weapons in each cottage, for centuries. 
In Switzerland, the Sovereign, it is the peoples Swiss Confederates, especially protected by common in the United States cantons.
The powers of the Sovereign include the right to be armed, to do justice, fight
start first in individuals, families, municipalities, townships, and then only by delegation written in a spirit subsidiary Confederation and can occur only within the rules of law. The
sovereign can delegate or transfer of skills, without touching on its sovereignty, while he retains the possibility of resuming those powers, including that of beat currency.
is also the Sovereign
exercising the right of pardon and amnesty, the right of naturalization and recovery of nationality. Finally, he gives orders, titles and even other distinctions.
it is obligated or committed by his own will within the overarching principle of law and in accordance with the collective goal that is expected to achieve , within the preamble Switzerland begins with "In the name of God Almighty."
The cross of Christ, the son of God, appears on its flag, square in honor of God the Father and red for the Holy Spirit. Any foreign interference must be accepted by binding referendums double majority.
THE RIGHT TO ARMS
If we try to be objective an idea of the historical merits of the establishment of state borders and the right to sovereignty of peoples over their respective territories, it is agreed that the current division of the planet rests on the arbitrariness absolute. Brute force, backed by the power of Weapons have always exercised in this area.
Even today, international diplomatic relations are a screen behind which hides the underlying threat of arms.
Like it or not, we are the descendants of peoples who have conquered their usurpers territory by force and having marked their borders as large predators hunting their brands in the African savannah. Want to deny is to deny the obvious.
relations between states reflect only the will of men who govern them.
In democratic governments, like that of France, elected on the principle of universal suffrage and based on equal rights for all citizens, we can say that government decisions do express the will of the majority of citizens.
On security between states, no government, democratic and pacifist if it is, no one would go without weapons powerful and trained men to serve them. Indeed, nothing in the current state of affairs can not guarantee a democratic state that will not one day attacked by a totalitarian state, ignoring the established boundaries of international law and still embryonic in aim to impose its beliefs, ideologies or simply to annex its territory and steal its riches.
is therefore an obligation for states to be armed, much more to deter and be heard in the concert of nations, that to attack another state.
Come now, in a country like France, what are the dangers to the citizens and the means employed to address them.
The dangers from outside the country, by warlike aggression, duly declared by notice through diplomatic channels, are beyond our national armies generally well equipped. This is much less evident today regarding the war insidiously subversive conducted on our soil by terrorists trained abroad and whose purpose is to constrain the horror of his attacks, the government of France to support the cause they purport to represent, or to influence foreign policy in the sense that serve their interests. These terrorist actions, exclusive of all morality, are probably justified in the eyes of perpetrators by the absence of fundamental right that governed the establishment of state boundaries. Against this danger there, French citizens are supposed to be protected by the national police still poorly adapted to this new form of violence.
Other internal threats to France, like other democratic countries of the same standard of living, just a very marginal fringe of their population who decided to live at the expense of the rest of the nation and outside the law.
These dangers are manifested in burglaries, assaults on the public highway, armed robbery, etc.. ... Just read the newspaper every day for a complete sampling of all possible abuses.
These dangers, once almost nonexistent nowadays are increasingly frequent and highlighted by a tabloid press which gives law-abiding citizen to feel a greater potential than real risk of this kind and at the same time gives the impression of a marginal certainty of impunity due to too many abuses. In either case, this can exacerbate the phenomenon.
In principle, all these dangers are supposed to be the purview of the national police, controlled by the government and acting within the framework of laws and procedures specific.
Unfortunately this policy, which does what it can within its means and its workforce can not be everywhere and protect every citizen twenty-four hours in twenty-four. Only a few senior figures in the state and some notable foreign refugees on our soil (some fallen dictators), can benefit from this rare privilege at great cost to the state budget.
Furthermore, the reduction of working time, social progress, helping, can only go to be accentuated and to the benefit of police personnel as the rest of the country's workforce, lead to continuously increase the number of these officials if they wanted to permanently keep the same density in police service. This would lead to ever-increasing taxes which are levied on the treatment of these officials.
We are condemned to receive police protection less effective and the only remedy for this inevitable state of affairs is to allow citizens to support a part of its security.
Besides, finds it does not these days quite normal to give his apartment door and alarm system to thwart burglaries that the police does ; currently has more ways to avoid? These protection devices, very expensive and were not required there are only ten to fifteen years, clearly show that there is a transfer of state responsibility towards the citizen.
Moreover, in cases of assault with a deadly weapon against the citizen, it is not able to defend themselves, paradoxically, because power bullied more and more the vast majority of law-abiding citizens, as and when the tiny minority outlaw committing abuses by illegal use of firearms.
