Posted on 05/24/2004 12:19:43 PM PDT by 45Auto
Those who would blithely abandon the greatest safeguard of liberty -- the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear military-style arms -- aren't real strong on consistency.
Aiming to gradually erode the quality of arms we have "permission" to bear -- back to the level of the muzzle-loading flintlock, if not the slingshot -- they have been disingenuously mewing for 60 years that they have no objection to arms "for which there is a legitimate sporting use."
Of course, the Constitution says nothing about hunting or skeet shooting. Rather, it says we must be allowed to keep our arms -- no "infringement" whatsoever, no tax, no registration, no "application for permit" -- because the citizens constitute the militia, the most powerful armed force in any free state.
The gun-grabbers sneer that this is an out-of-date notion, that a bunch of farmers with deer rifles could hardly stand up to the 82nd Airborne ... let along a Chinese invasion.
But the logical conclusion of that argument is surely that we should encourage law-abiding citizens to keep machine guns and rocket-launchers in the closet ... not ban AK-47s, with or without pistol grips and bayonet lugs.
The victim disarmament extremists (those who would disarm law-abiding rape victims, but not their assailants, who ignore all such laws) ridicule this as the sheerest homicidal macho fantasy -- no modern nation has ever thrown out a tyrant by the simple expedient of the common folk rising up with their personal rifles, nor does any civilized nation today allow its citizens to keep machine guns at home.
Wrong and wrong. Try placing a long-distance call to the American military governor of Vietnam, or the Soviet military governor of Afghanistan, to ask them how easy it was to suppress a nation of armed peasants.
And as to the advisability of "allowing" citizen militias to keep modern military arms with them at home -- yes, Sarah, the kind "designed for no purpose but to kill large numbers of people" -- we turn to Virginia attorney and Second Amendment expert Stephen P. Halbrook, author of the new book "Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II," out this past spring from Sarpedon Press.
Writing in the January 1998 edition of the excellent magazine Chronicles, Mr. Halbrook points out that "Since the origins of the Swiss Confederation in 1291, it has been the duty of every male Swiss citizen to be armed and to serve in the militia. Today, that arm is an 'assault rifle,' which is issued to every Swiss male and which must be kept in the home. During Germany's Third Reich (1933-1945), that arm was a bolt-action repeating rifle, which was highly effective in the hands of Switzerland's many sharpshooters.
"Americans of the wartime generation were familiar with the fact that brave and armed little Switzerland stood up to Hitler and made him blink. As a map of Europe in 1942 shows, the Nazis had swallowed up most of everything on the continent but this tiny speck that Hitler called 'a pimple on the face of Europe.' The Fuhrer boasted that he would be 'the butcher of the Swiss,' but the Wehrmacht was dissuaded by a fully armed populace in the Alpine terrain. ...
"The Swiss federal shooting festival, which remains the largest rifle competition in the world, was held in Luzern in June 1939. Hitler's takeover of Austria and Czechoslovakia was complete, both countries had been surrendered by tiny political elites who guaranteed that there would be no resistance. Swiss President Philipp Etter spoke at the festival, stressing that something far more serious than sport was the purpose of their activity. His comments demonstrated the connection between national defense and the armed citizen:
" 'There is probably no other country that, like Switzerland, gives the soldier his weapon to keep in the home. The Swiss always has his rifle at hand. It belongs to the furnishings of his home. ... That corresponds to ancient Swiss tradition. As the citizen with his sword steps into the ring in the cantons which have the Landsgemeinde (government by public meeting), so the Swiss soldier lives in constant companionship with his rifle. He knows what that means. With this rifle, he is liable every hour, if the country calls, to defend his hearth, his home, his family, his birthplace. The weapon is to him a pledge and sign of honor and freedom. The Swiss does not part with his rifle.'
Mr. Halbrook continues: "On September 1, 1939, Hitler launched World War II by attacking Poland. Within a day or two, Switzerland had about half a million militiamen mobilized out of a population of just over four million. General Henri Cuisan, commander in chief of the Swiss militia, responded with Operations Order No. 2:
" 'At the border and between the border and army position, the border troops and advance guard persistently delay the advance of the enemy. The garrisons at the border and between the border and the works and positions making up the defensive front continue resistance up to the last cartridge, even if they find themselves completely alone.'
