Duke Junior
member
An interesting analysis of the 2 cultures.
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/10/lemieux-of-swit.html
The Shotgun Blog
Monday, October 06, 2008
Lemieux: Of Switzerland and Canada
In this week's column, Pierre Lemieux compares Switzerland and Canada. Lemieux was recently invited to Switzerland to give a talk on "the right to keep and bear arms." After his talk, his hosts gifted him with a Schmidt Rubin M-1931 7.5 mm carbine, the rifle the Swiss army used during World War II.
In his column, Lemieux describes Switzerland's revolutionary tradition and suggests this is why the right to bear arms is taken more seriously in that country than it is in Canada. Canada, he argues, "totally lacks a military culture." In addition, "Canadians... have been too nice, smiling, and trustful of authority." According to Lemieux, these two factors together explain why Canadians have allowed their government to take away more and more of their liberties.
As he notes, in Canada, no one could have spontaneously given him the Schmidt Rubin rifle as a gift (and I'm not sure I even want to know the hassle he endured getting his prize back into Canada.)
Lemieux's thesis is an interesting one. We know that the United States, like Switzerland, has a revolutionary tradition. For the most part, mainstream American politicians have had to give up their quest of taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens. Even Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama had to admit that there is an individual right to bear arms -- though his idea of what "common sense" regulation involves is not entirely clear.
D.C. v. Heller, a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. This prohibits any jurisdiction from enacting an all-out ban on handguns, for example. The state has a long way to go in the U.S. before it will be able to stop Americans from owning guns, if it will ever be in a position to do so at all.
In Canada, matters are somewhat different. Aside from the national gun registry and other existing regulations on firearms, in 2006, the Liberal Party campaigned on a promise to amend the criminal code to allow provinces and municipalities to ban hand guns. At the site of a school shooting, Stephane Dion recently promised to ban "military assault weapons." Whether this legislation is necessary is beside the point (AK-47s and the like are already banned, so it is unclear which additional kinds of firearms Dion plans to take out of people's hands if he's elected.)
According to Lemieux's thesis, Canadians don't have the revolutionary history necessary to make them more resistant to a further abridgement of the right to bear arms. Canadians are unwilling to think that they might need the weapons the government is taking away -- not only to defend themselves against criminals, but from the government itself.
In contrast, in both Switzerland and the United States, citizens are still prepared to fight their government if necessary to preserve their liberty.
Lemieux's column can be read in its entirety here.
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/10/lemieux-of-swit.html
The Shotgun Blog
Monday, October 06, 2008
Lemieux: Of Switzerland and Canada
In this week's column, Pierre Lemieux compares Switzerland and Canada. Lemieux was recently invited to Switzerland to give a talk on "the right to keep and bear arms." After his talk, his hosts gifted him with a Schmidt Rubin M-1931 7.5 mm carbine, the rifle the Swiss army used during World War II.
In his column, Lemieux describes Switzerland's revolutionary tradition and suggests this is why the right to bear arms is taken more seriously in that country than it is in Canada. Canada, he argues, "totally lacks a military culture." In addition, "Canadians... have been too nice, smiling, and trustful of authority." According to Lemieux, these two factors together explain why Canadians have allowed their government to take away more and more of their liberties.
As he notes, in Canada, no one could have spontaneously given him the Schmidt Rubin rifle as a gift (and I'm not sure I even want to know the hassle he endured getting his prize back into Canada.)
Lemieux's thesis is an interesting one. We know that the United States, like Switzerland, has a revolutionary tradition. For the most part, mainstream American politicians have had to give up their quest of taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens. Even Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama had to admit that there is an individual right to bear arms -- though his idea of what "common sense" regulation involves is not entirely clear.
D.C. v. Heller, a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. This prohibits any jurisdiction from enacting an all-out ban on handguns, for example. The state has a long way to go in the U.S. before it will be able to stop Americans from owning guns, if it will ever be in a position to do so at all.
In Canada, matters are somewhat different. Aside from the national gun registry and other existing regulations on firearms, in 2006, the Liberal Party campaigned on a promise to amend the criminal code to allow provinces and municipalities to ban hand guns. At the site of a school shooting, Stephane Dion recently promised to ban "military assault weapons." Whether this legislation is necessary is beside the point (AK-47s and the like are already banned, so it is unclear which additional kinds of firearms Dion plans to take out of people's hands if he's elected.)
According to Lemieux's thesis, Canadians don't have the revolutionary history necessary to make them more resistant to a further abridgement of the right to bear arms. Canadians are unwilling to think that they might need the weapons the government is taking away -- not only to defend themselves against criminals, but from the government itself.
In contrast, in both Switzerland and the United States, citizens are still prepared to fight their government if necessary to preserve their liberty.
Lemieux's column can be read in its entirety here.
He wants ALL handguns taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. 
to own a gun or two if they pay to have it registered, ballistically I.D.d and fitted with a firing pin micro-stamper. Then the owner will have to pay for all of the above plus the cost of being finger-printed, given a sight test and firearms training. I think the average, law-abiding person should be able to get a single-shot .22LR for about $1000 (not including the cost of ammo or the gun). 
