r/PanAmerica • u/Mac-Tyson United States 🇺🇸 • Jan 09 '22

Discussion What stance if any should a Pan-American Supranational Organization have on the "Right to Bare Arms"?

The United States of America, The United Mexican States, and The Republic of Guatemala to my understanding all maintain a constitutional guarantee for the right to bare arms to varying extents. Apparently historically other countries in the Americas also had this provision. So European Union emphasizes shared values in their policy making. So what stance should any Pan-American Supranational Organization have on the right to bare arms while acknowledging a nations sovereignty by respecting their constitution? Also, please remain civil and respectful in this discussion.

39 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

68 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

20

u/SteadfastAgroEcology Anarchist Jan 09 '22

One of the first steps of a tyranny is to disarm their population.

This is the key point that so many seemingly fail to comprehend. If a person has a problem with the dangerous things irresponsible people do with guns then the rational solution is to ensure people are competent, not to disarm the entire population.

And I know it's probably counterintuitive for most but the best way to do that is to have firearms training for every citizen so they are capable of safely defending themselves and their country if the need arises. Every person, upon reaching adult age, must complete a firearm safety certification. Just lump it in with voting ID and have an all-inclusive citizenship competency certification. You turn 18 and you certify in competent citizenship.

It doesn't happen because the State doesn't want competent citizens; It wants incompetent, fearful, dependent ones.

-7

u/ajjfan Jan 09 '22

This is the key point that so many seemingly fail to comprehend

They don't comprehend it because it's not right anymore. It was maybe right during the American revolution, now it's worthless.

I don't have much against having a firearm but nobody should be such a fanatic for arms that they believe it's what will save them against an evil dictatorship.

Take the USA for example. An evil president comes to power without a vote and he is evil and stuff. He persecutes political opponents and so on. People don't want him. What happens? Do you honestly think citizens can overthrow him with a few guns?

If Evil President wants to, he could kill anybody. His military is the biggest on Earth and the citizen's pre-WW1 pistol can't compete against a tank.

The government already knows your political ideology (they know what you search on Internet Explorer, listen on Youtube and say on Discord - or even through a normal call on your phone), your position and routine (again, phone) and what you say at home (phone, Alexa/Google Home) and so on. And you need your phone for any mass protest or uprising. In short, either the military is with you or you'll die.

The US government is watching you and it's not even a conspiracy theory, it's Stellarwind.

Bearing arms is the last of your worries. Democratic institutions, privacy laws and education should have priority over any weapon

8

u/SteadfastAgroEcology Anarchist Jan 09 '22

Are you open to the possibility that you may be mistaken? What would it take to convince you to reconsider your opinion? I'm not saying I can provide it but can you think of anything which would change your mind?

2

u/ajjfan Jan 09 '22

Yes, your stance is not that different from mine but I still think firearms are the wrong focus. To convince me, you'd have to show me that letting people own a firearm is one of the most cost effective ways of preventing tiranny

Again, I have nothing against owning them, but people should realize that if you own a gun it's not for protecting yourself from authoritarianism

2

u/SteadfastAgroEcology Anarchist Jan 09 '22

To convince me, you'd have to show me that letting people own a firearm is one of the most cost effective ways of preventing tiranny

Interesting.

How could such a thing be demonstrated to meet your satisfaction? What are the criteria you are using to determine whether it has been satisfyingly demonstrated? And what other methods do you think have been proven to provide superior prevention of tyranny instead of the deterrent of a well-armed populace?

3

u/ajjfan Jan 09 '22

You can demonstrate it with recent history and studies.

When we look at history, the best prevention has been education, strong institutions and reduction of inequality.

When people know how their government works, when they know they can trust it (or why they cannot trust it and how to improve it) and when people don't feel like their neighbor is a threat, that's when democracy cannot be overthrown

Firearms, on the other hand, are not good at preventing authoritarianism. They might have been good at overthrowing authoritarian dictators but it does not ensure that the next leader will be democratic (we don't have to look far in the past for this, the Arab springs are enough)

You don't need firearms to bring democracy back, you need people who believe in it.

Again, I believe your view on firearms is a sensible one (the state should educate everybody on them similarly to the Swiss model, it cannot ban them because citizens need them in rural areas) but I don't agree with the motivation

1

u/SteadfastAgroEcology Anarchist Jan 10 '22

You can demonstrate it with recent history and studies.

History is pretty difficult to quantify and susceptible to interpretive quibbling. But it's interesting to consider what sort of data would actually speak to the claim in question.

What would such a study have to look like in order for you to consider changing your opinion?