Swiss influence was partly responsible for the adoption of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Most Americans only understand the phrase; “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” while ignoring the preceding phrase, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”
The Founders didn’t say a militia would be nice to have. Rather they said, to paraphrase, if Americans want to maintain a system of freedom and liberty, a well regulated militia is necessary.
In Switzerland, there is no central governing authority. Political power is diffused through its Cantons. Cantons are geographical divisions similar to our states. The central government is weak while power remains in the hands of the people. Our Founders, for the most part, also envisioned a weak central government with power residing in the states and with the people.
The Swiss militia system was unlike anything in Europe and possibly the world.. Instead of relying on a standing army, Switzerland was (and still is) defended by a national militia. Every man was trained in war, had his rifle at home, was encouraged to practice frequently, and could be mobilized almost instantly. And here’s a little tidbit that will make Sara Brady and her gun-grabbing nest of snakes see red. Swiss militia members are not only allowed to purchase and use full-automatic machine guns, they can also (if they can afford it) buy armored vehicles, anti-tank weapons and artillery pieces. They are truly the homeland security of their tiny nation.
The Swiss-style militia is exactly the vision our Founders had for the defense and preservation of the nation they founded. Almost to a man the they feared and loathed a standing army and considered it an army of mercenaries - not necessarily loyal to the people from whence it sprang but rather to the power that paid them.
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
Elbridge Gerry - founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence
The Founders preferred a militia for other important reasons as well. They considered the militia the best type of military because:
1. It protects the nation very well;
2. It is cheap;
3. It cannot be used for the wrong reasons;
4. It cannot be manipulated by power-seekers and
5. it cannot infringe on freedoms.
These criteria are the conditions that a good military must satisfy. A militia satisfies these better than the present standing army does.
A militia is also a purely defensive force. It cannot be used as an aggressor.
The Founders, despite their other views, almost to a man supported the usage of a militia over a standing army. A notable exception was Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist who not only encouraged a standing army, but also advocated a national banking system.
A militia after the Swiss model could never challenge, let alone overthrow, the federal government. Yet our current federal establishment frequently takes the position that militias are only formed to challenge or overthrow the government and indeed some groups of outlaws call themselves militia and have the overthrow of the government as their goal.
What then is a constitutionally correct militia as envisioned by the Founders? Again, they turned to the Swiss model.
When the first U.S. Congress met and turned to defense measures in 1791, Representative Jackson argued: "The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords." A law was passed requiring every able-bodied citizen to provide himself with a firearm and enroll in the militia, and it stayed on the books for over a century.
The "Swiss Confederation" developed only a weak central government, leaving most authority in the hands of the cantons or lower levels of government. The tradition of local autonomy helped keep Switzerland from experiencing the bitter civil wars between Catholics and Protestants that devastated Germany, France and England.
As one historian summarizes: "Switzerland was created in battle, reached its present dimensions by conquest and defended its existence by armed neutrality thereafter." The experience of Swiss history has made national independence and power virtually synonymous with an armed citizenry.
America’s Founders admired Switzerland as a “Sister Republic” amidst the despotisms of Europe. The American Founders—like the Swiss—understood the moral implications of a universal militia system: a people who are trained to self-reliance and responsibility will defend their freedom to the utmost. But a people who rely on a professional standing army may not have the nerve to resist tyranny.
As Switzerland proved in World War II, well-regulated militia really was necessary to the security of a free state. Swiss neutrality during WWII was not a gift bestowed by other nations or a declaration of neutrality but a status, earned through armed deterrence.
Further reading on the Swiss militia and gun control.
Click HERE to see where the Founders stood on the question of a standing army versus a militia and
additional reading about the Founders, the militia and gun control.
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Showing posts with label Sarah Brady. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Brady. Show all posts
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUNS - Exploding the myths about guns and crime
Guns are NOT just for self-defense, hunting, target shooting or collecting. When all is said and done guns are the last and best resort against government tyranny.
Don’t take it from me, heed well the words of the lead draftsman of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Why all the hysteria and lies about guns from those who want to control guns? The answer is simple - those “gun-grabbers” want to control much more than just your guns, they want to control YOU!!
