Orders
Orders
Posted on Dec 23, 2019
Would you confiscate firearms from civilians if ordered?
3.53K
367
125
15
15
0
With the current situation in Virginia and the threat of using the National Guard to enforce gun confiscation, if you were ordered to confiscate weapons from civilians would you? If you were in the VANG and were given this order, what would be your course of action? PFC (Join to see) SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SSG(P) James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" LTC Stephen F. CPL Dave Hoover SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth SSG (Join to see) Capt Dwayne Conyers CPT Jack Durish SGT Ben Keen
Firearms and Guns
Gun Control
Orders
Law
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 29
22
22
0
I would not do it. It is a violation of the 2nd amendment and therefore an illegal order.
(22)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SrA John Monette -
"The Second Amendment was written in living memory of Lexington and Concord. The Founders knew that the state must necessarily maintain an armed militia. And the Founders knew from world history and their personal history that a tyrant seeks a disarmed and impotent people; an imbalance of power that assures that the state can overwhelm the people if it chooses to do so.
In this context, the preface of the Second Amendment’s reference to the state militia isn’t a manner of supporting the state militia; it’s a cautionary check that the people will always have the ability to oppose the state militia. The Concord Hymn would have it that those that shot back against the British army were “embattled farmers”. Got it? Farmers! The people!
In other words, the meaning isn’t “The state militia must exist and be armed, so therefore you are allowed to be armed so you can help.” It’s “The state militia must exist and be armed, so therefore you must be armed to prevent that militia from having a monopoly of power.”"
by Maynard on August 12, 2016, Penn & Teller offer an interesting take on the 2nd Amendment
https://tammybruce.com/2016/08/penn-teller-offer-an-interesting-take-on-the-2nd-amendment.html
"The Second Amendment was written in living memory of Lexington and Concord. The Founders knew that the state must necessarily maintain an armed militia. And the Founders knew from world history and their personal history that a tyrant seeks a disarmed and impotent people; an imbalance of power that assures that the state can overwhelm the people if it chooses to do so.
In this context, the preface of the Second Amendment’s reference to the state militia isn’t a manner of supporting the state militia; it’s a cautionary check that the people will always have the ability to oppose the state militia. The Concord Hymn would have it that those that shot back against the British army were “embattled farmers”. Got it? Farmers! The people!
In other words, the meaning isn’t “The state militia must exist and be armed, so therefore you are allowed to be armed so you can help.” It’s “The state militia must exist and be armed, so therefore you must be armed to prevent that militia from having a monopoly of power.”"
by Maynard on August 12, 2016, Penn & Teller offer an interesting take on the 2nd Amendment
https://tammybruce.com/2016/08/penn-teller-offer-an-interesting-take-on-the-2nd-amendment.html
Penn & Teller offer an interesting take on the 2nd Amendment « Tammy Bruce
The debates on the Second Amendment never cease, but when was the last time you heard an insight that hasn’t been repeated a thousand times before? Penn and Teller’s interpretation was something new to me (Maynard), and I’ll share it here.
(7)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
LTC (Join to see) - Here are the dates for you -
English colonial government militias: since December 13, 1636
As "National Guard": since 1824 in New York, since 1903 nationwide
English colonial government militias: since December 13, 1636
As "National Guard": since 1824 in New York, since 1903 nationwide
(3)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
SGT Steve McFarland - I took the oath a total of 4 times. As you point out, not one time was any time-limit mentioned.
(2)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
LTC (Join to see) - In a magical way, the founders knew that there was going to be a National Guard, a branch of the armed forces that would (somehow) replace the militia, just as they never dreamed there would be such weapons as the AR-15, in spite of the existence of the Puckle gun and the Girandoni Rifle, contemporaneous with the 2nd Amendment.
(0)
(0)
Negative. This order would violate the 2nd Amendment. Therefor, it is an illegal order. If I were a member of the VANG, and ordered to take them, I would not comply with a verbal, and very firm, NO. And then hand in my rank before walking out the door
(16)
(0)
11
11
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google