how to buy guns in switzerland

Nakey's picture

how to buy guns in switzerland

I forgot to add a 2nd amendment!

4.75
Average: 4.8 (4 votes)

Comments

ubershin's picture

Good to know, thanks. I once made a plan incase the Demonrats one day pass Australian style gun ban what I would do and Emmigrate to Switzerland was one of my only options. I think there is another Eastern European country that allows guns as well so that is my 2nd or 3rd choice. Not many options is a reason why Demonrats need to be destroyed so that we dont have to flee..../rant

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

If you don't like it den you can GETOWWGHT.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

Hey Mr. Fudd, this guy says in Switerland all that is required to purchase a full-auto is to fill out a form and submit your ID and wait a week.

 

Would you be OK with us having that here in the States or are you finally going to just admit you are anti-gun and stop this bullshit predending you are holding some sort of middle ground.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

Sure, why not?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

Well I'll be damned.  See, we can come to an agreement something.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

I am a little disappointed that there are no training requirements in order to get a firearm. 

 

Other than that it has the disadvantage of endangering the public. Better live in Chicago than in Zurich, right!

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

First, what exactly do you think state mandated training is going to fix and why?

 

Second, the answer is nothing, there I saved you the trouble.

 

Third, there were 489 people killed in unintentional shootings in the U.S. in 2015, the most recent year for which data is available.  Dude, you trying to address a problem that is all but non-existent.

 

Fourth, in every instance where some sort of State mandated training has been passed, the leftist Democrat anti-gun politicians in those States have used it as means of prohibiting firearm ownership outright by making the requirements exceedingly expensive and only having classes at places and times inconvenient for the average person.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

The safety of third parties is paramount to the right of an individual to bear arms (or should be) hence it is simple why there should be training requirements. You don't let people drive cars or operate certain machinery or prescribe medication wtihout it neither. These are all activities that are potentially lethal, only one of them is actually DESIGNED to injure or kill.

 

Training and testing should be aimed to make the person competent to use a gun. Ideally there should be an expiry date on it, similar to that of a driving license (the older the person the higher the frequency of retesting for physical/mental fitness).

 

All common sense really.

 

The training should be pretty much hands on, with as little theory as absolutely necessary, completely different to the approach spain has to the topic, as I explained in another post.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

The safety of third parties is paramount to the right of an individual to bear arms (or should be) hence it is simple why there should be training requirements.

 

Well everything in this sentence is just wrong.  But I'm glad you wrote it because it demonstrates the folly of collectivist thinking.

 

You're trying to put the cart before the horse. Rights exist without precondition.  It is NOT the Government's (collective) responsibility, but rather the individual's responsibility to exercise his/her rights in a manner that avoids harm to their fellow citizens.

 

You don't let people drive cars or operate certain machinery or prescribe medication without it neither.

 

And here we go again with these false comparisons.  First things first, driving cars on public roads is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.  Owning is not using, therefore it is dishonest to compare USING a car with OWNING a firearm.  There are no training or testing requirements for OWNING a car or heavy machinery.  As a matter of fact there is no training or testing required for OPERATING a car or heavy machinery on private property.  This is evidenced by young teens operating farm equipment daily without Government oversight.

 

Where training and testing are required, for cars at least, is when you intend to operate the vehicle on a public roadway.  In this instance it is purdent to know the rules of the road which you are sharing with fellow motorist.

 

But even when someone carries a sidearm in public, they are not using it 99.99999% of the time.  Does it behoove them to seek out some form of training?  Yes.  Do some of the CCW States require a proficiency test before issuing a license to carry?  Yes.  And I am fine with that.

 

But what you want is a completely different beat all together.  Your position is predicated on the assumption that everyone is an ignorant rube unless and until they submit some piece of paper and hundreds of dollars to the State proving otherwise.  That is not how rights work in a society predicated on the ideals of liberty.  You do not ask permission for rights, you ask permission for privlidges.

 

These are all activities that are potentially lethal, only one of them is actually DESIGNED to injure or kill.

 

And?  I fail to see how this justifies holding a right hostage when the firearm accident total for 2015 was less than 500 in a nation of 300+ million people.  And I think it's pretty fucking obvious that a firearm is a tool for dispensing deadly force.  You don't need a class to impress that on people.

 

Training and testing should be aimed to make the person competent to use a gun.

 

I agree.  I simply disagree with holding someone's rights hostage until they complete said training.  And as I have stated before, politicians who do not want private ownership of firearms have proven time and again that are willing to impose burdensome requirements to curtail and prevent citizens from obtaining firearms.

 

You are of the collectivist mindset, whereas I am of the individual mindset.  Testing does not prevent a careless person from ever acting carelessly.  Going back to your car analogy, how many 16 year olds have passed the test to obtain a drivers license and gone on the very next weekend to race on public streets?  How many teenagers, after having passed your little test have killed other motorist because they wanted to answer a fucking text on their phone?

 

Knowing how ineffective those requirements are, it baffles the mind to think your ass would assume because someone passed a fucking test, they wouldn't do stupid shit once they were out of sight of the instructor.

 

All common sense really.

 

As I have just so easily demonstrated, what you propose is the furthest fucking thing from common sense.

 

I am completely in agreement for a bare minimum of training and education for those seeking to carry in public for their own defense and of their family.  If you are going to carry in public and taken on the responsibility of being armed and ready to respond to a criminal act with deadly force, you NEED to understand the laws concerning deadly force and you need to demonstrate you are capable of actually hitting what you aim at.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture

Every time I give a comparison you take it literally in the effort to dismantle the argument. 

 

If it is everybodies right then why can't rehabilitated felons or the mentally impaired own a gun? who decides about this, the government? That is a "precondition", right?

 

Don't like the machinery example?

If you build something on your property where only you use it you still need building permission and build to code. No gas or electric company connects services without confirmation that the installation is to code. The council won't even approve water installation if the incoming pipe (BEHIND the meter) is of too small a diametre.
The plumber or electrician will need to be trained and licensed to carry out that installation (or at least you have to get someone trained and licensed to sign off on the installation). YES, in the lahaaand of the freheeee!

 

Common sense, really.

 

I am not going to address the other red herrings.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down