"This astonishing order was the opposite of the policies of the other European countries, which either surrendered to Hitler without a fight or surrendered after a brief resistance. For example, in April 1940, Denmark's king surrendered the country after a meeting with the Nazis and instructed his forces not to resist. Norway resisted, although 'unlike Switzerland' it had no armed populace and was ill- prepared for combat.
"In response to the invasions of small neutral countries, Switzerland issued its 'directions concerning the conduct of the soldiers not under arms in event of attack.' Intended as a warning to Germany, it was pasted on walls all over the country. It prescribed the reaction against surprise attack and against the fifth column as follows:
" 'All soldiers and those with them are to attack with ruthlessness parachutists, airborne infantry and saboteurs. Where no officers and noncommissioned officers are present, each soldier acts under exertion of all powers of his own initiative.'
"This command for the individual to act on his own initiative was an ancient Swiss tradition which reflected the political and military leadership's staunch confidence in the ordinary man. This command was possible, of course, only in a society where every man had his rifle at home.
" 'Under no condition,' the order continued, 'would any surrender be forthcoming, and any pretense of a surrender must be ignored: If by radio, leaflets or other media any information is transmitted doubting the will of the Federal Council or of the Army High Command to resist an attacker. this information must be regarded as the lies of enemy propaganda. Our country will resist aggression with all means in its power and to the death.' ...
"France collapsed in June, 1940 after only a few weeks of fighting. Paris was taken without a shot being fired. The Nazis promptly proclaimed the death penalty for possession of firearms in France and other occupied countries.
"In contrast, Cuisan recalled the high duty of the soldier to resist:
" 'Everywhere, where the order is to hold, it is the duty of conscience of each fighter, even if he depends on himself alone, to fight at his assigned position. The riflemen, if overtaken or surrounded, fight in their position until no more ammunition exists. Then cold steel is next. ... The machine gunners, the cannoneers of heavy weapons, the artillerymen, if in the bunker or on the field, do not abandon or destroy their weapons, or allow the enemy to seize them. Then the crews fight further like riflemen. As long as a man has another cartridge or hand weapons to use, he does not yield. ..."
Even old men and children were issued armbands, identifying them as Ortswehren (local defense) so they could not be shot as partisans under international law, when the time came for them to shoot any invader they saw.
Hitler never invaded Switzerland. Would you have?
Nor has any dictator -- military or otherwise -- ever attempted to rule the Swiss cantons by "executive order" ... like the one Bill Clinton haughtily signed to outlaw the import of AK-47 variants which his own ATF had found to be in full compliance with current law.
"There was no holocaust on Swiss soil," Mr. Halbrook concludes. "Swiss Jews served in the militia side by side with their fellow citizens, and kept rifles in their homes just like everyone else. It is hard to believe that there could have been a holocaust had the Jews of Germany, Poland, and France had the same privilege."
Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127.
Good One.
The vote isn't worth a damn towards keeping a nation free, unless the citizens are also personally armed!
That day has come, at least on the Democratic side of the aisle. Thus, the true purpose of the 2nd amendment may someday make itself clear to all sides.
When a car is about to run over you, it doesn't care if you understand its purpose. Likewise the 2nd amendment doesn't care if liberals understand its purpose. It may never be universally understood until the day it performs its function.
We won't be seeing this taught in our "history" classes.
The whole purpose of the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is to OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT!
Liberal Gun Grabbers usually have a case of the vapors when you hit them with that statement.
Most just yell louder..........
The Kurds have always been armed to the teeth. Didn't stop them from being massacred by Saddam.
"must be allowed" - actually, it says that we are absolutely to have weapons of war, there is no "allowed" about it because giovernment is simply and clearly denied authority to regulate gun ownership and transfer in any way.
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.
"But the logical conclusion of that argument is surely that we should encourage law-abiding citizens to keep machine guns and rocket-launchers in the closet ... not ban AK-47s, with or without pistol grips and bayonet lugs."
YEAH, look what a few persons with the right weapons can do to hold off 180,000 US troops in Iraq. Drawing the same analogy, the US would be impregnable.
I think the worst liberal bastards DO understand it; that is why they don't want an armed citizenry - it might interfere with their agenda to turn us all into little tax slaves - come to think of it, we already are tax slaves.
Rightly said, but in today's world we have only two enemies, Them and US........
Has Klinton's unconstitutional and illegal "executive order", relating to the importation of AK clones, been rescinded?
Ping
But the Kurds reportedly went down fighting, gave as good or better than they got, and took more than a few Iraqi troops out of battles present and future.
