I wish that opencarry ia possible in the netherlands.

Tonight, i was watching an program on tv about carry weapens in the USA.
In your law there is the second ammenment wich allows to carry a weapon.

Wel i must say: i wish it's possible in the netherlands.
I want to own a gun, to defend my home and children.
But it's not allowed by law here.

The problem here is that the criminals own a gun and the rate of violant robberies are exploding.
Especaly the old people are getting robbed in ther homes at gun point.
They are mentaly scared for live after this.

Even a lawer said that we(the dutch people) must buy a gun to defent ourselfs.
Because the violence is getting more and more agressive.
So, i envy your possibility to own a gun!!!!!!!!!

I hope that somebody reads my post and sends me a reply.

Ton

Welcome to this American forum Ton!

I am sorry that I cannot imagine a legal solution except move, but what a culture shock that would be.

Maybe saying how shocked I was by the culture that made Girl with the dragon tattoo possible might say how shocked you might be in America. Then I read all of Henning Mankell's 'Wallander' stories to learn that Sweden might not be so different.

Ton,

Another welcome to the OCDO forum.

Please allow me to make a small correction - the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not "allow" anything. It prevents the state from doing certain things (and we are still involved in a debate/discussion about how much the state can do without actually infringing on those rights we claim inherently as human beings.

Now for the political speech - our history from the very beginning was that we are citizens, not subjects. And during the time before that when we agreed we were subjects we still insisted that the soverign must respect each and every right we had been granted.

The two issues above are probably what makes the USA different from every other country. As I believe it was Winston Churchill who said it, America has the worst system of politics and government in the world, except every other one.

Would you answer a question for me (us)? Here in the USA the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty or obligation to protect the individual citizen. Are the police in The Netherlands liable for any injury a citizen suffers because the police failed to protect them? I have great difficult understanding the European Union Declaration of Rights, as to me it seems to be more a declaration of the powers of the government and the obligations of the citizens towards the government that a list of the rights of the citizens. I suspect that may be largely due to the philosophical differences in our cultures.

Please feel free to come back and participate in the discussions. Quite a bit of them involve documenting that when laws are relaxed to remove prohibitions or restrictions on firearm ownership there is not a rash of blood-in-the-streets incidents or folks running around shooting each other over perceived slights a`la the Wild West.

stay safe.

No weapons in the Netherlands

I feel so sorry for the people of the Netherlands if at all possible they should try and petition the government and keep at it sooner or later something has to happen ,And if that doesn't work Don't re-elect the government put new people in office.:question:

I think that you will find that the Netherlands are a Constitutional Monarchy, socialist and democratic for a very long time. We may pity them for their plight, but it is well earned, fought for even. To have the right of self-defense would destroy the Netherlands as it is known and make it into something that it is not. Look to their neighbors, none are allowed RKABA.

If I understand correctly, Ton understands that he and his country are screwed in their present circumstances. Rubbing that in may not be the most polite thing to do.

Is it actually possible for his country to alter their culture and thus alter the way they approach firearms and even the issue of self defense? Sadly, I hold out little if any hope for that happening. Even our revolt from rule by the British crown has as a significant part the notions that are behind the Second Amendment, and that individuals are pretty much the ones to make any change in their circumstances, as opposed to ceding all of that to the state. It's sort of like all the attempts to ram democracy down the throats of folks who have no concept of that, let alone how to act as part of a democracy - a wonderful notion doomed to spectacular failure.

And yet the possibility of an impending collapse of the Euopean Union, as well as the European economy and social order, may just provide the impetus for a major cultural shift. It's up to folks loke Ton to carry the word to the vast majority of folks who are currently just trying to get by day to day. If I can offer only moral support, them I will do so. Even during a hurricane it is better to try and light that :cuss: candle than to sit and curse the dark, the wind, and the rain.

stay safe.

PrayingForWar said:

Hey, pot is decriminalized there....

I guess their priorities are in order in spite of common sense.

Click to expand...

