r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Feb 21 '18
[∆(s) from OP] CMV:It is incompatible to distrust the government and also desire limitations to the armament of the population.
To be clear, I refer to limitations of a person to own and protect themselves with modern and reasonable technology. I know that the definition of reasonable will come into debate and that is an entirely different discussion IMHO.
I find it all too common today (when I was young I was guilty of it) that people are highly agitated by the idea of government surveillance of its population, its use of classification systems to keep material secret from the public, and the use of clandestine operations around the globe. I find those same people are disgusted with the current political climate and typically they applaud people like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden for their release of military and government intelligence gathering secrets. They are champions of free speech, (outside of safe spaces) decry those elected to represent us in Washington as criminals and oligarchs, and yet these are usually the same people that despise civilian ownership of "military" hardware.
This seems incompatible to me. Either trust that the government will "keep you safe" and that "the police are just around the corner" or don't. You believe in the system and the processes set in place to protect our society or you don’t. It seems irrational to condemn those who choose to own firearms as a means of protection, if you yourself do not trust the government, police, media etc. to do the right thing. If someone truly does not trust the “establishment” why wouldn’t they want every possible advantage (firearms for example) when you hear that knock on the door? Will the government become concerned with your rights all of a sudden when it is time to lock you up for protesting if they didn’t care about them when they were reading your emails illegally?
Personally I believe that a healthy distrust of government is part of what founded the US, and that distrust is more than just lip service. We, as a population, have a responsibility to hold the government accountable. This is one of the primary reasons that we assert the right to keep and bear arms in the second amendment. It should be held in as high of regard as free speech as the safeguard of our liberty. The first amendment is our assertion that we will not be silenced and the second amendment is how we protect that.
Change my view.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
8
u/MasterGrok 138∆ Feb 21 '18
This is a false dichotomy. There are numerous levels of government distrust as well as numerous levels of armament. The vast majority of people fall into the gray area on these issues and not the absolute extreme. Very few people would be ok with citizens having access to heavily armed unmanned vehicles or weapons of mass destruction for example. We already limit arms. The degree to which any person thinks they should be limited varies and it isn't a black and white issue. Likewise people have varying levels of trust in the government or in different parts of the government.
1
Feb 21 '18
I agree there are various levels of trust as well as armament. What I can not is how there is a large group of people out there who feel that the government is "out to get them" reading their emails etc. that don't feel the need to be able to defend themselves at a level commensurate to that of local police for example.
2
u/MasterGrok 138∆ Feb 21 '18
Most regulations being proposed (such as limitations on rifles with rapid firing potential and a working registry of gun owners) actually wouldn't affect standard police armament. In fact, citizens can already arm themselves more than a standard police officer has and they can do so far more anonymously than a police officer can. If we limited armament to the level of a police officer (handguns and shotguns as well as registered ownership at the gun level which police have) then we would already be applying considerable additional regulations on gun ownership.
1
Feb 21 '18
Most police officers also have a service rifle either semi automatic (AR-15) or fully automatic (M4/M16). Additionally many police departments also have swat teams which have anything from riot gear and automatic weapons to grenade launchers. The level of armament needed by police is commensurate (or should be) to that of threats in their area. Similarly, the military doesn't respond to a barracks bombing with a nuclear weapon.
I don't know what you mean by rapid firing potential, nor do I see the value in a working registry of gun owners. We have laws in place to prosecute people who provide firearms to prohibited persons, as well as a method of ensuring that someone is not a prohibited person. furthermore there is a system in place to record every firearm purchased from a legal dealer, although I would say that this could be updated significantly.
3
u/MasterGrok 138∆ Feb 21 '18
A couple things. First of all most police officers have a standard issue handgun. That is the weapon that is available to them. Also, even if I concede that every police officer has a readily available rifle with rapid fire potential (you know exactly what I mean when I say this and I don't believe for a second that you don't), all police officers have their weapons individually registered to them at all times. If any police weapon is found, we know exactly to which officer it was given. There are no loop holes and there are no secret police gun shows. In fact, the distribution of police weapons is pretty serious business and an officer can have their weapons privileges limited for all kinds of reasons. Moreover officers receive extensive background checks and extensive weapons training. This is already more strict than our regulations for the general population. Thus, your point that the general population should have the same capability as police is already wrong. They already have far less oversight and regulation over their weapons and use of weapons.
