Who said this; "Only a disarmed people can be oppressed"?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've always wondered why they didn't do something similar in the USA. The idea is some concept of the people have the right to revolt, not the individual. So it makes sense that arms are kept in public and not private storage. Obviously they still have to be kept locally to prevent the central government having too strong control over them should the people ever end up fighting against it.

[PanzerJaeger]

I've always wondered why they didn't do something similar in the USA. The idea is some concept of the people have the right to revolt, not the individual. So it makes sense that arms are kept in public and not private storage. Obviously they still have to be kept locally to prevent the central government having too strong control over them should the people ever end up fighting against it.

You answered your own question. The power would transfer from the people to whoever has the keys to the arsenal.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You answered your own question. The power would transfer from the people to whoever has the keys to the arsenal.

idk, the text I believe goes:

"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."

Does that mean the people as in every individual, or a more abstract concept of the people. From what I know about resistance theories in the Early Modern period, the mainstream idea was more based on the latter, the idea of the people as a whole having a right to resist. That's what Rutherford said in Lex Rex and it was very popular with the founding fathers.

Surely if the guns were kept local it would be OK? Certainly, they would be able to defend states' rights that way. Let the people form militias and elect someone to keep the keys to the arms storage? That would also encourage them to work more together anyway if they ever did have to fight.

I do not like the way people in Britain are so complacent with the government, I would be happier if they had some system like the one I described in my above post. I don't know if its necessary to have them in individual households.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Founders of America believed the militia as in the 2nd amendment meant every male. "The people" in the text mean every individual, just like it does in every other amendment.

Egypt just proved that a tyrannical oppressor can be brought down without a single gun.

And I can drive across the US without ever needing an airbag.

The Swiss should not put their guns in public arsenals, which will increase access to criminals and is really just the first step to more gun regulation.

The idea that passing this law will lower suicides or domestic violence is stupid. Those committing suicide or violence will just use another violent tool. Blaming guns as the problem ignores the real problem and thus this avoids fixing the real problem by dealing with domestic violence.

Public arsenals removes arms from the people and give them to whoever has the keys.

CR

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Founders of America believed the militia as in the 2nd amendment meant every male. "The people" in the text mean every individual, just like it does in every other amendment.

Well it does mention right before a "well regulated Militia". This suggests to me more a local force than every guy keeping a shotgun under the bed.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't want to diverge this thread so I'll just post these links:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

http://volokh.com/posts/1199810389.shtml

http://volokh.com/2009/11/23/academi...f-in-mcdonald/

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well that's America Rabbit. But Switzerland is not a McRepublic. In Switzerland, as in other traditional republics, the right/duty to bear arms is tied to the responsibility of a well regulated citizen militia. The Swiss are not interested in American sophistry why one should really have an unrestricted right without the accompanying duty.



The consequence of gun storage in the homes of members of the Swisss militia are some very sad statistics about domestic violence, traumatised children, suicides.


As with the Minaret referendum, this referendum will be decided by women. To many men, gun ownership is tied to their identity. Weak and insecure, they need the substitute might of a gun to feel a strong, assertive man. Women suffer from no such complexes. So their priority is the safety of their families. Women will vote to move the guns out of the house, and into local arsenals.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't want to diverge this thread so I'll just post these links:
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

http://volokh.com/posts/1199810389.shtml

http://volokh.com/2009/11/23/academi...f-in-mcdonald/

CR

Fair enough then.