And they died like men......
Good Post..
There are Liberals, and then there are Leftists.
Liberals are "useful idiots", taught to feel and react; never to think. They unquestioningly believe that gun control is for the safety of children and society. They also do not understand the Second Amendment, and lack the capacity for rational analysis to do so.
Leftists, on the other hand, know exactly the purpose of the Second Amendment -- which is why they are working so hard to destroy it.
1- the tax money is being used for my benefit and the benefit of other Americans
2- the government otherwise leaves us alone in freedom as long as we are not harming others
I guess 1. is partially true and 2. is not looking too good.
A brick, baseball bat, knife, or skillful hand can "liberate " a sidearm or rifle from a single sentry or other soldier.
Those can be used to obtain grenades, mortars, machine guns, which in turn can be used to acquire vehicles, tanks, and artillery, buildings, aircraft, ammo dumps, food, and defectors -- not to mention enemy corpses.
Such is borne out by many years of history -- and you know what "they" say about history................
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!
An armed handful of armed Jews sure made it tough for the Germans in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
Which is not to say: 'The whole purpose of the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is to OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT!'.
I believe Israeli reservists keep their individual weapon and some ammount of ammunition at home, and have in the past reported to their units at or on the way to the front, directly from home. (But the front might be so close as be considered next door in Texas)
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth in their military chests; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in the trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
Abraham Lincoln, January 27, 1838
Yeah, impregnable is exactly what we are - so long as our leaders don't betray us.
"... Which is to say: to retain the capability to overthrow the government."
Which is not to say: 'The whole purpose of the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is to OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT!'.
Restorer: That some, indeed many, Kurds were killed (murdered, I'd say) by Saddam does NOT point out a shortcoming of being armed. You must look at the alternative - what if they HADN'T been armed? Instructive examples of unarmed populations that have been victimized by tyrants include: the Russians, who lost several tens of millions to Stalin; the Chinese lost additional tens of millions to the excesses of Mao; the 6 million Jews and 5 million others who were butchered by Hitler; 2 million Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot; several hundred thousand Ugandans and Rwandans murdered by their governments. There are others.
If you want an example that's geographically closer to the Kurds, look at the Armenian genocide by the Turks during WW1: 1.5 million were butchered or starved to death.
Having arms in plentiful numbers is no guarantee of being left alone, but it is a guarantee that there will be a price paid for attempting a genocide. The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943 fought - and died - but it took several thousand battle-hardened German troops armed with artillery, flame-throwers, grenades, crew-served machine guns and mortars to subdue a bunch of half-starved civilians armed with rusty old pistols and rifles...and they took several hundred of the Germans with them.
If you think that guns in the civilian population are worthless, I suggest that you read "What good can a handgun do against an army?" at http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37519eb3511d.htm
"So now, today, this is the marquee from the NYPD website."
Gee, wouldn't it be terrible, just terrible, if someone decided to rat on an anti-gun neighbor, after having spread a bunch of empty .22 rimfire cases all over the neighbor's back yard? Yeah, it would be awful, and the fact that the anti-gunner got a good dose of his own medicine wouldn't make it any better. (/sarcasm)
500,000 Jews armed and willing to defend themselves and their families would have been able to take out 50,000-100,000 German police/soldiers, perhaps more. Perhaps that wouldn't have "stopped" Hitler's murderous program, but it would have made him and the rest of the German government pause to consider what doing the same to 3 million Polish Jews and several million Russian Jews would have cost. Further, taking out so many Germans would have speeded the end of the war somewhat, thereby saving many who were murdered in the last months.
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.
You or me alone - you're right. However, let's see how far the government would get trying to dominate a nation with 85 million gunowners (many millions of which have military training) and some 250 million guns. Look at what 2 not so bright criminals were able to do to the DC area about 1 1/2 years ago: they scared millions of people for several weeks, this with several thousand police looking for them. What would 1 in 10,000 gun owners be able to do (that is about 8,500 people)? When answering, think about the fact that that anyone seriously considering fighting the fed.gov would have to be VERY highly motivated, would probably be much better armed than the DC murderers (i.e. scoped bolt-action rifles that could reliably hit targets at 500 yards) and would almost certainly be very proficient using such weapons.
Again, 1 person or a very few would certainly lose. That is the whole reason why the entire populace's RKBA is protected by the 2nd Amendment, so that it never will be just a few.
Has that act been repealed?
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.