Remington1911
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2022
- Messages
- 1,512
Czech Republic and its requirments to get a gun licence
- Thread starter Idahou
- Start date
- Status
Well, might fly, but it'd be a painful takeoff and the landing most problematic.
AlexanderA
Member
Tell me this again after the thousands of gun laws are wiped off the books. The argument now seems to be not over whether there are infringements, but over the degree to which infringements are permissible.
AlexanderA
Member
It's been mentioned in this thread that gun rights in the Czech Republic are "constitutionally protected." Constitutionality in Europe is far different from what it is in the U.S. Some countries, such as the U.K., don't even have written constitutions. They rely on traditions, which can be overturned at any time. Other countries, that do have written constitutions, can amend them with a simple vote of the legislature (possibly with a supermajority), or through a popular referendum. The U.S. requirement that a constitutional amendment must not only have a supermajority in Congress, but also be ratified by 3/4 of the states, means that nothing gets changed unless there is a really broad agreement to do so. Not so in Europe. Many countries have entirely new constitutions every few years.
doubleh
Member
To some extent of which the government is constantly trying to whittle down.
OP
OP
Idahou
Member
Guys, you are really just too touchy about that...
I mean - anti gun and pro gun lobby in US exist no matter of what and it really doesnt matter on gun forum because its pro gun by its nature.
Reasson why i posted is that i several times mentioned im from Czechia and several times were people asking me about our gun laws. That article it formulates better than i could and it holds its informative value.about
You really dont need to defend your gun rights and take a stnad everytime somebody mentions gun laws or so, not here
I mean - anti gun and pro gun lobby in US exist no matter of what and it really doesnt matter on gun forum because its pro gun by its nature.
Reasson why i posted is that i several times mentioned im from Czechia and several times were people asking me about our gun laws. That article it formulates better than i could and it holds its informative value.about
You really dont need to defend your gun rights and take a stnad everytime somebody mentions gun laws or so, not here
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Just a reminder:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
(Aside: It makes no sense in this context to read "regulated" in terms of "trammeled by rules and regulations", but rather "well-trained and equipped" as in "Regular Army." I mention this because "well-regulated" has been pounced on as meaning "subject to any old laws one cares to write." Were this true, there would have been no purpose in including the amendment in the Bill Of Rights in the first place.)
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
But the "well regulated militia" of the early U.S., in large part, was to suppress freedom (that is, to keep slaves from running away or rebelling).
The ironic, painful truth needs to be said. There was a lot of hypocrisy among the Founders. A lot of crowing about freedom and individual rights, from people who were themselves slaveholders.
Last edited:
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Thanks for the additional insight.
(ETA: The quote above is how the original post appeared before poster re-submitted it with edits.)
Last edited:
Heir Kommt Die Sonne
Member
But not all of them even agreed on slavery, although many of them were. They also disagreed heavily on other human rights issues and morality.
All the more reason for “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The militia can be a double edged sword. It can help free the country, or it can oppress. If it’s the latter, the PEOPLE also have arms, to keep an oppressive militia, military, or other .gov entity, in check.
JeeperCreeper
Member
I know this thread took a turn, as gun rights and gun laws is a vastly complex topic.
Regardless, thanks for the education piece and as always, I'll pull out the good stuff that I need from it.
I often think of Czech when I think of other gun culture countries. It's good to stay fresh on what other parts of the world are doing.
Thank you, good sir
AlexanderA
Member
I've said for years that the Militia Clause of the 2nd Amendment, if given due weight, would support the notion that individual citizens, as inherent members of the "universal" militia, should be as well armed as the regular army. Meaning, of course, that they should be able to own machine guns, artillery, and "every terrible implement of the soldier."
Unfortunately Justice Scalia, in the Heller case, turned the Militia Clause into a nullity.
But we're talking about constitutional theory here. In reality, the "universal" militia, which meant that the citizens -- all of them -- would form ad hoc military units as the need arose, never worked out in practice. The problem was that the general public never took its militia obligations seriously. The annual militia musters on the local courthouse lawns simply turned into excuses for drunken parties. So, the "universal" militia was quickly replaced by "volunteer" militias, which were part-time, organized military units that were sanctioned by the states. These units included most of the men who fought in the Mexican War, the Civil War, etc.
And let's not forget that in the South, the "militia" was a way to legitimize the "slave patrols." The idea that blacks (whether slave or free) could be part of the militia was laughable.
