Here in the US, I wish we'd have a "well regulated militia" to the same extent that Switzerland does. All able-bodied men do a bit of military service, and it's a yearly family event for them to go and update their training on their firearm. What we have here in the US seems more like a consumerist culture designed to encourage the buying of products and accessories. It's to the point where the word "militia" is associated with racists and kooks. Not "well-regulated" at all.
> Germany invaded surrounding territories in WWII, but left Switzerland alone.
May have something to do with the preponderance of blond-haired blue-eyed people there.
I think there were a number of factors also, including economic and others, but I don't know that hair and eyes were ultimately very big ones - since those didn't seem to help surrounding areas like Austria and the Netherlands. The map of the territories at the end of WWII just amazes me with Switzerland standing out almost like an island:
There was also a report in the mid 80s penned by, among others, former General George S. Patton (who was active during WWII)... "In short, Switzerland is an armed bunker." (PDF page 8, https://docs.google.com/viewer?embedded=true&url=http://... )
Are the Swiss of French and Italian stock preponderantly "blond-haired blue-eyed"? If not, that argument tends to fail, although I suppose the Nazis did prefer killing Slavs et. al. in the east to Western Europeans. (ADDED: see the above Wikipedia link for how Hitler viewed the German Swiss who preferred their French, Italian and Romansh citizens over the greater German volk.)
"It's to the point where the word "militia" is associated with racists and kooks."
That has a lot more to do with demagogic politicians, including one in particular who had a dicey re-election coming up, than anything real. Amplified of course by a media who see all gun owners as the Other.
"Not "well-regulated" at all."
It's a nice ideal, perhaps, certainly a necessity if you live in a bad neighborhood like the Swiss, but history, going right back to our revolutionary war, tells us it's profoundly not in the American character, with exceptions here and there.
We have a few 'well-regulated' militias in the United States. The Coast Guard, the Army Reserves, and the rest of us.
10 USC chapter 13 defines the militia as, basically, all able-bodied men aged 17-45, and women's suffrage has effectively expanded that definition to include women.
We don't have conscripted military service at the moment though.
> We have a few 'well-regulated' militias in the United States. The Coast Guard, the Army Reserves,
When I was growing up, I understood the Coast Guard to be one of the 4 branches of service.
> Army Reserves,
I would allow that the reserves and guards (state and national) would fit a meaningful definition of "well regulated militia."
> and the rest of us.
10 USC chapter 13 defines the militia as, basically, all able-bodied men aged 17-45
Uh, yeah. This makes as much sense as defining all left handed people between the ages of 22 and 27 1/2 as "pinch-hitters." A definition doesn't make it so. I could see how this might be seen as a hot-button for politics, but the 2nd amendment says that arms are necessary for a militia, not that militias are necessary for ownership of arms, though I would say that this is true from a practical perspective, as opposed to a rights context.
Ever since Sandy Hook, I've been watching videos and reading articles from all sides of this issue. One thing I've taken away from some pro-gun videos is that there are a lot of dangerously untrained and ignorant gun owners out there. Yes, you read that correctly: from watching pro-gun videos. You can find lots of references to kooky things people say at gun shops and dangerous things people do at such shops and gun ranges. I say again: what we have in the US overall is a consumerist culture. To be fair, there are organizations that do a proper job of creating a culture of respect and knowledge for such weapons, but it seems to me that we don't have enough of this.
Another thing I've discovered is that lots of gun legislation is just as wacky and ill conceived as legislation covering reverse engineering, hacking, and the internet. (SOPA, CISPA, DMCA...) In both cases it's formulated by politicians who don't properly know the subject matter as a response to a demagogic hot-button issue, or at the behest of corporate interests.
To me, "gun_owners = bad" is just as much of a problem as "democrats = socialists".
but the 2nd amendment says that arms are necessary for a militia
Not according to the Supreme Court. Grammarians have long argued that "In support of a well-regulated militia" is a prefatory clause, and cannot bear on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms", where People is the operative word, and is synonymous with "We the People", of whom this nation is constituted and by which is governed.
