Elder Patriot – The right to bear weapons was something our Founding Fathers thought long and hard about. In the end they decided that the only way to guarantee the freedoms for which they had fought was to protect the right of every citizen to own weapons and they gave us the Second Amendment.
In a January 30, 1787 letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote “Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem:”
“I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.”
The importance of Jefferson’s view, and indeed the views of the entire delegation of Framers, has been proven by history to be the correct and necessary one.
A well-armed citizenry represents a check on the excesses of government; something that has been in large supply as our elected representatives have found a way to spend the world’s richest, most productive economy in the world, $20 Trillion dollars into debt while sentencing 15% of the population to generational poverty. That’s excess on steroids.
But history has taught us something else about a well-armed citizenry. A hundred million citizen soldiers present a barrier to invasion from the outside.
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” – Japanese Admiral Isoruko Yamamoto.
Even tiny Switzerland was viewed as being too high risk a target by Germany during WWII.
While the war raged across Europe and in every country that surrounds Switzerland, Hitler left the Swiss alone. Why?
Switzerland does not maintain a standing army; rather, a people’s militia that can be mobilized quickly to defend Swiss neutrality. Service weapons are traditionally stored at home.
That was the formula America used to defeat the mighty British army during the American Revolution. There were no government issued guns because there was no government maintained army. Minutemen were armed with only their own weapons and their own ammunition.
That was the context that informed the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights:
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.
The Swiss were, and remain, as well armed as Americans were then and are today.
Surely then the Swiss are killing themselves at the same rate as Americans, right? After all, those grabbing our guns tell us that guns kill people and not deranged people on psychotropic drugs, right?
If that’s the case then how do we explain the statistics cited in a 2012 Time magazine article that says:
Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.
If the level of gun ownership is higher per capita in Switzerland – perhaps over 50% – than it is in the United States where less than a third of the population own guns, then why aren’t these guns killing more people? After all, guns kill people, right?
The article even highlighted the fact that:
… the Swiss are very serious not only about their right to own weapons but also to carry them around in public. Because of this general acceptance and even pride in gun ownership, nobody bats an eye at the sight of a civilian riding a bus, bike or motorcycle to the shooting range, with a rifle slung across the shoulder.
So what gives? First, the U.N. statistics cited in the article are fake and intentionally misleading. Five firearm deaths per 100,000 translate to 16,500 dead Americans every year. The most recently available FBI reports that it’s actually less than half that number:
You will have to ask James Comey why the agency he headed stopped reporting updated statistics after 2014.
Was it to allow emerging young Nazi’s like David Hogg to declare that 96 people are killed everyday with the use of firearms? That’s more than four times the actual number of deaths reported by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting.
Regardless, the number of gun murders in the United States is still five times greater than it is in Switzerland. How can that be if, as we’ve been told, guns kill people?
Are our guns more nefarious than the guns owned by the Swiss? Or, are the people who use those guns to murder people more nefarious. That raises the question as to why Americans, largely descended from and with the same DNA as Western Europeans, are so inclined to violence?
If it’s not the guns and it’s not in our DNA it has to be rooted in the way our culture conditions people.
Everywhere you look our culture celebrates violence.
It cannot be ignored that the abortion rate in the U.S. is almost 2.5 times greater than that in Switzerland and that the U.S. government subsidizes the infanticide of our future generation. That doesn’t make a strong case for protecting the sanctity of life.
Another contributing factor is violent video games.
Although weapons are widespread in both the US and Switzerland, crime rates in the two countries differ greatly – due, some experts say, not to differing weapons laws, but rather mentality and culture.
Christian Pfeiffer, head of the Hannover-based Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony, said that what matters more “is a person’s upbringing, not whether weapons are available.”
“A childhood in Switzerland is relatively free of violence; Swiss children grow up knowing tolerance and trust,” he told Deutsche Welle. “Accepted practices of upbringing in the US are quite different.”
Many point to the high level of violence in American television and film, not to mention violent video games played by children starting at a young age. – DW.com
It may be worth noting that violent video games are illegal in Switzerland.
And then there are the political agendas that crafts government policy to concentrate ever-increasing amounts of wealth into fewer and fewer hands and that has stripped ever more American families of their male protectors who could instill proper discipline in their children.
The result has 45 million Americans living below the poverty line, mostly in urban ghettos – the product of five decades of liberal policy. That’s 14.5% of all Americans.
In Switzerland only 7.69% of the population lives below the poverty line.
This doesn’t mean poor people are more inclined to commit acts of murder, only that they may be more inclined to commit murder against people they believe have unjustly deprived them of their share of the American dream. Dividing us in this manner has been the propaganda espoused by liberals to fuel their political campaigns using the rhetoric of social division.
James Hodgkinson became sufficiently enraged by leftist rhetoric declaring that Republicans were going to repeal Obamacare because they want you to die that he engaged in a mass shooting of politicians.
The progressives’ division of America took a quantum leap forward over the weekend with the anti-gun marches that installed as its spokesman a wet-behind-the-ears 17-year old to lead their movement.
David Hogg has proven to be incapable of engaging in reasoned debate on the subject but has proven to be very effective at spewing rhetorical slogans in controlled environments.
Passion has begun taking over our politics and she never governs wisely.
This brings me to a conversation I had with a relative who told me he was attending one of the marches this past weekend. We’re both Jewish. The conversation didn’t end well after I asked him how things turned out for Jews in Nazi Germany who weren’t armed and unable to protect themselves.
His response was “we’ll agree to disagree.”
I reminded him that his party was becoming populated with Farrakhan acolytes, they stand against the vetting of radical Islamists, and that in general anti-Semitism was on the rise.
He again said, “we’ll agree to disagree.”
I told him that I was pretty sure that was the argument among Germans as Hitler rose to power. I advised him he was intruding on my rights and that he was courting a violent revolution by doing so. Tax rates, social programs, highway construct and the like may be up for discussion to be decided by a majority rule. My rights are not.
Then I said if he wants to walk off the cliff into tyranny that’s his choice but the he won’t get to make that determination for me.
I let him know that the mistakes of his liberal policies will never be remedied by taking our guns, they’ll only hasten the speed at which government strips us of our rights, dignity and humanity.
The problem with liberals is they never look back for the answers to the problems their policies create. They want more and more of our money and freedoms to plug the holes that keep breaking open in the dam that they have built.
It’s a never-ending cycle that once they have our guns will never be corrected.