When the State assumes an arms monopoly
On Friday June 9, 2006, a new law on the possession and trade of arms came into force in Belgium. Like many other countries, Belgium is implementing a general ban on the possession and carrying of weapons. Until now, purchasing a weapon was easy: the prospective buyer only needed to be of legal age and show their identity card, with police checks carried out retrospectively on the basis of the seller’s declaration. The weaknesses of the old legislation were highlighted by the tragedy that occurred in Antwerp at the end of May 2006 when a young sympathizer of the extreme right killed a woman and a child after seriously injuring a third person. The killer had bought a hunting rifle that morning in a gun store. These tragic events have considerably accelerated the legislative process, which has been slowed since 2002 by strong resistance from the arms lobby. The new law has three major objectives: prohibiting the free sale of firearms, improving the traceability of weapons and their holders and finally, strengthening control of the activities of gunsmiths. (Source: GRIP).
his law which requires citizens to hand over the weapons in their possession to the State, under penalty of heavy penalties and without compensation, is a new example of the villainous character of the Belgian State. It is first of all a political exploitation of a news item. The fact that a frustrated and fragile young man, who had just been the subject of a disciplinary sanction, shot at passers-by, some of whom were members of visible minorities, is not caused by the free trade in arms, as the socialist mayor of Antwerp, Patrick Janssens, immediately claimed by leak. The ultimate cause is mass immigration which destabilizes the cultural identity of the native population; It has long been researched and established that when cultural identity falters, violent reactions against foreigners occur.
This law also leads, under the holy pretext of ensuring security, to reserving the possession and use of firearms to the State alone, without real control and by stripping citizens of a fraction of their freedom and their defense capacity. However, the State is only one organization among others, and it is not up to it to prohibit or monopolize in this area.
The Belgian government, dominated by an alliance between liberals and socialists, is not only busy selling off the country’s industry to foreign interests; it is also customary to dispossess the Belgian population of its vital interests. Already in 1999, this same prime minister had engaged in a similar maneuver in the Semira Adamu affair, an unfortunate news item during which gendarmes had suffocated a foreigner subject to an expulsion order while trying to control her. Instead of limiting itself to sanctioning the officials responsible, the government took advantage of the situation to impose a comprehensive reform of nationality law. The law of March 1, 2000 thus created a real right to Belgian nationality. More than 200,000 foreigners benefited from these measures, which had a definite impact on the participation and representation of immigrants during the municipal elections of October 2000 and in subsequent elections. This government cheated the Belgians, taking advantage of the emotion aroused by this affair and which silenced any protest in advance.
In Switzerland, in accordance with tradition, 231,000 assault rifles and 51,600 military pistols are stored in attics, cellars or cupboards. Their owners, in addition to 3-week “rehearsal courses” each year – for approximately 7 years – must go to shooting ranges to participate in compulsory exercises. Then, once their service is completed, they can keep these weapons, as a souvenir or to train in the many shooting clubs in Switzerland, a national activity in the same way as pétanque in France.
Naturally, there are campaigns by the most statist political movements, such as the PS, for the confiscation of these weapons and their storage in military arsenals, deemed safer. Thursday March 22, the National Council, the lower house of Parliament, refused to ban their detention at home, rejecting a proposal from the Socialist Party by 96 votes to 80. A majority of deputies felt that this tradition should not be tampered with, a legacy of a time when every “citizen-soldier” had to react quickly, and in all circumstances, to a threat, whether communist or otherwise. . From now on, it is the risk of terrorist attacks which justifies each member of the militia army keeping their weapon at hand, ready to defend an airport or a train station. This argument was also put forward by the Federal Council (government).
In this regard, it is appropriate to put into perspective two pseudo-arguments used by these campaigns: 1) the “arms lobby” is not the only one to inspire this practice of freedom, which corresponds to a tradition of a citizen army; 2) weapon possession is in no way “responsible” for aggressive behavior. Switzerland is not a country more violent than any other. For example, in Belgium very recently, a woman murdered her five children using a knife. Should kitchen utensils be confiscated and their management entrusted to the State? It is the mental health of the population that we must aim to improve, and not use it as a pretext to strengthen state power. (source: Le Monde 1/4/2007)
