Why do US citizens hold dear the "right to bear arms"?

Let's explain it in a language that everyone can understand....

When King George III of England decided he wanted to tax America without providing services for those taxes...Americans became distraught and demanded better treatment from government.

As such Americans revolted against the King. Americans developed a militia with their firearms and defeated the British pushing them out of the United States all the way back to England.

The United States Constitution allowed for individuals to own firearms and to establish a militia to protect themselves from further aggression by governments like that of England.

The United States is a MUCH larger country than Switzerland therefore more population here than there. The more people...the more problems.

But...of ALL the statistics in crime...those locations where firearms are in every home...crime rates are extremely low! I would suggest you look up Kennesaw, Georgia!

The Supreme Court decided that the 'in the service of a well regulated militia' bit didn't count a few decades ago now.

I think your point about Switzerland is very interesting - those who are pro mass gun ownership often point to Switzerland and say 'but it worked for them', whilst totally failing to take into account the totally different culture and organisation of gun ownership. Switzerland could perhaps fulfil the 'organised militia' clause, but as the USA cannot they have disregarded it.

That said, the constitution was written centuries ago in the aftermath of revolutionary wars, and very little of it could be said to actually apply to modern-day life. Unfortunately, many Americans see it as a document with sanctity equal to that of the Bible, and refuse to accept that perhaps it is time to disregard the whole thing, and introduce something a little more relevant.

Switzerland is a unique example, surrounded by war over centuries among the great powers of europe, yet it was never invaded. This is due to the nature of the country, mountainous with few passes into the country. As a result of this they don't NEED a big army, just a relatively well trained population. One man or woman with a gun can hold a pass against a hundred soldiers if they snipe the enemy. The united states holds one of the most diverse populations in the world and one of the least defensible coastlines. They need the population to have guns because to defend all their coast they would need a truly HUGE army. The government needs armed civilians and cos its so diverse, regulations don't work.

if the u/s police were effective there would be no need for the populas to be armed, therefore the police only carry arms for their own protection, and leave the protection of householders to their own devices. if a police officer goes berserk in a bar and shoots 5 or 6 people its a regrettable mistake, end of story, if a civilian does the same thing in a school, gun laws must be changed to ensure the populas doesn't have any so it cannot happen again, irrespective of the fact the civilian population needs to be able to defend itself, as the police force are unable to perform this task.

the bottom line is one is a thug armed by the state, and given a uniform and permission to murder civilians, the other is a civilian licenced by the police authority to posses weapons, who has blown a gasket, due to bureaucratic pressures, and gone berserk and killed school children.

in reality there's no difference, think about it!!!!! both are licenced by a higher authority!!!!

The constitutional right to bear arms comes from a result of the Revolutionary war. When an occupying power wants to takes control of the population, the first step is to prevent the population from defending itself. What the 2nd amendment was originally meant to mean is that it is illegal for any governing body to take away the right of the citizens to defend themselves against that governing body.

As far as "well regulated", it implies that the organization is in all ways lawful, and not subverting the law. They can meet, organize and drill, as long as they do break any laws when doing so.

The Swiss are no longer able to keep ammo at home I thought?

It is the second amendment that should have been tidied up many many years ago. It was drawn up at a time when the world was a different place and the US did not have an army as such and was fearing invasion, though not from the British at that time, they had already kicked us out with help from the French.

Problem is that the NRA has shown what happens when they think there is a threat to their percieved right to carry murderous weapons. They over react.

Edited to add. Switzerland has been around many wars and direct witness to invasions in its history, there you might find a reason to keep a small army but an armed citizen. The US has the biggest military budget in the world. Think about it.

The US was built on the fact that many of the soldiers in the revolutionary war were farms and town folk. They were called minute men. Able to be at the front line in a minute. This was accomplished by the right to have arms. Now a days it main held on by hunter whom love the sport of hunting. I am a deer hunter and if i was not able to hunt during the winter my food bill would rise considerably. But most people like the thrill of target shooting.

That is all the Swiss have. They are sissies. We have military as well as militia. It says that a well regulated militia is needed to secure the state. Then it goes farther and says that the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. We fought off 1 tyrant, and are ready in-case we need to do so again. The crime for the most part is by people that are unable to obtain firearms legally.

We differ from you guys. and we differ state to state. I can use force in my state to not only protect myself, but my property. If I see a person breaking into my car, I have the right in my state to use deadly force to stop them. I live in what is called an unincorporated area. We don't have local police. I'm original from Ireland, so I understand how it looks to you, but I like my freedom, and like being left alone.

Email me if you would like to talk more about it.

Where I live the militia, has been called on to hunt down escaped convicts, and look for missing children. Militia's tend to be veterans, that met though gun clubs, VFW's, etc. It is basically a group of people that say in the event of an emergency, we will be sticking together.

As far as the "regulated" they are referring to the fact that we as a people will not use our force to go outside the law. An example is a group called the Hutaree, they were a militia, that was infiltrated by the FBI. The FBI was trying to trick them into killing police, at a police funeral. 6 members were arrested, but they were let go because they didn't follow though with the act. In my state we have what is called the Indiana militia corps.

http://www.indianamilitia.org/

Anyone can join. I don't care for the guy running it personally. He is a prison guard, and has never been military. I don't see him as qualified to command, but some of the guys are good.

You also have to think of how big this country is, how diverse we are, and our origin. We aren't forced like the Swiss into service. That is unconstitutional, and we tend to settle thing on our own in the states.

EDIT: I knew you were from the UK.

The guns don't need to be regulated, the militia's do. The Gov, may step in and bust it all up. Like Hutaree.

It's rooted in a genuine distrust of allowing the government to be the only ones with guns. The 2nd Amendment is often cited but it's done so as a red herring meant to qualify their argument for gun rights.

edit- I'm ONLY speaking of the general, present-day arguments from "pro-gun" citizens. I'm clearly generalizing.

Gun control often actually increases gun deaths. The fact is that criminals rarely get their guns legally.