Some of the Founders -- the idealists -- probably thought that a universal militia was the democratic alternative to a standing army. Others -- the cynics -- thought it was a way to save money, have a national defense on the cheap, and achieve domestic goals such as keeping the slaves under control. But all these reasons turned out to be delusions.
Unfortunately Justice Scalia, in the Heller case, turned the Militia Clause into a nullity.
But we're talking about constitutional theory here. In reality, the "universal" militia, which meant that the citizens -- all of them -- would form ad hoc military units as the need arose, never worked out in practice. The problem was that the general public never took its militia obligations seriously. The annual militia musters on the local courthouse lawns simply turned into excuses for drunken parties. So, the "universal" militia was quickly replaced by "volunteer" militias, which were part-time, organized military units that were sanctioned by the states. These units included most of the men who fought in the Mexican War, the Civil War, etc.
And let's not forget that in the South, the "militia" was a way to legitimize the "slave patrols." The idea that blacks (whether slave or free) could be part of the militia was laughable.
Some of the Founders -- the idealists -- probably thought that a universal militia was the democratic alternative to a standing army. Others -- the cynics -- thought it was a way to save money, have a national defense on the cheap, and achieve domestic goals such as keeping the slaves under control. But all these reasons turned out to be delusions.
Speedo66
Member
Czech Republic and its requirments to get a gun licence
Believe it or not, this is the title of this thread. The drift on this one has been incredible.
Believe it or not, this is the title of this thread. The drift on this one has been incredible.
Heir Kommt Die Sonne
Member
I think a common point of tension between American gun rights activists versus the rest of the world lies heavily on the Rights vs. Privilege principle. I've noticed many people in other countries can appear to be very condescending towards Americans less regulated approach to the gun issue, and at the same time we can get very emotional defending our stance as well (As this thread derailing has proved.)
Everyone means well, and arguably speaking yes other countries that require a permit before owning firearms is very reasonable . But to state it again, there's a difference between rights and a privilege and sometimes we feel it is very important to stress that unless something is treated as a right, it will be trampled all over by the government/institution enforcing who gets to have that privilege .
My apologies to Idahou for this thread becoming so derailed. It is a interesting but nonetheless biased article, and it's interesting to learn about gun laws in other countries to see how our foreign brothers are doing.
Mosin77
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,589
I knew what you meant and I suspect a lot of other posters did too. However, do remember that the left/anti-gun side of the establishment here subjects us to an endless barrage of articles along these lines. “Look how wonderful and common sense the gun laws are in x country.” “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had laws like in x country?” “x country has really great gun laws, unlike ours, and their cities are a terrestrial paradise!” It’s all intended to propagandize our population and shout their position so much that it becomes established “fact,” so that eventually they hope the nation will just wake up one morning and broadly agree to pass major gun restrictions.
Naturally this sort of article really tends to rub American gun guys the wrong way. But I am glad to hear that it’s a pretty accurate/fair portrayal of the Czech laws. I’m very happy to hear that they’re less onerous than those of your neighbors.
Y'all get back on topic, please.
lysanderxiii
Member
The major difference is in Czechia, the government grants you permission to own guns, and can on the whim of an anti-gun executive, withdraw that permission.
Last edited:
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,655
Big difference between "legally procured their firearms and passed background investigations" vs "concealed carry permit holders". Have their assertions been fact-checked?
Riomouse911
Member
I just want to say a big thank you to Ceska zbrojovka Uhersky Brod, who manufactures some of my favorite firearms. 
May the Czech people be able to use and enjoy their products at home as much as I do here
Stay safe.
May the Czech people be able to use and enjoy their products at home as much as I do here
Stay safe.
SwampWolf
Member
In terms of curtailing gun violence in America, the more "hoops" the better. Want proof? Compare the rate of crimes committed with a firearm before and after the imposition of the federal gun control act in 1968, which brought more hoops to the table than most of us ever contemplated in our wildest dreams at the time. "Nuff said" as they say...
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,282
It's been that way here lately. Maybe the holidays or U.S. elections are making people more touchy and grumpy. Might have been better to extract the import bits from the article, and then post then here instead of linking to Washington Post in the future.
Thanks for your post.
AlexanderA
Member
Compared to what is being proposed today, the GCA of 1968 was rather mild. But that's just the point. The gun controllers' demands are constantly escalating, and they are never satisfied. Therefore you can't really negotiate with them in good faith.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
