Consider Swiss defense

  • Follow Letters

Victor Reilly (“Solve gun rights problem,” April 17) and many others really should have a civics lesson. Title 10 of the U.S. Code spells out that all males between the ages of 17 and 45 are in the “reserve militia,” or “unorganized militia.” Mr. Reilly either is in, or has been in, the militia, depending on his age.

The writings of our Founding Fathers make it very plain that arms were to be kept for the specific use of keeping our government from becoming despotic. If we had been keeping with that aspect, we would have access to every arm the government now has, depending on whether or not we could afford them.

Personally, I like the Swiss model, in which every young man age 18 goes into military for two years’ active duty. When he is released from active duty and goes into the reserves, he takes his military assault rifle (a real one, capable of both semi- and fully automatic) and ammunition home with him. Whenever he is called up for drills or for real, he is required to show up with both the rifle and ammunition. Members of crew-served weapons (machine guns, mortars, etc.) also have to keep the man-carried parts of the weapons at home.

The Swiss still have respect for each other, and don’t have a crying need to control others in their society.

David Smith

Grovetown

Comments (35) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Young Fred
19134
Points
Young Fred 05/02/13 - 01:56 am
5
2
shhhh

Your excellent point is one most media doesn't wish to address. It's much easier to get emotional and hysterical.

bumblebeerose
684
Points
bumblebeerose 05/02/13 - 04:17 am
7
0
The Truth Is

The truth is people want to blame the guns for killing people not people killing people. What ever weapon is chosen to kill some one with a real live person had to hold that weapon to kill that person.

myfather15
55819
Points
myfather15 05/02/13 - 07:17 am
2
1
Mr. Smith, I like you letter; But

I simply can't completely agree with the last paragraph; partially, but not completely.

I served in the Marine Corps; I witnessed first hand how many people simply could NOT handle the stress; many failing out of boot camp. Our platoon (2nd Battalion, platoon 2033); started with 64 souls and 50 graduated. I've simply experienced to much to think this is a good idea. In law enforcement; I've seen people actually flee quickly, as soon as someone started resistance. No, this wasn't another deputy, but a civilian.

I responded to a dispute between neighbors. I was speaking with both neighbors together to resolve the dispute. Upon checking them for warrants; I discovered the one neighbor had a warrant out for his arrest. I told him of this and he attempted to flee on foot; I grabbed him and he swung at me, we began to struggle. I was HOPING for maybe a little help from the other neighbor; as he was a fireman, but didn't get it. He took off as soon as the struggle began.

Now, I'm not dissing the fireman; bravery comes in MANY different forms. I'm quite sure he is brave enough to go into a burning house; he just simply couldn't bring himself to fight. My point is, you can't FORCE people to join active duty military; first of all it's unconstitutional, 2nd; its just not a good idea. Some people simply aren't brave enough to be active duty military. They would be more of a liability than asset.

We that are willing to defend and protect this great Country, are plenty sufficient. We are warriors and are PROUD to serve and protect those who aren't quite as courageous. We don't need to force people into serving.

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 05/02/13 - 07:48 am
3
8
Gun control IN THIS COUNTRY

I stiil don't care what the Swiss do, I have a problem with citizens having automatic guns and the other weapons the you stated. I said it before, OBAMA, AND COMPANY, are not trying to take your guns, just the assault weapons and high capasity magazines. If the country survived when the first "ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN" was enforced then let us try it again !

Gary Ross
3346
Points
Gary Ross 05/02/13 - 07:51 am
4
0
I agree with both...

... David's letter and myfather15. I am a vet from the early 70's, and agree that not all people are cut out for military service. However, I can honestly say that BCT (although much tougher during the Viet-Nam war than it is now) was the best thing I've ever experienced. It taught me respect for authority, teamwork, purpose, etc. Things you didn't learn in school back then, and certainly not now! I "grew up" in 12 weeks, and that level of maturity stayed with me and shaped the rest of my life. I think every American should experience 2or 3 years of service. As for the small percentage of those who cannot cope, there could be another program which teaches the same values but in a different way.

And when terror strikes, we'll all be on the same page.

Jon Lester
2425
Points
Jon Lester 05/02/13 - 08:14 am
7
0
t3, do you even know

how difficult and prohibitively expensive it is for an American private citizen to own a fully automatic rifle?