Thus, since 1939, and over the successive governments in power since the legislation on the acquisition, possession and carrying of firearms has been amended that to be more restrictive.
What is the aim of this power? Primarily to satisfy public opinion by giving the impression of having done "something" to public safety, whenever a more shocking attack that has forced others to do so.
That "something" is purely demagogic and ineffective as outlaws by definition will not meet over new regulations they have respected the old.
Moreover, these various changes to the text and the original legislation of 1936, are not entirely innocent when analyzed with sufficient critical thinking. There is nothing in this welter of decrees is intended to enhance citizen security. Only the power at each new order, find a way to strengthen its own security.
Also it is unusual for a democratic power to compel the citizen to be defenseless against a potential aggressor, while the same power proves quite unable to guarantee its security by failing to disarm criminals.
In my opinion, the right to defend themselves, so be armed, is part of the ancestral human dignity and is inscribed in its genetic form of & # 39; survival instinct. Without arms, our species would have disappeared from the face of the planet.
That said, do not particularly think that my purpose is to advocate for sale free of weapons. Far from me such a thought.
can admit that the real problem is as follows:
-The right to be armed should be an inalienable right in a democratic country.
-This law, to be effective involves many duties and responsibilities for those who want to benefit.
But what are the criteria to be met for this fundamental right can be exercised without disturbing the public order while enhancing the safety of all citizens?
1) To prevent accidents due to incompetence.
2) Avoid the drama of the illegitimate defense.
3) Avoid the weapons from falling into malicious hands.
4) To empower the holder and holder of a firearm for the consequences of its unlawful use.
5) Periodically check that all of these criteria is always satisfied.
To do this, I suggest establishing a license to possess and carry firearms. Permit would be issued to the applicant after a strict examination similar in principle to driving automobiles and valid as it is by vehicle class, by category of firearm . No weapons of any kind could be issued without the submission of the relevant permit.
This review would, inter alia, the following aspects:
1) Perfect knowledge of the weapon in question, its ballistic performance, its handling, its rules of port development and security implementation.
2) Perfect knowledge of the laws governing self-defense and more generally the use of weapons, even in the shooting.
3) applicant's commitment to keep its weapons in a safe place when not worn, or when away from home longer if it is means not provided sufficient security. The theft of a firearm arising from the negligence of its owner should be punished.
4) Perfect knowledge, for the applicant, criminal sanctions arising from the unlawful use of firearms.
5) The applicant undertakes to train regularly firing and to submit to periodic reviews of checks to ensure the continued existence of his knowledge and skills.
The foregoing does not pretend to consider everything and I leave it to real experts to design appropriate texts.
I am under no illusions about the reception that such proposals could receive state and French citizens.
There are so unrealistic and so averse to arms in the French public outcry that would rise against such proposals.
Yet I still believe that this solution is the path of wisdom and in France there are enough citizens who have civic sense and capacity to agree to carry a weapon and & # 39; attend if necessary, any person in danger.
Maybe we would see more, as happens too often, a woman being raped or robbed in a subway car or commuter train before an indifferent public or nailed by fear?
It is obvious that the hoodlums, thugs, terrorists and other criminals would feel less comfortable to carry out their misdeeds, if they knew about them having armed citizens.
Fear Is not the beginning of wisdom?
Sarazin.
PS
Saracens, not descendants of Sarah, Hagar, Abraham's children, their global empire grows against wear. They condemn the interest rate murderer, should do as Christians. Wear is the worst weapons ...
Francis Siebenthal : On the
wear, and other dishonest profits.
- ... Alert, still more errors
July 14, 2009 ... We urged determine in fact to wear the doctrines which the widespread rumors that recently in the ...
Siebenthal .blogspot.com / ... / on-the wear-and-other-profits.html - Cached
► Francis Siebenthal : Wear -
November 28, 2008 ... The criminal offense of wear: the law does not protect the professionals! - The legal definition of crime of usury
date of a law of December 28 ofSiebenthal . /.../ blogspot.com wear alert-always-more-with missed-dans.html - Cachedall ...
Francis Siebenthal : wear and interest, hypocrisy -
May 29, 2009 ... The current system of setting rates of wear encourages revolving loans (or revolving) and by credit cards, ...
Siebenthal . Blogspot.com/.../ wear -and-interest-lhypocrisie-in-toute.html - Cached
pervenit Vix - www.de- Siebenthal . Com - they were instructed to determine in fact to wear
the doctrines ... of
wear is for the lender to demand, on behalf of this contract, it www.de-Siebenthal .com / Vix% 20pervenit.htm - Cached
Family Siebenthal -
... which was stolen by the manipulators of interest rates and the wear ...
Siebenthal .com/site03.htm
0 comments:
Post a Comment