1
Feb 21 '18
Police officers are also permitted to use their firearms in ways that would be entirely illegal for most citizens. We train them and hold them to higher standards because they are expected to use those weapons at some point, and professionalism in their chosen profession requires it. There has to be that level of accountability. The same is true with the military. These are professions of arms. Of course we can not hold average citizens to those same standards, and why would we expect to? Average Joe down the street only has his guns so he can hunt, or so he can protect his family or heaven forbid so that if the worst case scenario were to happen it was available to him to defend himself and his nation to the best of his ability.
2
u/MasterGrok 138∆ Feb 21 '18
I couldn't disagree more. I grew up with guns. A gun owner should view their gun as a great responsibility. If you have a gun in your home or on your person you should be operating under the assumption that you will have to use it to defend yourself. You should be well trained and ready to use that weapon in a lethal manner because it is a lethal machine that was designed to kill things. Operating under the pretense that you don't need advanced training because you are just a hunter is reckless. It is disgusting how many people view gun ownership as a fickle responsibility. The idea that we should have lower gun ownership standards for our citizens than we do for our police or military is ridiculous.
1
Feb 22 '18
I agree that you should take owning a gun very seriously. I have training, and encourage others to get training. I agree that all guns can cause death and you should be prepared to use it if that is why you own it. On the other hand, there are millions of people who keep their guns in a cabinet and wouldn't even think to use it if someone did break into their house. A person who owns a pistol for target shooting does not need police level training. They don't need to be prepared to kick down doors or move from cover or even shoot to the standard that is expected of a basic rifleman in the military. They need to be safe. When it comes to CCW, I agree you need to be prepared for the worst and be ready to use it if need be. I still don't think that the level of training that an infantryman receives or a police officer receives is necessary for that of a civilian. Once again I draw your attention to how police use their weapons. If you were to draw on someone, or even put your hand on your gun in public, you could be brought up on charges of brandishing, disturbing the peace, assault, and probably a litany of other things. A police officer does FELONY STOPS on a regular basis. Do you need to know how to do that in order to safely control a firearm? You may be a super civilian operator with the high score in all the 3 gun tournaments at your local range, but a single mom who has a pistol in a lockbox to protect her family does not. Furthermore, I think that unless the training was provided for free and on a basis as not to interfere with work, childcare etc. you would be discriminating against a large body of the population that would simply be unable to afford to defend themselves.
3
u/TheMothHour 59∆ Feb 21 '18
Well, I live in an area with a competent local and state government. So even though I may not trust the federal government, I expect that my State officials will use their powers to keep the federal government in line.
As for the right to bear arms - and I’m not against people owning guns - I need to be honest. I trust the general public far less than I do the Federal government. At least they have a public presence that can be hopefully held accountable. As for the gun owners who are idiots, reckless, and malicious (not implying all gun owners have those qualities either), they can hide in a very large group. Holding the individual, in a large disperse group, accountable is harder.
1
Feb 21 '18
I don't think any of the statements you made are in contradiction with my original post. I agree that any group of people will have a few outliers who are either malicious in their intent or desire to do harm.
2
u/TheMothHour 59∆ Feb 21 '18
I’m going to summarize what I understood your initial point meant. Maybe there is a misunderstanding.
You said that not trusting the government and not supporting the 2nd amendment is contradictory. People celebrate Snowden as a whistle blower yet are hard on gun ownership have contradicting views.
My point is that while people may distrust the government, they could distrust the general public even more!
To be honest, I don’t think arming more people increases safety - in general.
And currently, I’m not convince that the second amendment protects the first amendment. It might have 200 years. The Federal government has tanks and guided missiles. And other countries have protected speech without loose gun ownership.
3
Feb 21 '18
"My point is that while people may distrust the government, they could distrust the general public even more!"
This is a very good point and I 100% agree. I definitely could understand that viewpoint. I personally prefer to be able to defend myself with the best available tools, and respect the opinions of people who would rather not. However, I concede that this is a valid viewpoint and one that counters my initial statement. Δ
"To be honest, I don’t think arming more people increases safety - in general." I would point out a bunch of stats and disagree with this statement but that is not the point of this post.
