change the situation for the worse.

I agree with you. Moreover. I'm sure that all of the attacks on the law on weapons come from corrupt politicians who are afraid of their own people with weapons. They don't care how many people die importantly by the sleep

So these political fatty snout to fear not only for their stolen wealth, but also for his life. People who lose their patience, looking at the mess, can go to any politician or bureaucrat, and to call to account for the full program.

This fear. Let's see, the liberal in the country gun laws, the more democracy in the country. Switzerland is the most armed country in the world. Look like there the power belongs to the people? And the crime rate is not high.

The birth rate isn't high in Switzerland either. When there are only a few Swiss left, their guns won't stop the Muslim immigrants, and the population will grow again... with Muslims. Then there will be lots of gun control in Switzerland.

I don't think that can be discussed about the use of weapons against migrants. Only when they commit crimes. The weapon is almost every citizen of Switzerland because they are all reservists in case of war are bound to come to the Assembly point.

Why not? Guns are for hunting. But they are also for protection.

With the low birth rate in Switzerland, soon most of the people will be foreigners. They will want to take guns away from the Swiss people who remain. There will be too many of them for the Swiss people to fight, even with the guns.

That is what gun control is all about... taking the guns away. Usually governments do it to their citizens. In the case of Switzerland, it will be the foreigners. Some Swiss will fight, but they will lose.

Gun control is not just about banning of guns but also the use and ownership of gun. Just like you said a country can ban the use of guns for civilians if they see that it is necessary to protect their citizens. But for other countries arming the citizens is just the kind of protection they give for their constituents but gun possession is coupled with regulations, training and responsibilities.

The danger of even limited gun control always is that the people will become lax in their vigilance. Then government will extend its control, and the people may wind up without guns. Then Government will take over formally.

The vigilance part is why we have this thread in this forum.

[signature200]

The most intelligent of the right to arms were Americans. They made the right to arms in the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. Changes to the Constitution very difficult for the government. Almost all countries have a right to arms spelled out in the law, and the law can easily change

[BADecker]

The most intelligent of the right to arms were Americans. They made the right to arms in the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. Changes to the Constitution very difficult for the government. Almost all countries have a right to arms spelled out in the law, and the law can easily change

Most modern Americans are kinda dumb when it comes to Constitutional stuff. They have barely made it to the 2nd Amendment. If they had made it all the way to the 9th Amendment, they would see ...

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, we have all the rights we always had, as individuals. We have the right to smoke pot. We have the right to carry guns. We have the right to do anything else.

People who want the government have a right to the Government. People who don't like the Government, have the right to not be affected by it. The jury as stated by the 6th and 7th Amendments can make this effective in every case.

Americans like guns. But Americans are too dumb to put their Government down in any other way, even though the process is spelled out right in Government.

[Barrymore]

The most intelligent of the right to arms were Americans. They made the right to arms in the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. Changes to the Constitution very difficult for the government. Almost all countries have a right to arms spelled out in the law, and the law can easily change

Most modern Americans are kinda dumb when it comes to Constitutional stuff. They have barely made it to the 2nd Amendment. If they had made it all the way to the 9th Amendment, they would see ...

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, we have all the rights we always had, as individuals. We have the right to smoke pot. We have the right to carry guns. We have the right to do anything else.

People who want the government have a right to the Government. People who don't like the Government, have the right to not be affected by it. The jury as stated by the 6th and 7th Amendments can make this effective in every case.

Americans like guns. But Americans are too dumb to put their Government down in any other way, even though the process is spelled out right in Government.

Americans are not stupid. They just tend to live in their own world. While the whole world respects the view of America and adopted their rules of the game. Now circumstances have changed. To remain the world No. 1 Americans need to prove it, but it seems to me that they were not ready.

[BADecker]

The most intelligent of the right to arms were Americans. They made the right to arms in the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. Changes to the Constitution very difficult for the government. Almost all countries have a right to arms spelled out in the law, and the law can easily change

Most modern Americans are kinda dumb when it comes to Constitutional stuff. They have barely made it to the 2nd Amendment. If they had made it all the way to the 9th Amendment, they would see ...

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, we have all the rights we always had, as individuals. We have the right to smoke pot. We have the right to carry guns. We have the right to do anything else.

People who want the government have a right to the Government. People who don't like the Government, have the right to not be affected by it. The jury as stated by the 6th and 7th Amendments can make this effective in every case.

Americans like guns. But Americans are too dumb to put their Government down in any other way, even though the process is spelled out right in Government.

Americans are not stupid. They just tend to live in their own world. While the whole world respects the view of America and adopted their rules of the game. Now circumstances have changed. To remain the world No. 1 Americans need to prove it, but it seems to me that they were not ready.

While I agree with you that Americans are not stupid, they are blind in some areas. One of them has to do with any attempts to be No. 1 in the world. Being No. 1 doesn't have anything to do with the idea of being No. 1. In fact, it is just the opposite.

