Everything said above just goes to show why there is a 2nd Amendment. It’s there not so much for a foreign invasion, but from abuse by our own military/government. And yes, governments are looking to disarm their people. How many countries support the people owning firearms? Can’t name many, and the US being part of “a greater good” called the UN, who wants everyone disarmed in the name of peace and civility, this administration is in lockstep with their goals. Governments that plan to do something the population would object to must disarm them first to ensure their survival.
7 Likes
Don’t know how many of y’all are following Israel in the news but the IDF probe into the failures in one Kibbutz has been published.
In this case it is a situation of a foreign invasion and although the analysis and blaming will go on for some time, what is relevant to the discussion here is that even an armed population, if limited in their ability to be armed, would be massacred if a real enemy attacks.
In Israel, people with certain professions, living in certain dangerous areas and have been through army service, are eligible to apply for a firearm license. Almost invariably, this is a permit for a pistol with 50 rounds of ammo.
Now I ain’t no soldier but I would hazard a guess that a pistol with 50 rounds of ammo is insufficient to deal with terrorists with RPGs, ARs and heavy MGs on technicals.
Furthermore, kibbutz security teams actually had their ARs taken away completely, reduced in number or put in a centralized armory:
In recent years the IDF decided to change priorities in handing out weapons to local security details – the northern and southern border locales had many weapons taken away, while the settlements and illegal outposts were armed with thousands of weapons.
The reason given was fear of theft, but this claim failed a reality check – in the past seven years, six firearms have been lost or stolen in all locales subject to the Southern Command. In comparison, the IDF over the same period saw hundreds of firearms and large quantities of munitions stolen from its bases. Either way, locales at a distance of four to seven kilometers from the fence had their weapons taken, leaving the locales with only two rifles apiece.
A member of the security detail at another border area kibbutz tells that until two and a half years ago he kept his weapon at home, like the rest of the security detail. “They said there were thefts in the area. The army was very uptight about it,” he says. The weapons were placed in a vault in the center of the kibbutz, but during the Hamas invasion no one had the opportunity to reach it. Thus, the kibbutz security detail fought with one rifle and one handgun kept in the home of the security coordinator. “These weapons need to be available,” he explains.
So in summary, the lessons we ought to learn from this ongoing investigation into the failures of Oct 7 are:
- Delegating one’s self-defense to the police/army/etc. is a bad idea. As others have rightfully said, self-defense is a right and it is good that the US is one of the few countries that recognize this inherent right. The attack on the Kibbutz in question began at about 0630hrs, and control of the Kibbutz by the IDF was only restored at about 1800hrs.
- If a government disarms its people, and something like this happens, especially in a hot area like Israel and a red hot area like the Gaza border, the government shares complicity in the civilian death toll.
- Limitations on weapons is also a bad idea. Things like AR bans or ammo purchasing limits. Even now the Israeli government is weighing plans to arm border communities with AT missiles.
The Israeli military is exploring the option of arming civilian security squads in isolated West Bank settlements and others close to Palestinian villages with anti-tank missiles.
7 Likes
Adding that to my reading list lol Been trying to read more about the founding and early history of our Republic!
2 Likes
Those that have are no longer free.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
2 Likes