# Guns and the defense of liberty. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2013, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002 "2013-01-12T22:47:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/361 "2013-02-15T03:58:49Z")
> [@mmmbeer](#): > > First, your lifetime is not the whole of history and Second, no one has risen up to overthrow the government, so your statement means as close to nothing as is possible while still making noise. As to “individuals refusing to leave their house”, I’m not clear what your point is… > Do you suggest that is what DoL means? A couple of people who will not get out of the way so the road can be put in? I’m laughing so hard, I can’t type any more. > So, would we call yours an unpopular delusion? What do **you** think DoL means? ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/362 "2013-02-15T04:01:09Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#): > > kinda hard to have a non-acrimonious debate then. Or does “gun grabber” make it fair game to call you a “gun nut” and throw around “gun show loophole.” Y’all can’t have it both ways… Being called a gun nut doesn’t bother me. It alerts me that I’m talking to someone driven by emotion and not knowledge, who is most likely afraid of guns and is trying to make the other side out to be crazy. That way you don’t have to argue the facts that show that you’re wrong. You call people a nut, but offer no evidence of mental deficiency. Both sides believe the mentally deficient shouldn’t have guns. ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/363 "2013-02-15T04:27:56Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Almost two thirds of those 32,000 gun deaths are suicides. So for your 10 times saved ratio to be true, guns would have to stop roughly 25-30 murders for each allowed. This is impossible to reconcile with the fact that less than half of Americans even own a gun. Because of that, if gun ownership was absolute protection against being murdered, the ratio could only be, not 10 to 1, but 1 to 1. But since we actually know that lots of gun owners are murdered, the ratio is far under 1 to 1. > > Reality is that whomever draws first has a tremendous advantage. This is another reason why the otherwise unknowable ratio has to be far under 1 to 1. So, if 2/3 of the 32,000 of the gun deaths are excluded as suicides, rounding to 20,000, that leaves 10,000 killed by gun use, and 322,000 saved by gun use, so the corrected ratio is 32 saved to 1 killed. That is much better than 10 saved to 1 killed. Thanks ---
**Author:** ![mmmbeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@mmmbeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmbeer)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/364 "2013-02-15T04:54:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That battleship has sailed a long time ago and you know it. A Congressional “Authorization for Use of Force” or some such is enough, and there is a whole lot the POTUS can do on his own authority for a 60-day period under the [War Powers Resolution.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act) And the POTUS can take command of any state’s National Guard without any state of war in effect – remember what Eisenhower did in Arkansas during the [Little Rock Central High integration crisis.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Integration_Crisis) > > You might well consider all of that unconstitutional – and until the SCOTUS agrees, your opinion is worth its weight in gold. > > “Government” includes your local police. Civilians are allowed to keep and bear firearms, but not to use them as an armed force except under state command – that would be “insurrection,” which the Constitution expressly does not allow, and remember how George Washington dealt with the [Whiskey Rebellion.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion) Only the police, National Guard, Army, etc., get to be an armed force. It is that way in any post-feudal state. Did you not get that that was my point? Yes, you did. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the President’s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Reagan in 1981 by sending military forces to El Salvador and later the Contras in Nicaragua and by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. Yeah, this says your war powers reference limits the President from sending troops abroad without alerting Congress. And there are people who know a lot more about it than you or me that agree with me. The President can call up the military that belongs to the states. Where you lose traction is that when the states are telling the Fed that it has overstepped itself and we are disbanding the Fed, they won’t be available to him to call up. You might well consider all of that unconstitutional – and until the SCOTUS agrees, your opinion is worth its weight in gold. The fact that I’m the kid saying the emperor has no clothes doesn’t make me wrong. That there is nothing I can do about it doesn’t make me wrong. Since we are talking DoL, we are talking the Federal Government. Since we are talking the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, we are talking the Federal Government. The Whiskey Rebellion was a tax enforcement issue. They weren’t trying to overthrow the government. The fact that there are a whole bunch of you that are wrong doesn’t make you right. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/365 "2013-02-15T05:02:29Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > This isn’t to brush your proposals aside. If they could somehow be accomplished one peaceful step at a time, I’d be all for that becoming the focus for gun control efforts. One step at a time? Like a slippery slope? ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/366 "2013-02-15T11:38:23Z")
> [@mmmbeer](#): > > So, if 2/3 of the 32,000 of the gun deaths are excluded as suicides, rounding to 20,000, that leaves 10,000 killed by gun use, and 322,000 saved by gun use, so the corrected ratio is 32 saved to 1 killed. That is much better than 10 saved to 1 killed. > Thanks You mean, it’s a much bigger and more certain misstatement? I’d agree with that, for the reasons noted in [#357](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16008317#post16008317). Actually, you are agreeing with me that the ratio is wrong. That’s progress. Now we just have to think through all the reasoning concerning it being wrong. Your 32 to 1 ratio requires that the slightly less than half the population who owns a gun is more than 32 times more likely than non-gun owners to be targeted by murderers. I’d be interested to know if you really believe this, and why. ---
**Author:** ![Freakenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b782af/32.png) [@Freakenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freakenstein)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/367 "2013-02-15T12:02:32Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > I bet you and I have a major difference in what constitutes “huge”. Therefore, I’m not sure how your first point can line up with the second. First You can be sure that I’m not for banning ALL GUNS! And to be clear, I’m not much for banning guns itself. ‘My ban’ would be more about some persons. And ‘huge’ varies. A guy living on the countryside could have several guns for hunting and self defense and there’s no problem with it. But why would a guy who never leaves the city need a rifle? Still I’m not saying he shouldn’t have it, but one might take a closer look to his sanity and lifestyle than that of the farmer. > [@mmmbeer](#): > > You will have to forgive us if our National Defense Policy isn’t let’s wait around for Germany to come save us. That does see to be the way Western Europe thinks. We have more of a get with it and do it yourself attitude. And at worst, being armed will help stave off being overrun until help does arrive. Do You really think that Finland could get enough guns to beat the Russians? Or that private guns could make any difference? There’s five million people in Finland, Moscow alone has more than ten million! You seem to keep picking up irrelevant pieces out of the context and distorting the message. You really aren’t making a service to Yourself or to Your side, I can’t trust anything You say. > [@mmmbeer](#): > > The Whiskey Rebellion was a tax enforcement issue. They weren’t trying to overthrow the government. Didn’t they already do something for tea? And then things got a little out of hand… > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Your 32 to 1 ratio requires that the slightly less than half the population who owns a gun is more than 32 times more likely than non-gun owners to be targeted by murderers. I’d be interested to know if you really believe this, and why. Maybe a gun owner is more than 32 times likely to be a criminal than a non-gun owner…? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/368 "2013-02-15T12:59:04Z")
> [@Freakenstein](#): > > First You can be sure that I’m not for banning ALL GUNS! And to be clear, I’m not much for banning guns itself. ‘My ban’ would be more about some persons. So for example, you wouldn’t ban AR15s? > [@](#): > > And ‘huge’ varies. A guy living on the countryside could have several guns for hunting and self defense and there’s no problem with it. But why would a guy who never leaves the city need a rifle? Still I’m not saying he shouldn’t have it, but one might take a closer look to his sanity and lifestyle than that of the farmer. Are you aware that rifles are used considerably less often in crimes, and there are considerably less accidents with them? That the famous anti-gun study by Kellerman found those with rifles and shotguns in the home, were at less risk for homicide than those who didn’t? > [@](#): > > Do You really think that Finland could get enough guns to beat the Russians? Or that private guns could make any difference? There’s five million people in Finland, Moscow alone has more than ten million! If you want to talk about guns in the hands of citizens, you should be talking about Switzerland, not Finland. ---
**Author:** ![Freakenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b782af/32.png) [@Freakenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freakenstein)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/369 "2013-02-15T13:37:43Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > So for example, you wouldn’t ban AR15s? For some people: absolutely yes. For some people: no - but they have to prove they should have it and that might not be easy. I don’t know why this is so difficult to understand. > [@](#): > > Are you aware that rifles are used considerably less often in crimes, and there are considerably less accidents with them? > That the famous anti-gun study by Kellerman found those with rifles and shotguns in the home, were at less risk for homicide than those who didn’t? 1, yes, I’m aware of that. I still don’t see why somebody should need a rifle in a city apartment. 2, no, I wasn’t aware of that, but it makes sense as those having rifles and shotguns tend to live in rural areas where pretty much everyone has a rifle. Correct Me if I’m wrong. ( What it said about pistols? ) > [@](#): > > If you want to talk about guns in the hands of citizens, you should be talking about Switzerland, not Finland. Finland or Switzerland have nothing to do with this topic. That was just a slight hijack between You and Me and should be dropped. People in Finland or Switzerland don’t have guns to fight their own government. Btw. You told how having a gun saved You life. How things would have ended if You BOTH had a gun? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/370 "2013-02-15T13:38:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: This is why the people need to be armed? To shoot the police? To remind bullies with badges that they are supposed to be public servants, not the biggest and best armed gang in town. > [@mmmbeer](#): > > Only on declaration of war by Congress does the President becomes the Commander in Chief of the military. - Section 2. Clause 1: > “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;” > NOTE: ONLY CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE WAR and money for standing armies may not be appropriated for more than two years: U.S. Constitution Article. I. Section. 8. I.e. The U.S. Constitution clearly dictates that there will be no standing army in the U.S. other than when Congress declares war which shall not be for more than two years. > > So your ANY GOVERNMENT part is incorrect. The government of the United States is clearly NOT supposed to have a monopoly of force, except in time of war declared by the Congress. > > This stuff is available FREE on the internet, so there is no excuse. Dammit, you made me come to the defense of **BrainGlutton** of all people. You’re completely misreading your own citations. The President is the Commander in Chief of the standing armed forces at all times- and the militia _when_ called to federal duty. The Constitution explicitly authorizes a standing army and navy, which are only funded two years at time, and Congress has the authority to declare war; but those are separate provisions, not dependent on each other. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/371 "2013-02-15T14:29:37Z")
> [@Freakenstein](#): > > For some people: absolutely yes. For some people: no - but they have to prove they should have it and that might not be easy. I don’t know why this is so difficult to understand. How would they prove they should have it? > [@](#): > > 2, no, I wasn’t aware of that, but it makes sense as those having rifles and shotguns tend to live in rural areas where pretty much everyone has a rifle. Correct Me if I’m wrong. ( What it said about pistols? ) The Kellerman study looked at urban regions for both. They found handguns increased the risk for homicide, but less so than having one person in the home who was not a teetotaler. Also handguns guns are used in crimes (urban or not) considerably more frequently than long guns. So why the hate for long guns? > [@](#): > > Finland or Switzerland have nothing to do with this topic. That was just a slight hijack between You and Me and should be dropped. People in Finland or Switzerland don’t have guns to fight their own government. No, I like this subject. Tell me how Switzerland faired compared to other european countries during World War 1 and 2. > [@](#): > > Btw. You told how having a gun saved You life. How things would have ended if You BOTH had a gun? Hard to say, but I think probably I would have still won the outcome. With my current training and weapon set up, I most certainly would have. My new bedside weapon is set up almost identical to this: [http://www.wilsoncombat.com/new/slider/demo/images/wilson-shotguns.jpg](http://www.wilsoncombat.com/new/slider/demo/images/wilson-shotguns.jpg) You might notice it’s a long gun. What do you think, should it be legal or no? ---
**Author:** ![Freakenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b782af/32.png) [@Freakenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freakenstein)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/372 "2013-02-15T14:49:34Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > How would they prove they should have it? Personally I don’t know. Satisfied? > [@](#): > > No, I like this subject. Tell me how Switzerland faired compared to other european countries during World War 1 and 2. You mean other European countries that are located in the mountains like Liechtenstein or Andorra? It wasn’t about having huge arsenals. It was about being too much trouble compared to gain. And in the end, if Germany had won the others, surely You don’t think Switzerland could’ve kept them away. > [@](#): > > You might notice it’s a long gun. What do you think, should it be legal or no? I’m really, really, really getting sick with this. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/373 "2013-02-15T15:00:55Z")
> [@Freakenstein](#): > > Personally I don’t know. Satisfied? No, you should know. It’s your idea. > [@](#): > > You mean other European countries that are located in the mountains like Liechtenstein or Andorra? It wasn’t about having huge arsenals. It was about being too much trouble compared to gain. And in the end, if Germany had won the others, surely You don’t think Switzerland could’ve kept them away. Historically, you don’t always have to be able to hold out forever, just hold out long enough. And you are right about this it being too much trouble compared to gain. Don’t you think having your entire male populace being both armed and trained improves the “trouble” vs. “gain” ratio? > [@](#): > > I’m really, really, really getting sick with this. I don’t know why you are sick of this, you brought up my personal situation. I really want to know if you think my home defense gun is something you think I should be free to own. So what do you think? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/374 "2013-02-15T15:09:38Z")
> [@mmmbeer](#): > > The President can call up the military that belongs to the states. Where you lose traction is that when the states are telling the Fed that it has overstepped itself and we are disbanding the Fed, they won’t be available to him to call up. The states cannot “disband” the U.S. Do you think this is 1861?! :rolleyes: > [@mmmbeer](#): > > Since we are talking DoL, we are talking the Federal Government. How does **that** follow? Most threats-to-liberty in American history have originated at the state level. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/375 "2013-02-15T15:10:40Z")