And this advances the discussion how?

stay safe.

skidmark said:

<snip> Is it actually possible for his country to alter their culture and thus alter the way they approach firearms and even the issue of self defense? <snip>

Click to expand...

It may be possible....as long as the state permits it. Unless of course Ton and a vast majority of other like minded Dutch go the route we did, back in the day, to secure our inalienable rights. Unfortunately that is what will not happen, Europeans don't have it in them. Even the French Revolution was not about securing inalienable rights.

kooi005 said:

Tonight, i was watching an program on tv about carry weapens in the USA.
In your law there is the second ammenment wich allows to carry a weapon.

Wel i must say: i wish it's possible in the netherlands.
I want to own a gun, to defend my home and children.
But it's not allowed by law here.

The problem here is that the criminals own a gun and the rate of violant robberies are exploding.
Especaly the old people are getting robbed in ther homes at gun point.
They are mentaly scared for live after this.

Even a lawer said that we(the dutch people) must buy a gun to defent ourselfs.
Because the violence is getting more and more agressive.
So, i envy your possibility to own a gun!!!!!!!!!

I hope that somebody reads my post and sends me a reply.

Ton

Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum and I hope you enjoy your time here.

I live in Virginia which happens to the one of the most gun-friendly and lenient states in America for the carrying of a defensive firearm. In our state, the normal mode of carry (read that as default or standard) is to carry one's firearm out in the open. No permit is required for this. To carry concealed here one must apply for a Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) which really means we are asking permission to exercise a basic and fundamental right... something many of us find offensive.

Leaving my home and going about my daily routines with a handgun on my hip out in the open is a non issue and causes virtually no concern with people I encounter when out and about. In other words, it's hardly any more different than carrying a cell phone in a pouch on one's belt. It's no doubt hard for you to imagine such a setting since this just does not happen in your country. But here in Virginia, it's just no big deal.

Again, welcome to the site.

I may be wrong, but I thought Parliamentary Monarchies don't have the same type of (in)direct general elections that we have in the USA, I remember from High school Government, that the Monarch appoints parliament members at his/her discretion, and by the popularity of each given 'party', then the party with the most popularity is given the spot of the PM/President, but the monarch retains full power even if said monarch doesn't actually use it. (I don't trust everything Wiki says, so I'm not bothering looking it up on there). So how can a people stop re-electing members of their government, when their mostly appointed by a PM, and monarch?

Jokingly, if the Dutch have any oil, I'm sure we'd be happy to help relieve them of it, and help their efforts to bring in American Democracy~

Welcome Ton and please don't get the impression that this is the best country to live in for firearms rights. I have friends in Argentina where if you look at the gun laws on the books are very restrictive yet they can buy crates of "new in cosmoline" FALs.

I interviewed the author of this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Worldwide...2279/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334242088&sr=8-1

See here: http://zerogov.com/?p=1914

America is #10 behind such countries as New Zealand, Finland, Crete and Finland. The Netherlands is #15.

New Zealand does not even regulate suppressors.

In my travels in SE Asia and Africa, I have discovered that the rules are dependent on what you can afford more than the laws themselves.

We have some horrific gun laws that emanate from the Federal (national) level such as the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act (thanks Ronald Reagan) and the 1984 McClure-Volkmer Act along with a huge raft of restrictive laws at every level that hollow out the 2A pretty effectively including the Supremes' decision on Heller that opened the door to re-imagine US V. Miller (1939) and make it more virulent than it is. Our country is a flick of the pen away from the Feds making gun ownership very difficult in a legal fashion.

We also have pockets of states in the NE and on the coasts that are very hostile to gun ownership. If you moved from the Netherlands to New York or California, you would feel as if you haven't left Europe.

I happen to live in AZ where the laws are among the freest in the land in the "legal" sense. The optimal solution for us is to reach a point where the national capital in DC has no color of law nor legitimacy of authority within the respective state borders. Then you will see true firearms freedom here.

lysander6 said:

Welcome Ton and please don't get the impression that this is the best country to live in for firearms rights. I have friends in Argentina where if you look at the gun laws on the books are very restrictive yet they can buy crates of "new in cosmoline" FALs.

