As EU Mulls Tougher Gun Laws, Czechs Debate Gun Rights Amendment
“In the beginning Europe had good intentions, but the realization could be given an F-“
The EU, in its ongoing effort to impose ever-increasing control over the countries under its purview, will be voting later this month to further tighten gun laws. In response, the Czech government is considering amending their constitution to include the right to keep and bear arms.
Czech lawmakers are weighing a proposal to amend their constitution to guarantee citizens the right to keep and bear arms, according to EURACTIV.
Social Democrats, the eastern European nation’s main party, support the right to acquire and carry a gun for the sake of safety. But other political parties, particularly ANO 2011, firmly oppose the amendment.
Interior Minister Milan Chovanec, who drafted the proposal, is optimistic it will be passed by the Czech Parliament, EURACTIV reported.
“I think that we have very good negotiating position to get 120 votes needed to pass in Chamber of Deputies,” Chovanec said.
Czechs debate gun rights amendment to ensure EU can't tighten rules #FOXNewsWorld https://t.co/hft50SeGTE pic.twitter.com/ItfCsb4xHQ
— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 4, 2017
. . . . The Czech debate comes ahead of a vote by the European Parliament this month on restricting gun rights. Czechs who want the gun ownership amendment in their constitution see the proposal as a pre-emptive strike against possible EU gun ownership restrictions.
Supporters of the Czech measure say that it will help make the country more secure. They describe it as a step they want to take before the European Parliament moves to tighten gun ownership rules, according to Intellinews.com. Chovanec maintains that the possible EU gun control move could take thousands of guns from Czechs, Intellinews.com reported.
Some 800,000 Czechs own guns, the news outlet said.
“We will do our best to protect their rights,” Chovanec said. “In the beginning Europe had good intentions, but the realization could be given an F-.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Give’em hell! The EU needs to go to hell with the UN.
Further restricting guns just paves the way for Islamic domination of Europe. I would argue this is an intended consequence given how corrupted European governments are now.
I can imagine how disappointed an ISIS terrorist will be when he finds out that he might get prosecuted for having an illegal AK-47. “Oh, Crap!! I can’t go out and kill 100 people because they won’t let me keep my gun!”
When will people learn that terrorists and murderers don’t care what your gun laws (or vehicle laws) are? They will just steal the gun or the truck and mow down as many people as possible. All these stupid laws do is disarm the people who are NOT terrorists and murderers. In the US, the places with the highest crime rates are the ones with the most stringent gun laws (eg Chicago). The people committing the crimes don’t care about the gun laws.
This might be why CZ pistols aren’t as available as in the past.
The EU needs to take a hard look at Great Britain, as there is a lesson to be learned there. They, for all practical purposes, banned firearms of all sorts and the few that it is permissible to own require a government license. Has this led to a more peaceful society? No.
The big problem there now is edged weapons and in accord with true government logic (??) knife control legislation is a thing there now! When they get all the sharp, pointy things away from people, will that stem the violence? Of course not. Then they’ll have to move on to blunt objects – clubs, hammers, and such. I’m not all all sure what will happen when all civilians have left for defense are the original dangerous weapons … hands and feet!
As the old adage goes “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!” Gun Free Zones and stringent gun control areas such as Chicago have proven the correctness of that adage. Perhaps I’m naive to hope the Brits will learn from this considering the number of people in this country who refuse to accept the obvious conclusions to be drawn from these facts.