> [@Freakenstein](#): > > And in the end, if Germany had won the others, surely You don’t think Switzerland could’ve kept them away. Also since you don’t like rifles in particular, I think due to their use in crime, maybe you could also comment on gun crimes rates in Switzerland. > **[Firearms regulation in Switzerland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gun_crime)** > > Firearms regulation in Switzerland allows the acquisition of semi-automatic, and – with a may-issue permit – fully automatic firearms, by Swiss citizens and foreigners with or without permanent residence.\[note 1\] The laws pertaining to the acquisition of firearms in Switzerland are amongst the most liberal in the world, as well as being the most permissive in Europe. Swiss gun laws are primarily about the acquisition of arms, and not ownership. As such a license is not required to own a gun T... ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/376 "2013-02-15T15:13:56Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > One step at a time? Like a slippery slope? [Like a slippery slope?](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slippery_slope) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/377 "2013-02-15T15:15:00Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > If you want to talk about guns in the hands of citizens, you should be talking about Switzerland, not Finland. Switzerland is not defended by guns. Switzerland is defended by banks. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/378 "2013-02-15T15:19:54Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > To remind bullies with badges that they are supposed to be public servants, not the biggest and best armed gang in town. They are **also** supposed to be the biggest and best-armed gang in town. Career criminals regard the police like the weather – something to be dealt with but never fought. Sometimes you can bribe the police; if not, then you just try to avoid them and escape their notice. What you never, ever consider doing is fighting the police like you might fight a rival gang, because you can’t, the police are just too powerful, more powerful than you and all your friends put together. You need not look far to see countries where the police are **not** that, and the results are never good. ---
**Author:** ![Freakenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b782af/32.png) [@Freakenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freakenstein)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/379 "2013-02-15T15:32:11Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > No, you should know. It’s your idea. What is? Gun control? I don’t know what You mean with this. I never said I’m qualified to valuate who should have a gun. Actually I don’t believe I am. But somebody should do that. It might be NRA for all I care, if they’re doing a proper job with it and not handing out guns for anyone who just happens to ask. > [@](#): > > Historically, you don’t always have to be able to hold out forever, just hold out long enough. That’s exactly what Finland did. Without D-Day forcing Stalin to focus on conquering East Europe and Germany, We would’ve lost big time. > [@](#): > > And you are right about this it being too much trouble compared to gain. Don’t you think having your entire male populace being both armed and trained improves the “trouble” vs. “gain” ratio? Yes, it improves it. It also might turn the country into a hellhole that nobody wants to conquer. > [@](#): > > I don’t know why you are sick of this, you brought up my personal situation. I really want to know if you think my home defense gun is something you think I should be free to own. So what do you think? You quoted this in the very same post: > [@Freakenstein](#): > > For some people: absolutely yes. For some people: no - but they have to prove they should have it and that might not be easy. I don’t know why this is so difficult to understand. And I’m even more puzzled now ( which means that it might not be so easy for You… ). > [@Kable](#): > > Also since you don’t like rifles in particular, I think due to their use in crime You really see what You want to see… ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002/380 "2013-02-15T15:32:46Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Switzerland is not defended by guns. Switzerland is defended by banks. “The Swiss military strategy was changed from one of static defence at the borders, to a strategy of organized long-term attrition and withdrawal to strong, well-stockpiled positions high in the Alps known as the National Redoubt. This controversial strategy was essentially one of deterrence. The idea was to cause huge losses to German forces and render the cost of invading too high.” > **[Switzerland during the world wars | World War II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_the_World_Wars#World_War_II)** > > At the outbreak of World War II in 1939, Switzerland immediately began to mobilize for a possible invasion. The transition into wartime was smooth and caused less controversy than in 1914; the country was fully mobilized in only three days. Parliament quickly appointed 61-year-old career soldier Henri Guisan to be General and by 3 September 430,000 combat troops and 210,000 in support services, 10,000 of whom were women, had been mobilized, though most of these were sent home during the Phone Dur... [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-the-defense-of-liberty/647002.md?page=20)