Click to expand...

I was also recently discussing firearms ownership with someone in Argentina, even if you manage to get get past the legal hurdles, a Glock 17 runs about $1300 US dollars, and a box of 9mm might run $50-80. When you recognize that the average person in Argentina makes a less 1/4th that of your average American, you'll understand what kind of tax on one's finances that is...unless you're wealthy. What's a FAL go for, $5-10k? I can't imagine.

In my travels in SE Asia and Africa, I have discovered that the rules are dependent on what you can afford more than the laws themselves.

Click to expand...

Isn't that the way it is everywhere--even here? You mentioned the 1934 NFA; the people behind that piece of legislation feared that the Supreme Court would have ruled against an outright ban, setting precedent which would basically last forever. Instead they figured a "special tax" on the transfer of those items, would do good enough... Such that regular people would never be able to afford the considerably heavy tax, that is. $200 in 1934 would buy half of a brand new Ford Model B--and that law was enacted in the middle of the Great Depression, when most of America went to a wooden box outside to crap, and the idea of a owning a new car was practically unreachable as the moon itself.

When the $200 tax wasn't out of the reach of many people anymore, they decided to ban new machine guns, for the same reason. A complete ban probably wouldn't fly, even in 1986, but they know about the law of supply and demand. The difference between the USA and the places you tell about is the barrier to entry is low enough to keep more of us peons entertained.

Heck, If you've got a big enough wallet, we've seen that you can probably get out of killing someone; and if you run the banks and the corporations, you can get government employees to go out and do it for you, in some far off land they've probably never even heard of, and completely legally, with no risk or fear of consequence.

lysander6 said:

We have some horrific gun laws that emanate from the Federal (national) level such as the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act (thanks Ronald Reagan) and the 1984 McClure-Volkmer Act along with a huge raft of restrictive laws at every level that hollow out the 2A pretty effectively including the Supremes' decision on Heller that opened the door to re-imagine US V. Miller (1939) and make it more virulent than it is. Our country is a flick of the pen away from the Feds making gun ownership very difficult in a legal fashion.

Click to expand...

What does Reagan have to do with the 1968 Gun Control Act passed by the democrap congress and signed by lbj--after he wiped the blood off his hands?

Gunslinger said:

What does Reagan have to do with the 1968 Gun Control Act passed by the democrap congress and signed by lbj--after he wiped the blood off his hands?

Click to expand...

Perhaps he meant the 1986 Firearms owner Protection act and got the two conflated?

CO-Joe said:

Perhaps he meant the 1986 Firearms owner Protection act and got the two conflated?

Click to expand...

Huge difference.

Gunslinger said:

What does Reagan have to do with the 1968 Gun Control Act passed by the democrap congress and signed by lbj--after he wiped the blood off his hands?

Click to expand...

"Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control. Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

See the rest: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/2/

More: http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/15/when-the-black-panthers-challe

Like so many gun laws in America, its germination was in a desire to keep blacks or other groups disenfranchised of their firearms rights through legal chicanery and manipulation.

Reagan treated gun rights the same way he did small government: lots of rhetoric, little action and a wink and a nod to the expansion of the opposite.

I would submit that the gun prohibition initiatives in CA coupled with the murder of RK and MLK gave the Congress the pretense it needed to enact the 1968 GCA which Dodd had been working on for 5 years (28 years if you count his discovery and wholesale lifting of the Nazi gun laws he bumped into at Nuremberg that later morphed into the 1968 GCA).

The only difference between the parties is the spelling.

CO-Joe said:

Perhaps he meant the 1986 Firearms owner Protection act and got the two conflated?

Click to expand...

No conflation on that oddly named act in 1986. The only protection it provided was higher and higher prices for fully automatic weapons guaranteed in perpetuity for Class III pre-freeze buyers and owners.