Posted on Oct 23, 2020
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?
549
8
14
0
0
0
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.
Ethics
Honor
Patriotism
Morals
Integrity
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 6
1
1
0
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.
unalienable means unalienable.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
Maj John Bell
Right. I have been educated as you have and I have read the constitution several times. I think I am addressing a different question.
It seems that you are pointing out to 1SG that it wouldn't be right to take people's second amendment away, period. And I am specifically saying that I don't believe it's an absolute right of a human being to own a fire arm. There's a lot in that and that doesn't mean I don't support our second amendment or our constitution, but I am engaging the hypothetical past that question.
I brought up slavery because it's an obvious example of when laws are unethical. Though in our past our ancestors weren't so quick to see that. I assumed everyone here knows the difference as such has been discussed on rallypoint a dozen times. But from the context of 1SG's question it seemed he was rather implying that in his perfect situation everything was done lawfully and ethically and now the sole actor is me, as a citizen soldier.
If we boil it down to human rights then I see a gray area because the very concept of human rights has some tricky points to be discussed. The right to live and to self-defense is hard to argue against. But saying that self-defense necessitates having a gun is a little past the issue. The arguments could change and in context, get complicated. But, outside our hypothetical, that is exactly why our constitution exists and our forefathers went to such great lengths in choice of word. They already answered the questions here for us and our government, in my opinion. As you pointed out.
However, 1SG seems to be pressing us with his question at the top, how far is that cultural belief that fire arm ownership is a human right engrained into us?
Thanks for the conversation sir!
Right. I have been educated as you have and I have read the constitution several times. I think I am addressing a different question.
It seems that you are pointing out to 1SG that it wouldn't be right to take people's second amendment away, period. And I am specifically saying that I don't believe it's an absolute right of a human being to own a fire arm. There's a lot in that and that doesn't mean I don't support our second amendment or our constitution, but I am engaging the hypothetical past that question.
I brought up slavery because it's an obvious example of when laws are unethical. Though in our past our ancestors weren't so quick to see that. I assumed everyone here knows the difference as such has been discussed on rallypoint a dozen times. But from the context of 1SG's question it seemed he was rather implying that in his perfect situation everything was done lawfully and ethically and now the sole actor is me, as a citizen soldier.
If we boil it down to human rights then I see a gray area because the very concept of human rights has some tricky points to be discussed. The right to live and to self-defense is hard to argue against. But saying that self-defense necessitates having a gun is a little past the issue. The arguments could change and in context, get complicated. But, outside our hypothetical, that is exactly why our constitution exists and our forefathers went to such great lengths in choice of word. They already answered the questions here for us and our government, in my opinion. As you pointed out.
However, 1SG seems to be pressing us with his question at the top, how far is that cultural belief that fire arm ownership is a human right engrained into us?
Thanks for the conversation sir!
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
1LT (Join to see) - If the premise of the question is that disarming the population is done "legally and ethically," I reject the premise of the question. It may be done legally, but to my mind it it will never be done ethically. But I don't believe that was the premise of SGM (Join to see)'s question.
If one is asked "are you bound to follow legal and ethical order?" the obvious and only answer is yes. I believe the 1SG was probably trying to provoke a discussion of "laws versus ethics." Perhaps he will chime in, or perhaps he won't because he doesn't want to influence our responses.
If, as I do, one believes that disarming the population is unethical; the question becomes "what now?" My answer is perfectly encapsulated within the portion of the Declaration which I quoted. Simply put, what country with a well-armed populace is long governed by an oppressive government? Since the advent of firearms, I can think of none.
If one is asked "are you bound to follow legal and ethical order?" the obvious and only answer is yes. I believe the 1SG was probably trying to provoke a discussion of "laws versus ethics." Perhaps he will chime in, or perhaps he won't because he doesn't want to influence our responses.
If, as I do, one believes that disarming the population is unethical; the question becomes "what now?" My answer is perfectly encapsulated within the portion of the Declaration which I quoted. Simply put, what country with a well-armed populace is long governed by an oppressive government? Since the advent of firearms, I can think of none.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
1LT (Join to see) - Another problem with the premise of the question: Under what premise would the military (violation of posse comitatus) or law enforcement go door to door and perform warrantless searches for firearms, then seize them. Such actions would require overturning the 4th Amendment and offering just compensation under the 5th Amendment; or overturning the 5th Amendment. This furthers my rejection of the premise of the question, as it depends on government voiding additional unalienable rights.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google