Guns and Liberty

To about ten pages amounts the list in the “idea basket” of “Duly Noted”. As a sign of the times, they remain dormant because unanticipated items demand posting.

That queue jumping has several reasons. The advanced world is, because the political class’ ideology restrains it, unable to defend their peoples although security is a primary task of government. This helplessness comes from a mass entering the realm that disrespects local codes and laws. Transgressions follow, and so the system is challenged by deeds unforeseen by its codes and with earlier unimagined crimes such as FMG, child rape, enslavement.

Increasingly, society’s response departs from what the governing political class of the nominal left and right advocates. Instead of cheering the benefits of “multiculturalism” – in effect submission- the “deplorables” wish to resist. So we have the rise of parties that reject left-liberal mantras and “uncouth” leaders that come from outside the clan of the insiders. The process wishes to change the system which is perceived as unresponsive to the masses and that dismisses the average person’s needs.

Another reaction to the perception of being abandoned by elites in favor of theories nurtured by the privileged is personal. Those left unprotected by the state will do that for themselves. Consequently, persons that perceive the ineffectuality of the laws, arm themselves -legally or illegally.

Here the reader – presumably an American – will think of Second Amendment rights and the new controversy surrounding them. Does “militia” imply membership in an organization and not the ability of armed citizens to respond spontaneously? Is the “right to bear arms” limited to 18th century muskets, or does it mean modern weapons? The US has always been an armed society whose grass-roots now respond to coddled criminals, immunities, and the attribution of delinquency to “society”. Regardless of tradition, forces gather that intent to criminalize individual weapons by creating conditions for their possession that few can meet.

Here a biography-rooted demands to be inserted. The writer’s equation of arms and liberty comes from experience. Facing the Red Army in 1956, instead of armor piercing weapons, I had only a pistol with hardly any ammunition. Nothing can underline more convincingly the utility of an armed society as a means of resistance against tyranny.

Unlike “liberals”, the Soviet stooges that ran Hungary had a good understanding of that interrelationship. As a pre-teen, I have been trained in pistol shooting by a two times Olympic champion. The entire globally prominent elite of marksmen exercised at the venue. Before training, the guns were unlocked and the ammo was distributed. At the end that allotment and the spent cartridges had to match. While contemplating the return of the past, I still recall champions sifting through the dust to find a missing empty shell.

Now, to the present to tell about an odd version of the idea of an armed citizenry.

Switzerland is the classical neutral country that had avoided armed conflicts. Before you submerge in the chocolate, cows, watches and mountains stereotype, a correcting note is in order. Unlike most other neutrals, Switzerland practiced armed neutrality. On the whole, neutrals tended to underperform in the area of self defense. The idea was that adequate armaments might make neighbors feel threatened. In the world war Switzerland had an army of 650 000 thousand fielded by a population of five million. The Swiss concept exploited the terrain, extensive fortifications, good diplomacy, modern arms and resolution. At the same time, the country had the ability to convert instantly to a state of total mobilization. No wonder that Berlin concluded that the losses of an occupation outweighed its benefits.

It is the defensive arms of the sons of “William Tell” that create the “problem”. Leftists and –not known to shun violence to serve their system- and the peaceniks who assume that armies make wars, have created a movement to save the world called “Switzerland Without  An Army.” Those that are made to strain their memory for instances of Swiss aggression to be precluded should relax; that country has not waged an offensive war since 1516.

So, you ask, what is the problem? Well, instant mobilization is achieved by an odd measure. After basic training a Swiss remains in the reserve. Periodical upgrading and marksmanship exercises were imposed so that the citizen soldiers would not rust. To guarantee immediate mobilization, servicemen took their weapons and ammunition home. The result: beyond the standing army, there is a well armed society that is resistant to attack. That capability is supported by a high degree of autarchy and –until recently- ABC-safe bunkers all houses had to have.

This is what the left-liberal champions of “peace” wish to overcome. Under attack are the fully automatic weapons that have accumulated in normal households because those mustered out may keep their guns. Through relatives, your correspondent has several of these. One more thing; crimes involving service-weapons are rare. Nevertheless, the country’s leftist Minister of Justice finds that the “duty” of the state is to “hinder the access to weapons.”

Here a descriptive event needs to be preserved in print. Once, in a lecture, I have mentioned that initial Nazi success is attributable to the unpreparedness of most nations that were caught in their dreams to resist attacks. A few days later the young man rang and handed me a longish package. In it, I found a new ’32 carbine. Its shaft was still natural wood to be treated by the user. My astonishment grew once he explained the unusual object that has not seen the light of day for decades.

Once the war broke out, his grandmother reacted to the fate of Belgium, Holland, Dane mark, and Norway. So she ordered seven carbines for the women of the family. Instant reaction: Hitler would have been stopped early if his intended victims would have had the spirit of that granny.

The left’s plan to disarm the citizenry has been, arms being widely held, and since every village has a gun-club, an uphill battle in this non-NATO member. Yet, newly, the unilateral disarmers are gaining. In its wisdom, the besieged EU (skeptics inspired by Brexit) is committing to fight until the last bunker falls.

One of these actions is to react to the criminal follow-up of uncontrolled immigration by fighting its crimes through restrictions on the possession of weapons. In most of Europe that is a largely symbolic measure. However, in Switzerland, being associated with Europe through a border/customs agreement, the proscription brings major change. While resistance to the extortion to enter the union that encircles the country grows, the specific measure provokes additional general resistance.

As things are, the papers and TV debates bring the arguments that already rage between gun owners and gun grabbers in America. That seems to happen without any coordination with America’s “shoot from the hip gunslinging cowboys”. The probable outcome will be a softened national version of restrictions to replace a system because it functions very well. The leftist proponents of disarmed neutrality that wish to trade independence for EU membership, face a recalcitrant country in which only 20% want to “follow their leaders” and join. A sign of that is that weapons’ sales to individuals are up 40%.

The outcome of the debate and the camouflaged submission of the political class that does not trust its people if able to defend themselves, will have its way.

A rather safe prediction and a conclusion can be made. The prediction: general passive resistance will make the “made-to-look-good” capitulation impossible to implement because registration will be resisted by a criminalized people. The concluding thought: we need to be reminded of something that the future might again prove. It is that it is easier to lose independence than it is to regain it.

 

Comments are closed.