Quote of the day—Carry Sword in France

Because-as society evolves, governments can no longer deal effectively with violence ever-present in our streets. Because-all citizens should have the right to defend itself, to ensure its security when the forces of order are absent or impotent. We French of all backgrounds, faiths and political tendencies united in this petition are asking the legitimate right to carry a firearm.

Carry Sword in France.
We ask the government to order the establishment of a decree authorizing all citizens to be entitled to carry a firearm in France

[I’m not sure about the organization, the date, and the translation in general, but the sentiment is fairly clear.

As Paul Koning said, “If that petition succeeds, the French will have a concealed carry system about as friendly as that of California. I suppose it’s a start.”

H/T to Andrew Benghazi.—Joe]


13 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Carry Sword in France

  1. I guess it is an interesting conversation starter but I won’t go anywhere of course.

    Concealed carry actually exists in France but is “NYC-like may issue”. For the rich & connected (foreign or local) and their security details only.

    Right know we’re obviously far from CCW. We’re trying to fend off a sweeping ban on semi-auto firearms at EU level (which would then trickle down).

    On one hand I guess events like what happened in Cologne have put a dent in the fluffy world some people live in.

    On the other hand most people are either delusional (“can’t happen to me”) or absolutely fail to connect the dot.

    You get the “if there had been people carrying guns it would have been a massacre!” spiel… when talking about the god damned Bataclan attack where 82 people died and many more were shot. That’s what I got from a colleague at work who had been at a concert at the Bataclan barely two weeks before the November attack.

    And French culture is big on statism. The State cannot recognize is has shortcomings (or that it is subjected to the laws of physics). And people love to rely on the Government. Because it means not having to do anything on your own and being able to cast the blame (some of which is deserved) on the System.

    I suspect that we won’t see relaxed CCW anytime soon in Western Europe. In Latin countries like France and further South people might start carrying illegally if things get much worse tough.

  2. “We French of all backgrounds, faiths and political tendencies united in this petition are asking the legitimate right to carry a firearm.”

    BTW, to my Froggy friends – if you have to ask for it, it isn’t a right….

    • Hey, don’t be mean!

      You still have “may issue but not to peasants” in a few places in the US!


      • OK then, how about;
        “Rights don’t come from government. Government either recognizes, respects and protects rights or it ignores, covets and violates them.”

        Basic premises are important as they’re always the starting point, or foundation, and you don’t build a nice house on a poor foundation (also it is not mean of someone to point this out). It is therefore a petition to make the government recognize and protect a right, and would properly be worded as such.

        Throw away the basic concept of rights and thereby construct a socialist society (a farce) as Europeans (and most Americans) have done, and you’ve pretty well thrown out your foundational, moral basis for the protection of any human right.

        I wish them luck, and they’ll need a lot more than luck.

        Getting most Americans to understand these basics is difficult enough. Trying them on Europeans is going to be much more difficult.

        • I have my doubts my fellow EU subjects will ever see the light (I mean on a large scale).

          There’s a reason a bunch of people took their chances to get across a big scary pond in the 1600s to leave all that stuff behind.

          There have never been true individual freedoms here, as Paul pointed out a couple posts below.

          At least in the US there is some kind of fight to preserve your rights (not just guns). Here in Europe there’s no fight and there hasn’t ever been anything to try and preserve.

          Having all kings of authoritarians pop up all over Europe over the last few centuries didn’t happen by accident and without some sort of consent from the populace.

          My “don’t be mean” comment was just a reminder that peril looms close to home. It is legitimate to point and laugh at Europe (and I have Swiss friends who rightfully do the same). But sometimes people see this as some reassurance (look at those dumbasses!) instead of a dire warning.