Ironically enough, the NRA, currently demonized for apparently endorsing mass killing, considers its main focus to be the training of safe and proper usage of firearms (that is, if you skip over their founding, which was to ensure that freed slaves remained free by giving them a means to protect their freedom). Firearms are interesting in that regard - the more you use them and don't get hurt, the more easy it is to fall into a false sense of security. I liken it to geeks and backups. We all assume it'll never happen to us, so even though we know it to be good practice and all that, sometimes we slip up out of arrogance, or comfort, or whatever.
I can't say that it isn't a consumerist culture, because obviously it is, and you're obviously very right about firearm legislation. I've wondered the same, and often come to the conclusion that probably, all legislation is probably considered poor by those in the know. If you want to have some fun, read up on the Lacey act, which I'm pretty certain makes 99% of all Americans unwitting felons.
A more cynical person might suggest that background checks are bad, and the only evidence you need to prove it is that Congress seems to be all for it. I'm not that cynical, and while I don't have any moral objection to them personally, I do consider them to be at odds with the notion of a Constitutional right. The right to speech, religion, voting, etc., are all practiced freely, without background checks, burden or "common sense" regulation - and just in case, before anyone mentions libel laws, or yelling fire in a theater, those aren't restrictions, but punishments for irresponsible or unlawful use of your right to free speech, in much the same way that laws against armed assault or murder are penalties for irresponsible or unlawful firearm use.
Having read everything I can from the Constitution-era framers, I think it's quite clear that they intended every man to have the luxury of bearing arms. I freely concede that felons and criminals do not and should not, as their rights have been restricted as a result of due process. By default, placing restrictions on the right to bear arms for those whose rights have not been curtailed, amended or restricted as a result of due process is wrong, just as unlawful search and seizure is wrong, or unlawful detainment, and citizens should not allow for it. Considering how poorly we've kept our other rights intact, I'm guessing we'll eventually cede more rights in the sway of politicians, but that's no reason we should have to do so willingly.
I think if they wish to infringe our rights, and 90% of everybody supports it, the process is simple -- amend the Constitution to repeal the second amendment. If that can't be done, then it should remain intact, and the right should not be infringed. If the amendment were repealed, I'd happily support it. Otherwise, until such time as it is, I see most legislation as either pointless, aggrandizing or outright offensive.
I am a bit suspicious about the NRA. I wonder how much they are controlled by arms manufacturer's interests.
I would agree with you that the curtailment of rights is offensive. The recent attempt at weakening Habeas Corpus and various assaults on the Presumption of Innocence come to mind.
I question that as well, but it's also been pretty much debunked. The biggest 'arms manufacturer' donations to the NRA actually come from Midway, which is a retailer, not a manufacturer, and their donations aren't actually from Midway, but donations solicited from users at the end of each sale. If you purchase from Midway, they invite you to donate the 'roundup' to the NRA; if your purchase is $19.50, they'll ask if you want to round it up to an even $20, with the remainder earmarked as an NRA donation.
For the record, I'm not an NRA or NRA-ILA member, though I am a member of the Second Amendment Foundation.
That said, even if we accept that they are in the pockets of arms manufacturers, I don't really see that as being too bad a thing. Arms manufacturers don't have the same degree of exploitative control over their users as, say, telecoms, or software manufacturers.
For the most part, the interests of the manufacturers and gun owners are much more closely aligned than how you find it in the IT arena.
For one, arms manufacturers don't want their name tarnished whenever a nut uses one of their arms to commit mass murder, as well as the headache that inevitably ensues.
That isn't to suggest that they're perfectly aligned of course, but definitely moreso than what we're used to seeing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gu...
Germany invaded surrounding territories in WWII, but left Switzerland alone.