Sadly, experience has shown that the best way to subjugate and control a population is by eliminating the means of resistance through gun controls and eventually gun seizures.
They disguise their desire for dominance by using catchwords and catch-phrases, such as “guns kill” and write articles and produce video specials urging people to turn in their guns. They urge you to rely on the police. What they don’t tell you is the actual results of draconian gun control and gun seizure legislation. Nor do they tell the truth about police protection. Why? Because the police are usually, almost always actually, not on the scene when a crime is committed, but only show up after the fact to clean up the mess, track down the criminal and bring him to justice.
Gun grabbers lie about statistics and in their hatred of guns often become hysterical. But every once in a while, the truth leaks out from their own lips. They inadvertently expose their leftist, anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-people agenda. They expose their ultimate desire - to rule with an iron fist.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country."
Adolf Hitler (1)
Hitler’s plan to disarm his would-be opponents led to the destruction of every sovereign nation in Europe save two: England and Switzerland. With his “enemies” neutered by gun seizures, Hitler was free to unleash a holocaust on Europe that led to the deaths of 20 million people.
If you still don’t think most gun-grabbers have an agenda, read the following words carefully. Written by an American, in these three short sentences the speaker admits the ultimate goal of the species is the ultimate banning of all guns leading to total disarmament. I would guess that would include knives, archery equipment and pitchforks. The gun-grabbers will “distort the facts” and lie. They seek zero resistance while they kick our Constitution to the curb, run over it with a bus and implement a socialist form of government.
“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sarah Brady
The gun-grabbers don’t want you to think about such things as government-created holocaust or genocide. Oh no. They distort facts and lie so you will think guns are inherently evil and cause murders and are to blame for most accidents and homicides. The result of this propaganda blitz has caused even some gun owners to believe that maybe society would be safer with gun controls of some type. The socialists, meanwhile, calmly go about working their plan, always keeping their ultimate goal in sight. That end goal is gun seizure.
Pete Shields, Executive Director of NCCH, which changed its name to Handgun Control, Inc. in 1978,
warned the gun-grabbers that progress would be slow but in his mind inevitable.
"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given political realities - going to be a very modest (one). Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved. . . .‘” Shields said. “So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. . . . Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of ALL handguns and ALL handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal." (2)
Looking at the gun-control issue from the perspective of guns used in murders, accidents and crime reduction, here are a few FACTS.
As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people. Based on production data from
firearm manufacturers, there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.
In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be kept unloaded and rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976.
During the 12-year span the handgun ban was in effect, the homicide rate in D.C. went from 26 deaths per 100,000 people to an astounding 80 deaths per 100,000 people. The Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.
SEE DC GRAPH HERE
Nationally the homicide rate was about 10 per 100,000. In short, the chances of being killed with a gun in D.C. was EIGHT TIMES GREATER after the unconstitutional handgun ban went into effect.
On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as unconstitutional in D.C. v Heller. Not all the Justices agreed with the decision and based their dissent on faulty statistics and hysteria. The four dissenters were, naturally, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In their collective opinion they cite as fact, based on a report by the local council committee, that the goal of the handgun restriction was “to reduce the potentiality for gun-related crimes and gun-related deaths from occurring within the District of Columbia” According to the committee, “for every intruder stopped by a homeowner with a firearm, there are 4 .gun-related accidents within the home.”
The committee report cited no source or evidence for this statistic. The reason is there is NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THE STATEMENT - only hysteria and lies.
The facts are that nationwide in 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the entire U.S. which constituted 0.5% of the 123,706 total fatal accidents from all causes. Compare the firearm fatalities with fatal car accidents, for example, which claimed 34% of the total U.S. accidental deaths.
Non-fatal accidents tell a similar story. Of the nearly 16,000 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents in 2007, only about 5,000 resulted in hospitalization. Of 27.7 million ER visits for all non-fatal accidents, falls led with 46% of reported incidents with firearm accidents next to last with 0.05 percent.
SEE ACCIDENT GRAPHS HERE
Granted, of the 16,272 murders in 2008, 10,886 (67%) were committed with firearms. But three states that instituted “right to carry” laws have seen notable declines in murder.
The Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than before right to carry laws, Michigan has averaged 4% lower and the Florida murder rate is down 34%.
SEE TEXAS, MICHIGAN, CHICAGO AND FLORIDA GRAPHS HERE
By contrast, countries that have banned all firearms have seen marked increases in their murder rates.
ENGLAND CHART
In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep.
In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.
In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.
So, the murder rate went way down, right? WRONG. The British homicide rate has averaged 52% HIGHER since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% HIGHER since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
AUSTRALIA
Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia, wrote an article for Polidics.com, and gave an update on the nation's 12-month-old gun control law. Under the provisions of that law, honest, law-abiding citizens surrendered 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by the government.
But instead of the great reductions in crime the government sought to achieve, exactly the opposite occurred. Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent, assaults are up 9.6 percent and armed robberies are up 44 percent.“In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent," Chenel said. "While the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!"
Chenel also noted that armed robberies with firearms had been in decline for the past 25 years, but that trend abruptly changed for the worse when the gun seizures took place. Chenel attributed that rise in armed crime to the fact the criminals are now guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
“There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home," Chenel said. "Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns.’ You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information."
“The Australian experience speaks for itself.
“Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens," Chenel said. "“Take note Americans, before it’s too late!”
Gun control freaks insist they must “close the gun show loophole.” But are gun shows really where criminals are getting their guns, or is this just another bit of socialist feel-good thinking?
Well, it isn’t at gun shows like puddin’ head liberal/socialists want you and the gullible public to believe.
A 1997 Justice Department series of interviews with nearly 15,000 state prison inmates who carried a firearm during the offense that landed them in jail. Of that group nearly 40% admitted they got the firearm from a friend or family member; 39% from an illegal street source; 8% from a retail store, 4% from a pawn shop, 1% at a flea market and only 0.7 percent from a gun show.
Kinda nice having a few FACTS on your side, isn’t it?
Footnotes:
(1) Dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.
(2) A Reporter At Large: Handguns, July 26, 1976, 57-58, in the New Yorker magazine. At the time, Mr. Shields was the Executive Director of NCCH, which changed its name to Handgun Control, Inc. in 1978
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Don’t take it from me, heed well the words of the lead draftsman of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Why all the hysteria and lies about guns from those who want to control guns? The answer is simple - those “gun-grabbers” want to control much more than just your guns, they want to control YOU!!
Sadly, experience has shown that the best way to subjugate and control a population is by eliminating the means of resistance through gun controls and eventually gun seizures.
They disguise their desire for dominance by using catchwords and catch-phrases, such as “guns kill” and write articles and produce video specials urging people to turn in their guns. They urge you to rely on the police. What they don’t tell you is the actual results of draconian gun control and gun seizure legislation. Nor do they tell the truth about police protection. Why? Because the police are usually, almost always actually, not on the scene when a crime is committed, but only show up after the fact to clean up the mess, track down the criminal and bring him to justice.
Gun grabbers lie about statistics and in their hatred of guns often become hysterical. But every once in a while, the truth leaks out from their own lips. They inadvertently expose their leftist, anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-people agenda. They expose their ultimate desire - to rule with an iron fist.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country."
Adolf Hitler (1)
Hitler’s plan to disarm his would-be opponents led to the destruction of every sovereign nation in Europe save two: England and Switzerland. With his “enemies” neutered by gun seizures, Hitler was free to unleash a holocaust on Europe that led to the deaths of 20 million people.
If you still don’t think most gun-grabbers have an agenda, read the following words carefully. Written by an American, in these three short sentences the speaker admits the ultimate goal of the species is the ultimate banning of all guns leading to total disarmament. I would guess that would include knives, archery equipment and pitchforks. The gun-grabbers will “distort the facts” and lie. They seek zero resistance while they kick our Constitution to the curb, run over it with a bus and implement a socialist form of government.
“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sarah Brady
Pete Shields, Executive Director of NCCH, which changed its name to Handgun Control, Inc. in 1978,
warned the gun-grabbers that progress would be slow but in his mind inevitable.
"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given political realities - going to be a very modest (one). Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved. . . .‘” Shields said. “So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. . . . Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of ALL handguns and ALL handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal." (2)
As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people. Based on production data from
firearm manufacturers, there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.
In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be kept unloaded and rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976.
During the 12-year span the handgun ban was in effect, the homicide rate in D.C. went from 26 deaths per 100,000 people to an astounding 80 deaths per 100,000 people. The Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.
SEE DC GRAPH HERE
Nationally the homicide rate was about 10 per 100,000. In short, the chances of being killed with a gun in D.C. was EIGHT TIMES GREATER after the unconstitutional handgun ban went into effect.
On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as unconstitutional in D.C. v Heller. Not all the Justices agreed with the decision and based their dissent on faulty statistics and hysteria. The four dissenters were, naturally, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In their collective opinion they cite as fact, based on a report by the local council committee, that the goal of the handgun restriction was “to reduce the potentiality for gun-related crimes and gun-related deaths from occurring within the District of Columbia” According to the committee, “for every intruder stopped by a homeowner with a firearm, there are 4 .gun-related accidents within the home.”
The committee report cited no source or evidence for this statistic. The reason is there is NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THE STATEMENT - only hysteria and lies.
The facts are that nationwide in 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the entire U.S. which constituted 0.5% of the 123,706 total fatal accidents from all causes. Compare the firearm fatalities with fatal car accidents, for example, which claimed 34% of the total U.S. accidental deaths.
Non-fatal accidents tell a similar story. Of the nearly 16,000 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents in 2007, only about 5,000 resulted in hospitalization. Of 27.7 million ER visits for all non-fatal accidents, falls led with 46% of reported incidents with firearm accidents next to last with 0.05 percent.
SEE ACCIDENT GRAPHS HERE
Granted, of the 16,272 murders in 2008, 10,886 (67%) were committed with firearms. But three states that instituted “right to carry” laws have seen notable declines in murder.
The Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than before right to carry laws, Michigan has averaged 4% lower and the Florida murder rate is down 34%.
SEE TEXAS, MICHIGAN, CHICAGO AND FLORIDA GRAPHS HERE
By contrast, countries that have banned all firearms have seen marked increases in their murder rates.
ENGLAND CHART
In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep.
In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.
In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.
So, the murder rate went way down, right? WRONG. The British homicide rate has averaged 52% HIGHER since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% HIGHER since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
AUSTRALIA
Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia, wrote an article for Polidics.com, and gave an update on the nation's 12-month-old gun control law. Under the provisions of that law, honest, law-abiding citizens surrendered 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by the government.
But instead of the great reductions in crime the government sought to achieve, exactly the opposite occurred. Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent, assaults are up 9.6 percent and armed robberies are up 44 percent.“In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent," Chenel said. "While the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!"
Chenel also noted that armed robberies with firearms had been in decline for the past 25 years, but that trend abruptly changed for the worse when the gun seizures took place. Chenel attributed that rise in armed crime to the fact the criminals are now guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
“There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home," Chenel said. "Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns.’ You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information."
“The Australian experience speaks for itself.
“Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens," Chenel said. "“Take note Americans, before it’s too late!”
Gun control freaks insist they must “close the gun show loophole.” But are gun shows really where criminals are getting their guns, or is this just another bit of socialist feel-good thinking?
Well, it isn’t at gun shows like puddin’ head liberal/socialists want you and the gullible public to believe.
A 1997 Justice Department series of interviews with nearly 15,000 state prison inmates who carried a firearm during the offense that landed them in jail. Of that group nearly 40% admitted they got the firearm from a friend or family member; 39% from an illegal street source; 8% from a retail store, 4% from a pawn shop, 1% at a flea market and only 0.7 percent from a gun show.
Kinda nice having a few FACTS on your side, isn’t it?
Footnotes:
(1) Dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.
(2) A Reporter At Large: Handguns, July 26, 1976, 57-58, in the New Yorker magazine. At the time, Mr. Shields was the Executive Director of NCCH, which changed its name to Handgun Control, Inc. in 1978
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)