So I have been pondering this question and curious what others think, especially members of the military.

It is often said that the 2nd amendment didn't create the right to won a firearm it just recognized it and that it is an inherently right we have whether it is in the constitution or not.

So the question I have is this: When we are engaged in combat in another country and our soldiers go door to door looking for the bad guys, do soldiers get to take away guns from the civilians in that country? I don't know how they faced this in Iraq or Afghanistan but I imagine it must have come up a lot. Now I would assume that a soldier is going to want to take away any gun he finds because he knows it could be used by an insurgent but on the level of the principles of human rights do we recognize that the residents there have a right to own a gun and we not be allowed to take it away without some proof?

Now obviously if the 2a only exists for us in America then it isn't an issue but if the right to own arms exists beyond that then we must recognize that all these others have the same right.

Thoughts?

So I have been pondering this question and curious what others think, especially members of the military.

It is often said that the 2nd amendment didn't create the right to won a firearm it just recognized it and that it is an inherently right we have whether it is in the constitution or not.

So the question I have is this: When we are engaged in combat in another country and our soldiers go door to door looking for the bad guys, do soldiers get to take away guns from the civilians in that country? I don't know how they faced this in Iraq or Afghanistan but I imagine it must have come up a lot. Now I would assume that a soldier is going to want to take away any gun he finds because he knows it could be used by an insurgent but on the level of the principles of human rights do we recognize that the residents there have a right to own a gun and we not be allowed to take it away without some proof?

Now obviously if the 2a only exists for us in America then it isn't an issue but if the right to own arms exists beyond that then we must recognize that all these others have the same right.

Thoughts?

I don't think you understand the 2nd Amendment at all.

No one has a "natural right" to own a firearm.  We have a natural right to self-defense.


2A restricts the gov't from violating our right and ability to defend against tyranny by protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

"ARMS" -- not "FIREARMS."

The right to use a firearm for self-defense was derived by combining (1) the right to keep and bear arms to fight tyranny, and (2) the individual, natural right of self-defense.

The courts have ruled that your 2A-protected arms (including firearms) may be used for other lawful purposes, including defense of self, others and property.

Many states (nations) recognize the natural right of the individual to defend themselves using force, but not all grant a right to use a firearm as a means of self-defense.

There is a HUGE diff between your government taking your guns and an invading force taking your guns.

Watch Red Dawn (original)

Last i heard,  the phrase we used was "each household gets to keep 1 AK, for Ali Baba". Full auto and everything.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The bigger question is will HPD help.an invasion force if it happens? Will they "just follow orders".

Many times an invading force uses the local police to help control the people (see shindlers list).

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The bigger question is will HPD help.an invasion force if it happens? Will they "just follow orders".

Many times an invading force uses the local police to help control the people (see shindlers list).

Fisheye should take a poll at HPD.....

On TV they say each man in the house can have one

I don't think you understand the 2nd Amendment at all.

No one has a "natural right" to own a firearm.  We have a natural right to self-defense.


2A restricts the gov't from violating our right and ability to defend against tyranny by protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

"ARMS" -- not "FIREARMS."

The right to use a firearm for self-defense was derived by combining (1) the right to keep and bear arms to fight tyranny, and (2) the individual, natural right of self-defense.

The courts have ruled that your 2A-protected arms (including firearms) may be used for other lawful purposes, including defense of self, others and property.

Many states (nations) recognize the natural right of the individual to defend themselves using force, but not all grant a right to use a firearm as a means of self-defense.

Lets simplify the question for you then, is the right to bear arms (not the right to own firearms) universal in your opinion?

Now apply that to my initial question, do our soldiers have the right to deny people in Iraq or Afghanistan from possessing arms which inherently will affect their ability to defend themselves.

There is a HUGE diff between your government taking your guns and an invading force taking your guns.

Watch Red Dawn (original)

Last i heard,  the phrase we used was "each household gets to keep 1 AK, for Ali Baba". Full auto and everything.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I am talking about the rules that would govern our soldiers. .

Seen the original Red Dawn many times, much better than the remake.

Letting each house keep 1 is an interesting compromise. Certainly our soldiers wouldn't want to alienate everyone by taking away all their arms and they probably recognize that their own citizens also face danger from the extremists.


As for your question about HPD, I am sure they will probably act the same way most humans act when someone puts a gun to their head. People tend to comply. My personal hope is that someone within would have the idea to wipe the registration database before an invading force could get their hands on it.

I am talking about the rules that would govern our soldiers. .

Seen the original Red Dawn many times, much better than the remake.

Letting each house keep 1 is an interesting compromise. Certainly our soldiers wouldn't want to alienate everyone by taking away all their arms and they probably recognize that their own citizens also face danger from the extremists.


As for your question about HPD, I am sure they will probably act the same way most humans act when someone puts a gun to their head. People tend to comply. My personal hope is that someone within would have the idea to wipe the registration database before an invading force could get their hands on it.

The jew police looked after themselves. Thats why the population didnt like them. Hpd can resign or go into hiding (see batman begings) so that way theyre not forced to cooberate with the invaders. And the invaders will spend more resources to police us.

We know that in A stan and such, thieves/bad guys  (Ali Baba) were common and households needed to protect themselves. Even with full auto rifles.

The 2a is not a universal right. In the UK, its almost non existant. Venusuala took it away 6 years ago or so.  Thats why im proud to live in the USA. But not hawaii. I would move if i could to a pro 2a state.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Lets simplify the question for you then, is the right to bear arms (not the right to own firearms) universal in your opinion?

Now apply that to my initial question, do our soldiers have the right to deny people in Iraq or Afghanistan from possessing arms which inherently will affect their ability to defend themselves.

Depends on the mission. Most military units don't have the resources, formal rules of engagement, or the desire to accept unnecessary risks involved in trying to disarm the population regardless of the local country's laws or liberties.

in war zones, weapons trafficking is common. Outside allies funnel weapons in the millions of units to the area. Good luck trying to take them all away from people you don't like/trust.

Although they aren't really looking to disarm the people from most small arms, if they run into the following, they will take them and destroy them:

RPGs, machine guns, sniper rifles, explosives, linked ammo.

They do leave full auto AK's behind, pakalolo, and even hasheesh.

But again, we invaded them, so the invading force can do as they please.

the 2A is a right to defend ourselves with firearms or whatever means we see necessary

I think our local leaders will cave in to who ever the invading force is just like that mayor in Red Dawn did. I believe there is a small minority in HPD that genuinely believe in the 2A but I think most will follow orders to confiscate.

U think our current leaders will "cave in".  Mofos would be the first to give the idea to take guns away.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

U think our current leaders will "cave in".  Mofos would be the first to give the idea to take guns away.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Oh and wear armbands.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Oh and wear armbands.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

We could make it easier for them to know who owns firearms by wearing some sort of identifying mark... Maybe a yellow 6 pointed star or something.... nah

Sorry meant law makers who cooperate would wear armbands showing that they have power over the people. Like how the jew police did in ww2 or inmates who acted as the guards behalf in pow camps.

Billy club and armband.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Sorry meant law makers who cooperate would wear armbands showing that they have power over the people. Like how the jew police did in ww2 or inmates who acted as the guards behalf in pow camps.

Billy club and armband.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

"Kapo."

We could make it easier for them to know who owns firearms by wearing some sort of identifying mark... Maybe a yellow 6 pointed star or something.... nah

HPD would approve.................

HPD would approve.................

our 2A rights were in a mailbox and stolen...ripped right off the post...caught on video...