When thinking about the mass extermination camps of a holocaust think..

The key to freedom is to be able to have the ability to defend yourself &, if you dont have the tools to do that, then youre going to be at the mercy of whomever wants to put you away.

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture – but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland’s unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.

Update 28th December 2010:

Out of nearly 3 million views of this video there are 4358 thumbs up to 427 thumbs down. So, you could say, if any of us lived in any sort of real democracy in this world that would mean that only one in every ten people would like to keep gun control laws. Guess this means that we’re not and that the tyrants still have all the real power.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Please spread the Word.
http://www.infowars.com/un-gun-grab-f…
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/fr…
http://www.infowars.com/army-manual-o…
http://www.prisonplanet.com/army-cour…
“Complete disarmament” of the American people
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Monday, July 16, 2012
The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee “complete disarmament” of the American people under the ruse of preventing war. The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target “all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons,” according to Forbes’ Larry Bell.
Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
A letter sent last month by 130 Republican House members to President Obama argued that the treaty should be rejected because it infringes on the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms”. The letter adds that “…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”
Using the rhetoric of the threat post by terrorists, insurgents and “international crime syndicates,” the UN is busy trying to imply that all weapons are somehow involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority.
This is precisely the same language used in a 1961 U.S. State Department briefing which outlined a long term agenda to carry out a “Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.”
Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare, the document spells out a plan to create a “United Nations Peace Force” that would “enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.”
While the document initially focuses on scrapping nuclear weapons, it later makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, “for the purpose of maintaining internal order,” and the UN “peacekeeping” force itself, which would require “agreed manpower.”
“The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes,” states the document. While the memorandum outlines a broader mandate to destroy national sovereignty, eviscerate national armies and institute the UN as the planet’s supreme authority with a world army, the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades.
As Bell points out in his Forbes article, the threat of the Obama administration relying on a UN treaty to do what successive administrations have tried but failed to accomplish — taking a huge bite out of the second amendment — is by no means far fetched.
After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations.

In this segment of his Virtual State of the Union, the Virtual President talks about why politicians want to talk about gun control rather than crime control, and delivers the factual evidence and historical truths that make the case for the Second Amendment self-evident.

Gun ownership

Why should ordinary citizens own a gun?

Because owning a police officer is too expensive. Time and time again, statistics show that the that law enforcement arrives usually just in time, to draw the chalk outline around your body.

Why do some states have a mandatory waiting period, after purchasing a gun?

Some states, such as Illinois and others, have a mandatory “cooling off period” when purchasing a firearm. We do not support this. As a former Illinois resident, I can personally attest to the fact that nobody went back to retrieve their firearm after the mandatory wait, and said “I’m not mad anymore.” This is just another silly restriction that some liberal states impose, to create more useless restrictions.

Open carry / Concealed carry

Why do some states allow ordinary law abiding citizens to carry a firearm?

I say why not! The key word is law abiding. 49 of 50 states currently have legislation for citizens to train, qualify, and carry a firearm. As an American, our second amendment guarantees us this freedom, and we will fight to keep it.

Which is better? Open carry or concealed carry?

Ahhh, yes, the age old debate. Open carry is a deterrent. Concealed carry gives you the element of surprise. Given both options, I carry concealed, but that’s just my personal preference. There’s advantages and disadvantages to both. If you do open carry, you do have to be much more alert to your “personal space” and surroundings. We support both methods 100%.