Antis with their "collective right" nonsense


January 23, 2004, 09:44 PM
Check out Mike Rosenberg's attempt to denigrate the Second Amendment.

His discussion here relates to James Madison's disquisition in The Federalist Papers #46 on the possibility that the new federal goverment would one day become tyrannical. Madison gives reason why he considered such an outcome to be outragesouly unlikely, "like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made."

Just for the sake of argument, he reasons, suppose that the federal government did manage to create a vast standing army " for the projects of ambition."

"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."

OK, so on one side there's a standing army of between 25,000 and 30,000 soldiers loyal to some tyrannical fedgov. On the other is a militia of some 500,000 members. If 1% of the population equals 25,000, then the entire population must equal 2.5 million people. 500,000 is equal to 20% of the population, which would equal the entire number of able-bodied men capable of bearing arms. We know from the Militia Act of 1792 that such a force would be expected to appear with arms provided by themselves. Where do the antis believe that such a force would obtain arms were there such a stand-off between some out-of-control central government and The People?

Check out _Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II_ by Stephen P. Halbrook. On the eve of WWII, the Swiss were ready to muster 20% of their population at the drop of hat, in other words, nearly ever able-bodied male capable of bearing arms, i.e., the militia. Each Swiss male was expected to maintain his marksmanship abilities until past age 40. Swiss men were trained to shoot at 300 yards. Wehrmacht soldiers, by contrast, were trained to shoot at 100 yards.

Halbrook writes: "The Swiss federal shooting festival, which remains the largest rifle competition in the world, was held in Luzern in June 1939. Hitler's takeover of Austria and Czechoslovakia was complete, both countries had been surrendered by tiny political elites who guaranteed that there would be no resistance. Swiss President Philipp Etter spoke at the festival, stressing that something far more serious than sport was the purpose of their activity. His comments demonstrated the connection between national defense and the armed citizen: " 'There is probably no other country that, like Switzerland, gives the soldier his weapon to keep in the home. The Swiss always has his rifle at hand. It belongs to the
furnishings of his home. ... That corresponds to ancient Swiss tradition.
As the citizen with his sword steps into the ring in the cantons which
have the Landsgemeinde (government by public meeting), so the Swiss
soldier lives in constant companionship with his rifle. He knows what
that means. With this rifle, he is liable every hour, if the country
calls, to defend his hearth, his home, his family, his birthplace. The
weapon is to him a pledge and sign of honor and freedom. The Swiss does
not part with his rifle.' "

If you enjoyed reading about "Antis with their "collective right" nonsense" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Mark Tyson
January 23, 2004, 10:04 PM
The collective rights ficiton has been demolished so many times it's hardly worth repeating. If they were honest they'd try to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Now don't give me a dissertation on natural rights - social utilitarians don't accept natural rights doctrine, so it's a moot point.

Standing Wolf
January 23, 2004, 11:12 PM
If they were honest they'd try to repeal the 2nd amendment.

They know they'd be defeated, so they're giving the Second Amendment the death of a thousand small cuts—or "reasonable compromises," as we're supposed to call them.

January 24, 2004, 02:53 AM
Based on Article I, Section 10, para 3.

"No State shall, without the consent of Congress, ... keep troops, or Ships of War in time of peace, ..."

ie: The States have to have the permission from Congress to do what is otherwise prohibited to them; but the Second Amendment prevents the Congress from disarming the States who need their permission to be so equipped in the first place. (start over from beginning of sentence and repeat to infinity)

January 24, 2004, 07:36 AM
Even if Mr. Mike Rosenberg were right in his interpretation of #46 - which he isn't, IMO - he obviously hasn't read the rest of the Federalist Papers :rolleyes:

January 26, 2004, 11:04 AM
LOL (or would be if I wasn't in a library at the moment).

Our phoneline has gone dead (don't know why), so I am using the computers in my local library.

I'm quite able to access this site, but when I tried to follow the link to that anti-gun site, it was blocked!

Access to this web page is restricted at this time.

The Websense category "Weapons" is filtered.



:rolleyes: :banghead:

January 26, 2004, 12:06 PM
So much for the libraries fighting censorship. :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Antis with their "collective right" nonsense" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!