What I mean is this. America didn't become No. 1 because they were trying to be that way. Rather, they became No. 1 by not caring about status. At the same time they offered the idea of not caring about status to everybody. That's what it means when the Declaration of Independence states that all men (people) are created equal.

The thing that I was talking about in my previous post is that Government seems to have forgotten this. And the reason they can get away with it is because the people have forgotten.

How can Government people enforce traffic fines when there is no harm or damage or even threat of harm or damage involved? Government people are more than equal when they do this kind of enforcing. But it is only because the people are too stupid to see that all they have to do is apply the 9th Amendment the right way in front of the right jury to bypass this problem. And then all they need to do is apply hardship to the case to get paid for being stopped and threatened by Government.

Of course, for everyone who likes being taxed and threatened by Government in multitudes of ways, they wouldn't use their rights. But most people don't even understand that they have such rights.

[BitGikI]

After it'll be banned the people will always find a new ways to "defend" themselfs

[Oggy1987]

Migrants fleeing from war, and would have to defend their country. I have no respect. They are traitors. Why should they even allowed into the country? Unless we have given permission to the government to risk the country's economy for the sake of the cowards?

100% agreed. Look at the so called "rapefugees" in Germany. Somewhere around 80% and 90% of them are adult males. IMO, Germany should have given preference to the women and children.

Germany made mistake, now they also realize it. Rapefugees are lovely people when you meet them alone, but when they hoard up, then the trouble comes. I dont mind immigrants, but there should be some order, if they dont adapt to laws and culture, send them back where they came from. They didnt run away from war (most male immigrants, not all), they are so called economy immigrants, they saw oportunity to flee poverty, expecting to live better in Europe doing nothing, just collecting social welfare.

[criptix]

Migrants fleeing from war, and would have to defend their country. I have no respect. They are traitors. Why should they even allowed into the country? Unless we have given permission to the government to risk the country's economy for the sake of the cowards?

100% agreed. Look at the so called "rapefugees" in Germany. Somewhere around 80% and 90% of them are adult males. IMO, Germany should have given preference to the women and children.

That was already debunked a year ago. But you might want to tweet that to trump. Maybe he will say that on the next white house press conference lol

[squatz1]

I feel that gun control is something that gun owners must face, but not to the degree of some cities like Chicago that have the strictest gun laws in the country and still have an insane amount of murders every year, which is absolutely disgusting to see. Legislators have to notice that even when you have strict gun laws, people who want guns just aren't going to follow them and will just figure out a way to buy them illegally.

The only group of people who are really hurt from this are the people who want to protect themselves, they have a hard time getting guns when they're just trying to protect their lives and their families lives.

But I must say, certain issues such as not allowing people who have mental illness to have guns are something that I support, but I guess putting down the line on what a mental illness is a tough one.

[Consaone]

People have the right to have a gun to protect himself.

[Sierra82fit]

People have the right to have a gun to protect himself.

The weapon in his pocket should give a sense of security assurance, rather than permissive.,

[ananas99]

I feel that gun control is something that gun owners must face, but not to the degree of some cities like Chicago that have the strictest gun laws in the country and still have an insane amount of murders every year, which is absolutely disgusting to see. Legislators have to notice that even when you have strict gun laws, people who want guns just aren't going to follow them and will just figure out a way to buy them illegally.

The only group of people who are really hurt from this are the people who want to protect themselves, they have a hard time getting guns when they're just trying to protect their lives and their families lives.

But I must say, certain issues such as not allowing people who have mental illness to have guns are something that I support, but I guess putting down the line on what a mental illness is a tough one.

In fact of the matter is that for a crime to buy illegal weapons on the black market. With registered no one shoots.

[salemon]

Migrants fleeing from war, and would have to defend their country. I have no respect. They are traitors. Why should they even allowed into the country? Unless we have given permission to the government to risk the country's economy for the sake of the cowards?

100% agreed. Look at the so called "rapefugees" in Germany. Somewhere around 80% and 90% of them are adult males. IMO, Germany should have given preference to the women and children.

This whole situation is artificially creating, to a strain to Europe and she had her personal problems and not just others. It's a sensible course of some intelligent politicians.

[Oggy1987]

I feel that gun control is something that gun owners must face, but not to the degree of some cities like Chicago that have the strictest gun laws in the country and still have an insane amount of murders every year, which is absolutely disgusting to see. Legislators have to notice that even when you have strict gun laws, people who want guns just aren't going to follow them and will just figure out a way to buy them illegally.

The only group of people who are really hurt from this are the people who want to protect themselves, they have a hard time getting guns when they're just trying to protect their lives and their families lives.

But I must say, certain issues such as not allowing people who have mental illness to have guns are something that I support, but I guess putting down the line on what a mental illness is a tough one.

In fact of the matter is that for a crime to buy illegal weapons on the black market. With registered no one shoots.

Yes they shoot with legal weapons also. And with guns so easy available to all, its hard to control illegal weapons. What's the problem if you sell your legal weapon on black market, scratch all serial numbers and report it stolen or lost?