Unlike the Swiss, we're governed by people who don't know one end of a gun from the other, and to make matters worse, many of their constituents simply accept and believe whatever foolish things these legislators say to explain their tortured reasoning.

dichotomy
35929
Points
dichotomy 05/02/13 - 08:57 am
9
2
"the assault weapons and high

"the assault weapons and high capasity magazines"

Please define assault weapon and differentiate the functional difference between those and any other magazine or tube fed semi-automatic hunting rifle.

And the difference between a 30 round magazine and 3 ten round magazines is about 2 seconds for anyone with 5 minutes practice at ejecting the empty and sliding in another. The idea that banning 30 round magazines will stop anything is simply ridiculous.

The Swiss model will not work here. The demographics are totally different. Most Swiss work, contribute to the system, are responsible, educated, have respect for others, and love their country. We certainly cannot say any of those things here.

prov227
3349
Points
prov227 05/02/13 - 09:06 am
2
3
And Switzerland ...

is a neutral country without expansion desires.

seenitB4
93216
Points
seenitB4 05/02/13 - 09:44 am
4
1
dichotomy

You took my words right outta my mouth ..with this..

The Swiss model will not work here. The demographics are totally different. Most Swiss work, contribute to the system, are responsible, educated, have respect for others, and love their country. We certainly cannot say any of those things here.

Fiat_Lux
16200
Points
Fiat_Lux 05/02/13 - 10:00 am
4
1
The bottom line, however,

is that American men within a certain age range are required to be prepared and to respond as militia, by law in the U.S. That means they must possess the weapons of warfare necessary to fight as an American soldier.

However, our founding fathers and those who created that law simply did not envision our ever having such huge numbers of lazy, ignorant freeloaders sucking taxpayers dry, or that America-loathing, greedy and amoral/immoral citizens would take over governing the nation at virtually every level of government. They never could have imagined the horrors that have been elected to public office over the past decade or so. They couldn't have imagined what has been done to our public education, or the total attack on human dignity and values.

So, yeah, I agree with MyFather as well. All American men are not capable of coming to America's defense in time of need. Huge swaths of them wouldn't even recognize the need if it walked up and slapped them in the face, and it is probably going to do exactly that.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/02/13 - 09:59 am
4
2
t3bledsoe? What is wrong
Unpublished

t3bledsoe? What is wrong with responsible, law abiding citizens having automatic weapons? Can you give a reason? As for your statement "If the country survived when the first "ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN" was enforced then let us try it again !" The same can be said for when slavery was legal....If you are willing to give up your rights, just because we survived it before, what other rights are you willing to give up?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/02/13 - 10:03 am
4
2
When the second amendment was
Unpublished

When the second amendment was written, the founders were ok with citizens having what was at that time, a top of the line military weapon. What makes you think they wouldn't want us to have that same advantage now? Why didn't they limit the citizens to bows and arrows, so that they military was better equipped back then? I think the answer should be obvious. They wanted the citizens to have a chance against the government.

karradur
2875
Points
karradur 05/02/13 - 10:16 am
3
5
@Humble Angela

Good, then nobody will have a problem with me buying weapons-grade plutonium!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/02/13 - 10:21 am
4
2
Have you demonstrated that
Unpublished

karradur, Have you demonstrated that you are competent and responsible to handle it? Can you give a good reason why I should not be able to own an automatic weapon........without the hypotheticals?

karradur
2875
Points
karradur 05/02/13 - 10:28 am
3
4
@Humble Angela

"Have you demonstrated that you are competent and responsible to handle it?"

You mean like with a check of my background?

Like... a background check?!

And I quote your words:

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2013-04-24/rants-raves?page=1

"Those who have no problem with background checks in order to exercise your Constitutional right to bear arms.....do you also support the same checks to exercise your right to vote? What about a background check to exercise your freedom of speech? Who decides which people are allowed to exercise which rights?"

I am so confused!

karradur
2875
Points
karradur 05/02/13 - 10:31 am
3
5
So what I'm interpreting here...

...is that there should be no background checks to own top-of-the-line weapons on equal footing with the best that our nation's military has to offer.

...which is atomic weapons.

Got it!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/02/13 - 10:32 am
4
2
Why confused. If you use
Unpublished

Why confused. If you use your freedom of speech irresponsibly, you are arrested. If you use your right to bear arms irresponsibly, you are arrested. Notice I prefaced by statement with RESPONSIBLE, LAW ABIDING citizens. Also notice that I said nothing about requiring background checks.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/02/13 - 10:34 am
4
2
AGAIN...can you give a reason
Unpublished

AGAIN...can you give a reason why a responsible, law abiding citizen should NOT be allowed to own an automatic weapon? That makes 3 times I asked......and that's just today.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/02/13 - 10:35 am
4
2
When did I EVER say there
Unpublished

When did I EVER say there should be no background checks? I simply posed the question.....Go back and re-read what you cut and pasted.....and show me where I said there should be no background checks.

karradur
2875
Points
karradur 05/02/13 - 10:50 am
3
5
@Humble Angela

"AGAIN...can you give a reason why a responsible, law abiding citizen should NOT be allowed to own an automatic weapon? That makes 3 times I asked......and that's just today."

