Posted on 05/24/2004 12:19:43 PM PDT by 45Auto
As for the ideological merits of Switzerland’s gun laws, Schoch dismisses them outright: “The thought that we’re in any way lesser ‘Swiss’ if we don’t keep our own assault rifle in a cupboard at home is ridiculous. The independence of our nation doesn’t depend on that.”
See Swiss Info for more info.
There you go, denying the credit to those to whom it really is due, namely the members of Congress and the Liberal Establishment....
This is a poor analogy for the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment was envisioned to serve Two purposes.
One: To be the backbone of the armed forces repelling a armed invader. The Citizen Militia would form around a small professional army and chase the invader from our boarders.
Second: If the Central Government should become oppressive the Citizen Militia would organize to depose the oppressive government and restore the usurped liberties of the people. In this case it was assumed that there would never be a large standing army. The founders did not believe in them and warned against them. It is also assumed that the men of the standing army would not carry arms against their families, friends and neighbors to support a despotic government.
For the Kurds the despotic government and the standing army were both composed of an ethnic group which were for many generations involved in blood feuds and religiously fueled hatreds against them. The Kurds also have numerous tribes and Clans that devide them preventing a cohesive structure around which to build a fighting unit. The Kurds do not have the numbers or a cohesive populous to make the analogy work.
The analogy does not hold up to scrutiny.
Thanks for the ping. Make sure you read comment# 20.
One subtle but important difference is this. I can think of no country other than the United States where the general population is armed, particularly with CCW's, yet do not at the same time have to act as agents of the State. The Swiss, with their assault rifles, keep them at home out of an arrangement that allows and encourages that purely for the protection of Switzerland. Here in America (most states) our right to be armed is acknowledged regardless of our role in police or state security. Here is is an individual right, not part of a state program. Can't think of anywhere else where that is the case.
"... The whole purpose of the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is to OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT!"
Not quite.
It's to protect and defend the Bill of Rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic -- even if those enemies turn out to be the government.
You give very cogent definitions, there, SG.
Thanks.
BTTT!!
I'd say the "right" to be armed is actually a privilege. And a very limited one, at that.
For instance, you can't carry an Uzzi in your briefcase. You can't carry anything effective against hardened targets. You must have a state issued permit to carry anything at all. It must be hidden, so as not to frighten the sheep. If you use it, you had better have a whole bunch of money for attorneys, or be a celebrity of some sort. If you have too many firearms, your guns constitute an arsenal, and your home becomes a compound, and you can all die in flames.
No, the battle for the 2nd Amendment was lost in 1933. Before that, yes we had a "right".
And both parties are afraid of you and your popguns.
Bump.
Hmm. There still seem to be kurds, but saddam has fallen. Being armed gives you a fighting chance, which is better than no chance at all....
The analogy does not hold up to scrutiny.
Not to mention the fact that the Kurds, earlier known as the Medes, were a world power along with the Persians. ALL their host countries are very cautious about letting them aquire enough foundation to build anything with the potential to become a national entity.
True. However, neither does the author's preposterous claim that a half million German Jews could have prevented the Holocaust if they had only been armed.
I fully support the RTKBA. However, I have no delusions that if I had an M-1 tank in the garage it will be any meaningful protection should the US government be taken over by those who with to kill me.
If you look at the Militia Act of 1792, it gives a pretty good picture of the "original intent" of the Founders. Congress MANDATED that:
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.American citizens were REQUIRED BY LAW to be armed with military firearms and equiptment
You said, "No, the battle for the 2nd Amendment was lost in 1933. Before that, yes we had a 'right'."
We still have the "right," it's just infringed!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.