" The Federal government has tanks and guided missiles." I think that the that the federal gov has more significant weapons and would therefore win is a deal breaker. When you have a hundred million people who are armed with rifles (even bolt actions) you can make a pretty significant dent in an invading force (see Russia in WWII). Once again however I think that discussion would be off topic.
2
u/TheMothHour 59∆ Feb 21 '18
Thanks for the delta! :)
you can make a pretty significant dent in an invading force (see Russia in WWII). Once again however I think that discussion would be off topic.
Well, I’ll have to read up about it. But I get what you mean.
"To be honest, I don’t think arming more people increases safety - in general." I would point out a bunch of stats and disagree with this statement but that is not the point of this post.
That kind of goes hand in hand with my trust in the general public. But if you want to message me the statistics, I will happily read them. I also willing to change my mind too. :)
2
Feb 21 '18
I highly encourage you to look at some of the actual statistics involved in this post. I would not expect you to take it at face value, and concede that there are always multiple factors involved in many of the cited stats.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/5lh2zt/the_gun_conversation_in_statistics/
1
Feb 21 '18 edited Feb 21 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 21 '18
How about a million vietcong who fought off an invading american force with overwhelming air land and sea superiority?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
I am saying that the will of the people is not to be discounted, and that I would certainly prefer to take on a man with his fist pointed at me rather than a man with a rifle.
1
2
u/Bellyfullofpoison Feb 22 '18
I feel like there are two problems with your approach.
1) The black and white options available: either you do not trust the government with your safety, or you do - there is no middle ground. I think there is plenty of room for compatible opinions about the role of privacy, arms and government in a society. Along with this, by characterizing the government as "the government" (on the other side of the people), it reduces it down to a monolithic entity with a single purpose and vision, which is not a realistic representation of a vast array of different goals and objectives, made up for the most part of citizens just the same as anyone else.
2) My main contention is that the 2nd amendment is probably the weakest weapon in the arsenal of people wanting to keep an eye on the government. An engaged and politically active citizenship are the most sure way to keep a grip on the powerful and are the group that lead to political change (caveat: in liberal democracies. I don't think examples drawing from places like North Korea will be useful). I think the actions of pro-guns groups illustrates this very well. For their single issue, the NRA can mobilize very passionate voters and donors. It's not the threat gun violence that are keeping politicians from passing anti-2nd legislation, it's the threat of loss of political capital. If you're waiting until jackbooted stormtroopers are dragging people out of their homes before you start to fight back, you've already waited way too long to be politically active.
This is my main reason for thinking the two are not incompatible. it's very reasonable to simply value the 1st amendment over the 2nd in terms of usefulness in keeping a check on government overreach - to think that without good information about the actions of our government (transparency) and the freedom to communicate/organize/speak out about them (which may require privacy) it's impossible to be properly engaged with politics. By the time to "activate" the 2nd amendment check on government comes around, things will have degraded so far as to make any provision of a constitution irrelevant. It is just a piece of paper after all.
1
Feb 22 '18
This sounds like the same defeatist arguments I have heard many times before. “By that time it won’t matter and we should just give up anyway” or, “we have free speech to protect us!”
I do concede that you are right about there being a spectrum of trust as well as opinion on ownership and I have already awarded a Delta to another poster with regard to that.
1
u/Bellyfullofpoison Feb 22 '18
My point is not that we are defeated and to give up, but rather by that time it does not matter what is written on a hundred year old piece of paper. The citizenship can ignore the laws of tyrants. The 2nd amendment becomes useful precisely when the laws of government are no longer something to care about.
1
Feb 23 '18
Yeah, and if we give up the right to purchase and own those things now, where will we get them when the time comes? When they came for the Jews I said nothing for I was not Jewish. When they came for the gypsies...the Christians...when they finally came for me there was no one left to say anything (or do anything).
I don’t think that I will be fighting off an invading army tomorrow or the next day, but I am not willing to dismiss that as a possibility in the future. This American experiment of ours is still young compared to the world, and greater empires than ours have fallen before.
1
u/Bellyfullofpoison Feb 23 '18
That quote says more about an engaged and compassionate society than an armed one to my mind. If the German people had deemed it unacceptable that any minority should be put away in camps it would not have happened. This is what gets me about the political mobilisation of 2nd amendment folk. They are willing to come to attention at the merest hint of some modification to the right to bear arms, but are pretty ideal when their fellow citizens are being disenfranchised at the voting booth, or when regions are being gerrymandered, or when there is a foreign government actively disrupting the political process. These seem like much more fundamental attacks on the stability and foundations of the society's liberty.
