Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 45Auto

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.


27 posted on 05/24/2004 2:04:35 PM PDT by Liberty Ship ("Lord, make me fast and accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Liberty Ship
Here in America (most states) our right to be armed is acknowledged regardless of our role in police or state security.

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.

31 posted on 05/24/2004 2:49:28 PM PDT by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson