Skip to main content

View Diary: Confessions of a Reluctant NRA Spokesperson (192 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What the 2nd sounds to me like (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    se portland, BlackSheep1, Smoh

    is the expectation that all able-bodied men of age are to be trained to defend the nation and be allowed to keep arms at home for when the call to duty comes - or to be able to overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical.

    IIRC, people have their arms (rifles) at home in Switzerland.  Perhaps it has been changed to keep them at an armory since the last time I read about it?

    Or course, the larger stuff is going to be kept in an armory.  

    •  When have state militia be used? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      geekydee

      The vast majority of their use has been to put now slave rebellions. But Massachusetts used the state militia to put down Shay's rebellion.

      The Whiskey Rebellion was a bit more muddled. But what better source for the Founding Fathers can be found other than George Washington?

      From Wiki

      President Washington, confronted with what appeared to be an armed insurrection in western Pennsylvania, proceeded cautiously. Although determined to maintain government authority, he did not want to alienate public opinion. He asked his cabinet for written opinions about how to deal with the crisis. The cabinet recommended the use of force, except for Secretary of State Edmund Randolph, who urged reconciliation.[75] Washington did both: he sent commissioners to meet with the rebels while raising a militia army. Washington privately doubted the commissioners could accomplish anything, and believed a military expedition would be needed to suppress further violence.[76] For this reason, historians have sometimes charged that the peace commission was sent only for the sake of appearances, and that the use of force was never in doubt.[77] Historians Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick argued that the military expedition was "itself a part of the reconciliation process", since a show of overwhelming force would make further violence less likely.[78]
      Meanwhile, Hamilton began publishing essays under the name of "Tully" in Philadelphia newspapers, denouncing mob violence in western Pennsylvania and advocating military action. Washington and Hamilton believed the Democratic-Republican Societies, which had been formed throughout the country, were the source of civic unrest. "Historians are not yet agreed on the exact role of the societies" in the Whiskey Rebellion, wrote historian Mark Spencer in 2003, "but there was a degree of overlap between society membership and the Whiskey Rebels".[79]
      Before troops could be raised, the Militia Act of 1792 required a justice of the United States Supreme Court to certify that law enforcement was beyond the control of local authorities. On August 4, 1794, Justice James Wilson delivered his opinion that western Pennsylvania was in a state of rebellion.[80] On August 7, Washington issued a presidential proclamation announcing, with "the deepest regret", that the militia would be called out to suppress the rebellion. He commanded insurgents in western Pennsylvania to disperse by September 1.
      The intent of the militia has always been to defined the constitutional government of the people, whether we are talking the State or the Feds, from threats both domestic and external. It was not about shooting home intruders.

      When you are ready to take your gun to Afghanistan and defend you country, I will defined your Second Amendment Right to gun ownership.

      It is possible to read the history of this country as one long struggle to extend the liberties established in our Constitution to everyone in America. - Molly Ivins

      by se portland on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:55:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very informative, thank you. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RUNDOWN, se portland, BlackSheep1, oldpunk

        I do take exception to this, however:

        I do take exception to this, however:

        When you are ready to take your gun to Afghanistan and defend you country, I will defined your Second Amendment Right to gun ownership.
        Nowhere do I see any of these so-called "wars" as being defense of anything but filling the defense contractors pockets.  As has been said numerous times, we are not the world's policeman.

        Thank you again for an informative article, and a thank you to Diane Gee for her diary.

        Now, if we were being invaded by Canada, that would be another story, though as long as they bring some back bacon and Vernors, it might not be so bad  :P

        ''The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.'' - Justice Hugo L. Black of the Supreme Court

        by geekydee on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:49:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Switzerland (8+ / 0-)

      Males who pass basic training and psychological screening are considered part of the Swiss army reserves and are issued automatic rifles to keep at home, true.

      That rifle is also of course, registered by virtue of it being issued by the Swiss government.  

      But no ammo.  And they can't buy the bullets except at licensed ranges where they have to shoot or return the bullets.  No bullets at home.  They can only take the rifles to and from the ranges or from their duty stations at call out times.  

      Any casual glance at Swiss gun laws and the NRA would freak out at implementing those laws in America.  It is far more restrictive than the pro-gun propaganda usually implies.

    •  The larger stuff (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlackSheep1

      In John McPhee's "La Place de la Concorde Suisse", he mentions that retired officers of the rank of colonel or above are allowed to own personal anti-aircraft weapons.

      Something tells me that wouldn't work well in the USA...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site