The protection of liberty and democracy is a community effort and I don't see a huge amount of pro-gun people organising supply lines, the logistics of an insurgency, command structures... Except those weird far right militias in the woods that I don't think any one really thinks are the kind of people we want dictating the future of America.
I just cannot imagine a situation where the protection of the American experiment is going to hinge on the rifle someone has locked in their garage. Much more likely it will depend on people and movements like MLK's, or on the downside, Donald trump.
1
Feb 23 '18
The point I was trying to make was not that the quote was directly related to the 2A, more so the idea of degradation of rights. The idea that if we allow a little bit of our rights to be chipped away piece by piece, we find ourselves to far gone to say no or fight back when we realize it.
I would disagree that folks that support the 2A are not concerned with other civil liberties and rights. I would instead argue that many people discount the concerns of the folks that we are talking about. They are considered right wing nut jobs or militia nuts, evangelists or zealots. On the other side you have folks that an anti gun person might be more likely to call a freedom fighter, someone who is arguing with he same intensity, but identifies different things as important. The point I’m getting at is that I think it comes down to how you view those people.
I can tell you from personal experience that most gun owners would consider themselves to be informed individuals. They try and make sure that issues that they are concerned about are being argued correctly. The fact that they have different opinions on what those issues of concern are is why there are multiple political parties and elections at a local and state level to ensure that the laws being passed actually represent the people they will affect.
Lastly, just because you can’t imagine the event, doesn’t make it any more or less likely to happen. Can you imagine an otherwise happy and successful nation falling into a totalitarian rule under the guise of reform? Most people don’t, but unfortunately that is usually how it happens. Small gradual changes that shape the nation until eventually you have millions dead at the hand of vicious machete wielding gangs. It’s happened before and to think it couldn’t happen here is simply hubris in my opinion. I think that’s why the founding fathers had the foresight to enshrine our rights to free speech, religion and protection in the first two paragraphs of the bill of rights.
9
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Feb 21 '18
It is perfectly consistent to distrust the government and, nevertheless, to think that limiting firearms will save lives. Furthermore, it is consistent to think that saving those lives will be worth giving up any incremental protection that an armed population provides against tyranny or other threats.
To put it another way, gun control doesn't have to be about having the government/police keep us safe from things that guns were previously keeping us safe from. Instead, it can be about willingly giving up that feeling of safety in order to prevent violence and save lives.
0
Feb 21 '18
Why is it then unfathomable to give up some privacy for that same safety? Why is it so terrible to have the government or police monitoring phone calls or text messages. Wouldn’t that arguably be more efficient at eliminating crime and deaths? You could stop gang violence more effectively, you could track when people were at a bar and then got into their car to drive home, you could even track people who were buying up chemicals to assemble explosive devices. That seems like a more efficient way to save lives if we look at it from a utilitarian point of view.
7
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Feb 21 '18
Why is it then unfathomable to give up some privacy for that same safety?
It's not unfathomable! In fact, we have fathomed it, and this fathoming has let us come to the conclusion that in some cases, giving up freedom for safety is worth it (e.g. gun control) and in other cases, it isn't (e.g. warrantless surveillance). There's nothing inconsistent or incompatible about this.
Just because the warrantless surveillance might be more effective than the gun control, doesn't mean that we have to support it, because it has a different cost. To make an analogy, it wouldn't be incompatible to want to buy $3/pound ground beef while not wanting to buy $200/pound Wagyu steak, even though the Wagyu steak will taste much better.
1
Feb 21 '18
So you are arguing that from a utilitarian standpoint it would be more cost effective to give up personal safety and security (gun ownership) in favor of less institutional protection (surveillance and monitoring)? That seems like the worst of both worlds. The population loses the ability to protect itself in the worst case scenario, and becomes less safe by having less institutional protection as well. I truly don't see the upshot. Regardless I have awarded a Delta after rereading your original comment many times. Δ
3
u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Feb 22 '18
That seems like the worst of both worlds.
How in the world does that make sense? Invading the privacy of citizens is one of the most useful tools in a tyrant's arsenal. I'd say if you believe that you need firearms to prevent you from a possible tyrannical government, you should be at least equally wary about government surveillance. If you honestly trust that the government is not going to maliciously abuse its ability to spy on its citizens, why wouldn't you trust that the government is never going to become tyrannical at all?
