I'm confused about the American Republican party

[kandrathe]

Amusingly enough, aren't the Swiss rather well known for a similar philosophy of militia and general culture of order?

Yes. I'm not sure about the history of how they got to that philosophy. I'll research it more. They are similar to the US in their attitudes towards an armed citizenry.

Here is what I found; "Paul Vital Ignaz Troxler, a liberal physician from Beromünster (Lucerne) proposed a new federal state after the model of the United States of America in 1833. Interestingly enough, this idea originated in central Switzerland, but it became a reality only after a short civil war with central Switzerland opposed to it (see below)! The "Tagsatzung" [federal conference of cantonal representatives] prepared a moderately liberal Federal Constitution. A federal parliament with 44 members, a federal government with 5 members and a federal court of justice were planned. The powers of the federal authorities would have been substantially smaller than they are now according to the constitution of 1848. In particular there would have been no house of representatives elected in proportion to the number of inhabitans. This would have given more influence to the small, rather conservative cantons of central Switzerland than they have today. Lucerne as the biggest city in central Switzerland was foreseen as federal capital - nevertheless central Switzerland missed it's chance and wanted to stay with the old system. The draft was criticized by the conservative as being to progressive, and by the liberals as beeing to conservative. At that time, four out of ten consenting cantons were catholic, whereas several large reformed cantons opposed it. This shows that the dividing line between conservatives and liberals was not a confessional one at the beginning of the dispute."

More to the point, given the state of military technology, I fail to see how the right to own small arms is at all relevant to keeping the government in check. If a hypothetical US government wished to oppress its people, it couldn't possibly do a worse job of it than what we're already seeing in places such as Syria. You would see the might of a modern military: armour, machine guns, indirect fire. All of which are specifically designed to nullify the threat of small arms combatants.

I'm not sure I grasp the argument you are making. So, if insect repellent is not very effective in preventing mosquito bites I should go without it? In your post apocalyptic scenario, if the choice is to face down the tank naked, or with a pistol and a Molotov, I'd choose the later. I'd most likely die either way. At least until the tanks get to my house I can repel the looters.

But, what you are hinting at is exactly why according to our founding principles we'd want to trim back our standing military. Then it will not be a threat to us, or anyone else.