I said absolutely nothing about banning automatic weapons. I am specifically taking issue with this statement:

"When the second amendment was written, the founders were ok with citizens having what was at that time, a top of the line military weapon. What makes you think they wouldn't want us to have that same advantage now? Why didn't they limit the citizens to bows and arrows, so that they military was better equipped back then? I think the answer should be obvious. They wanted the citizens to have a chance against the government."

- United States citizens should be equipped to fight the United States government.
- The weapons the citizens possess with should be on the same technological level as the weapons the government possesses.
- The United States government possesses atomic weapons.

Which one of these three premises is not true?

Because you don't agree with the conclusion, so one of the premises must be wrong.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/02/13 - 10:51 am
4
2
No... They are all true.
Unpublished

No... They are all true. Still confused?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/02/13 - 10:53 am
4
2
Again I ask. Can you give a
Unpublished

Again I ask. Can you give a reason why responsible, law abiding citizens should not own automatic weapons....or nuclear weapons for that matter, if they demonstrate the same protective controls that the government is required to implement?

rmwhitley
5547
Points
rmwhitley 05/02/13 - 10:58 am
0
0
lefty's are
Unpublished

all mouth and destruction. They don't know how to lead. The Civil War is a prime example. They fostered slavery then and now ( only in a more subtle way). Gun control of responsible citizens is their mantra but don't care to step on the toes of those illegal gun bearers that live "on da hood" because they vote lefty. Only the left and left wing media ( abc, cbs, cnn, msnbc, nbc, washington post, new york times, chicago tribune, detroit free press, atlanta journal-constitution, mickey mouse network and empire, time, newsweek, people, ebony, huffington post, aol, et.al) will audaciously report that the geriatric Tea Party members are doing all of the killing, rioting and bombings domestically. Illegal aliens, black supremecists, Islamic radicals and terrorists are being singled out by Fox News ( faux news according to American anarchists) because ( and I would NEVER accuse lefties of profiling on an hourly basis as they do) they are the problem.

karradur
2875
Points
karradur 05/02/13 - 11:02 am
3
3
@Humble Angela

"Again I ask. Can you give a reason why responsible, law abiding citizens should not own nuclear weapons if they demonstrate the same protective controls that the government is required to implement?"

...

Is this a joke?

Are you seriously asking me this question?

karradur
2875
Points
karradur 05/02/13 - 11:05 am
3
3
...

Do you know what a nuclear weapon is?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/02/13 - 11:06 am
4
2
Are you going to answer?
Unpublished

Are you going to answer? Do you know what controls the government is required to implement?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/02/13 - 11:08 am
3
2
If I demonstrate that I
Unpublished

If I demonstrate that I implement the exact same or better controls as the government does, what reason would you have to deny me nuclear weapons? What makes the government more trustworthy than the governed?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/02/13 - 11:10 am
3
2
If you wish to continue
Unpublished

If you wish to continue avoiding my question by taking it to the extreme, I'll entertain you there as well.

karradur
2875
Points
karradur 05/02/13 - 11:25 am
3
2
@Humble Angela

"Are you going to answer? Do you know what controls the government is required to implement?"

No, I don't know what controls they're required to implement. Please enlighten me on the classified routines used at classified facilities.

"If I demonstrate that I implement the exact same or better controls as the government does, what reason would you have to deny me nuclear weapons? What makes the government more trustworthy than the governed?"

You do realize that the government most likely does BACKGROUND CHECKS on its nuclear technicians, right? I don't know for sure, but I think it's a pretty fair guess.

"If you wish to continue avoiding my question by taking it to the extreme, I'll entertain you there as well."

Please do, I'm having a grand old time.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/02/13 - 11:31 am
3
2
I am well aware that the
Unpublished

I am well aware that the government does background checks on their techs. I have had several of those background checks run. Why do you keep bringing up background checks anyway? As for enlightening you on the controls....unless you can show me your Q clearance and demonstrate the need to know, I'll have to refrain from "enlightening you." So is there any chance you plan on answering the question?

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs