If the US Constitution were amended, and you are lawfully ordered to go door to door and confiscate your neighbor’s weapons, would you do it?

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Oct 2020 01:23:11 -0400

Fellow patriots. I am doing some research and would like some honest feedback and input. Feel free to be completely honest. I have a question. Considering the current political, moral, ethical climate within the U.S: IF the U.S. constitution were amended, and you are lawfully ordered to go door to door and confiscate your neighbor’s weapons, would you do it? Do you feel those you serve with would follow this lawful order? I will appreciate any input and arguments you may have.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Oct 23 at 2020 2:15 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Fri, 23 Oct 2020 02:15:08 -0400

If we're in the sewer enough to make the 2nd Amendment and Posse Comitatus, etc. go away., then the answer would be yes, BUT. The reality would be SMs would make sure they're on the Family and Friends Plan. Stashes will be everywhere. "Stolen" gun reports will be by the millions. A large cottage industry of SMs gundecking the paperwork. Networks will abound on the Dark Web similar to geocaching. Go here and pick up a weapon. There's a big difference between what an individual will do and what the collective result will be. Take a look at past brutal governments that went on a confiscation safari. It worked, sorta, but not well enough. For me, I'll have a "receipt book" of all my "sales". Like others, millions of guns will be sold to residents of Colma, CA (cemetery). There are lawful and unlawful orders. Regardless, there will be a reality.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2020 7:40 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Oct 2020 07:40:40 -0400

I will ober all lawful orders. And I will ensure those under my charge do so as well.

For your hypothetical, I feel that is the right answer. If we compare the "ethical" tension of your question to other events in our history I think it's clear, we operate dutifully in response to law. For example, what if it were 1790 and you asked your question: If the constitution were amended and you were lawfully ordered to go door to door and confiscate and free everyone's slave, would you do so? The response ought still be "duty".

But it's just a hypothetical, good luck sorting through the grey area. I taught something similar today after we ran a convoy regarding casualties and treating the enemy. International law states that we will not treat casualties based on whether they are our own or the enemy, but we will triage and treat casualties according to their injuries, equally. Yet, imagine the difficulty of adhering to that law in the actual moment, when that private who you've trained with for years is bleeding out but you have to treat the guy who shot him first...

Duty is often black and white, but in context we can quickly become confused. I feel it's only human.

Response by SGT Bradley Dixon made Oct 23 at 2020 10:10 AM

SGT Bradley Dixon — Fri, 23 Oct 2020 10:10:49 -0400

No, it is an inherent right and its a right of free person to own and operate a firearm in defense of themselves their community, state and country. My family will not fall back into slavery (my great great grandfather was a slave).

Response by Maj John Bell made Oct 23 at 2020 7:09 PM

Maj John Bell — Fri, 23 Oct 2020 19:09:00 -0400

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

unalienable means unalienable.

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Oct 25 at 2020 5:32 AM

CW4 Guy Butler — Sun, 25 Oct 2020 05:32:54 -0400

I’m trying to think of the scale of the “Come to Jesus” event that would convince 3/4 of the states - including half of the “red” states - to actually pass that amendment.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2020 9:46 AM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 Oct 2020 09:46:11 -0400

I'd resign and live elsewhere.