          • I wonder if what you say about “Europe” applies to Switzerland. Did you mean that it doesn’t? That seems plausible, since the Swiss made a point of kicking out the dictators almost a thousand years ago.
            The Dutch case is somewhat depressing, since Holland did fight for its freedom (in the 16th century). It may have been too early to get the correct principles in place. Or it may be the subsequent conquest by Napoleon, and the installation of a monarchy after that (Holland used to be a republic) that broke things.
            By the way, it’s interesting to read the Dutch declaration of independence (a document not taught in Holland) with the US one. There are striking similarities, though it’s clear that the writer of the Dutch one didn’t have the language skills of Jefferson, not by a mile.

          • @Paul, I see Switzerland as closer to the US than to Western Europe in terms of individual rights.

            But they’re also experiencing some sort of decline but they’re starting from a bit higher in terms of individual freedoms. The French-speaking regions are a bit farther down the slippery/stupid slope. I blame French influence.

            Some countries in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states seem to be a bit less stupid. But I’m not really familiar with their politics so I can’t really say. Tough to be dumber than us Western Europeans though …

  3. “Sword” is not a good translation of “arme” in this context; “weapon” would be better.

    (I’ll admit that I don’t know what the French sword carry laws are like, either. 🙂 )

  4. Keep in mind that rights, and Constitutions, as we know them in the USA don’t exist elsewhere in the world. In particular, popular myth notwithstanding, they don’t exist in Western Europe. This all makes sense: pretty much all of it was ruled by absolute dictators until fairly recently (it started to change, in fits and starts in a few places, maybe 200 years ago). The notion that the people are “subjects” rather than “citizens” makes this clear. And it is a general rule that government power is unlimited.
    Some of Europe has no Constitution at all (England, for example). Some other countries have one, but it’s meaningless. I like to point to Holland as a horrible example. Its constitution says that there is freedom of speech “subject to everyone’s responsibility under the law”. I think that’s lawyerese for “void where prohibited”. Worse yet, it says explicitly that courts have no authority to judge whether any law is constitutional. Yes, I’m not pulling your leg, it’s right there in article 120. To put it differently, by its very own words, the Dutch constitution is a meaningless scrap of paper.
    In the past couple of weeks a German commentator was criminally charged with insulting a foreign head of state. Yes, that is an actual crime in various European countries. I remember hearing of it when growing up in Holland, though I don’t recall ever hearing anyone actually being charged with that offense.
    Last but not least, it’s explicit policy in Europe that there is no free speech — you’re allowed to have approved opinions only. For example, in Holland, the queen’s Christmas speech in 2006 included this comment: “A right to offend does not
    exist. Nor is freedom of religion a license to injure…”. Note that in Holland the queen/king is the head of the government, not just a bystander speaking only her personal opinion. These speeches are approved by the political leadership and they are, by law, responsible for the content.
    In short, speaking of “rights” in European political context is not really meaningful.

    • “Keep in mind that rights, and Constitutions, as we know them in the USA don’t exist elsewhere in the world.”

      No, Young Grasshopper; rights exist equally, everywhere. In whatever country they may reside, humans posses the same inherent rights. Those rights are seldom respected and often hated, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Let’s not forget it.

      If I were to hate you, for example, would you, by that fact alone, cease to exist? I think not. Nor do rights cease to exist because they get in someone’s way, or because someone hates them, or because a whole society is tricked into ignoring them.

      A constitution upholding human rights is gibberish without that understanding.

      • You caught me on loose terminology. What I meant and should have said is “are not recognized elsewhere in the world”. Or perhaps “are not understood…”

  5. Heinlein pointed out, many years ago, that it was a crime in postwar Germany to be rude or disrespectful to “an officer of the state”. As he put it, that meant that you could literally be arrested for talking back to a bus driver.

    It’s a stark reminder of how precious, and how nearly unique in human history, our Bill of Rights is.

    • In Holland, I remember an offense defined as “offending a civil servant on duty”. The classic example would be talking back to cops (calling them “pig” for example), but yes, in principle it could be applied to any civil servant, of which there are a very large number. (My father was one, technically speaking: a university professor.)

Comments are closed.