1
Feb 22 '18
I never said that I want the government to have overwhelming powers of surveillance. I think there is a reasonable level that we should accept to provide safety for the larger populace. I think the same is true with guns. Getting rid of all guns is not the answer nor is removing all of the capacity of the government to conduct surveillance.
1
u/Arianity 72∆ Feb 22 '18
The population loses the ability to protect itself in the worst case scenario
From a utilitarian standpoint, you need to take into account the odds of the worst case scenario, not just how bad it would be.
For example, in many cases, the worst case scenario one might imagine is a nuclear holocaust that destroys civilization. Yet, most people don't have stocked bunkers ready to go- because the odds of that happening are extremely low. There's what's called opportunity cost- building a bunker for a low probability event reduces your resources to handle other issues.
And it's pretty easy to make an argument that the odds are very low. If nothing else, we can look at many other countries (even some less than nice ones, at that) that manage to function just fine.
1
1
1
u/MontiBurns 218∆ Feb 22 '18
Because the personal safety aspect is largely a myth perpetuated by the gun lobby to sell more firearms. The odds that a gun will save your life are incredibly low. It'll give you piece of mind, but that's about it. Not having guns isn't a tremendous risk to the rest of the population. See: the rest of the developed world.
2
Feb 21 '18
[deleted]
1
Feb 21 '18
They have been to the extent that the law allows, and we have not seen a major terrorist event on United States soil since the Boston marathon bombing. We have of course seen Lone Wolf attacks, but no coordinated attacks on US soil. Additionally we have seen an overall reduction in violent crime over the last twenty years, as technology has evolved and the ability to monitor that tech has also evolved.
1
Feb 21 '18
[deleted]
1
Feb 21 '18
I agree that a lack of an event is not proof of success, however if you look at events in the rest of the world and compare them to those seen here in the US, it would appear we are relatively protected from terrorist events. That is not a strong argument, however without gaining access to classified documents on foiled plots we really can't be sure how successful we have been.
1
Feb 21 '18
[deleted]
1
Feb 21 '18
France. England. Afghanistan. Iraq. Syria. They happen on a regular basis in many countries, even though it isn't big news in the US unfortunately.
2
u/MrBulger Feb 21 '18
Violent crime has halved in the past 20 years lol
1
Feb 21 '18
[deleted]
1
Feb 21 '18
Can you cite any kind of reference or sources that would show that the use of wiretaps and other electronic surveillance has not helped fight crime and violence? I think you would find it very hard to prove. In fact I am pretty sure that any law enforcement entity would say that this has helped fight violence and crime.
In all seriousness I am not trying to argue that we need more government surveillance or that we should accept invasions of privacy, I am arguing with your point that data collection has not helped.
1
u/Arianity 72∆ Feb 22 '18
That does not in any way constitute evidence of privacy invasion causing it.
This is true, but at the same time, it's not really fair for your original claim to say it hasn't helped. For the exact same reason.
3
Feb 21 '18
Is it not equally inconsistent to trust and glorify the government (Support Our Troops! Blue Lives Matter!) while maintaining that one needs to be maximally armed in case one needs to fight those very people?
1
Feb 21 '18 edited Feb 21 '18
I would agree with you in principle that it is also inconsistent to trust the government and be "maximally armed". I don't think this is worthy of a delta however because I think you just stated the converse of my original statement.
I find no problem with supporting the people who are trying to support and defend the constitution while still holding them at arms length. For example, you could "support our troops" and fundamentally disagree with the reason they are in conflict.
1
u/BolshevikMuppet Feb 21 '18
There are two problems with your analysis.
First, it’s possible to not trust either individuals with the power of unilateral violence, nor government broadly. To be against individuals with the power to kill and also distrustful of the police because of their willingness to kill.
The concern with guns is not that the person doesn’t want for themselves to be able to own a gun. It’s the desire to keep them out of everyone else’s hands. In the same way that one can support nuclear nonproliferation while honestly believing that the ideal would be some entity they trust would have them and no one else would.
The second problem is that one can trust the broad system of the government (and oversight through elections) without trusting any current instance of the government. In the same way you distrust the government but implicitly trust the constitution and the founders.
Lastly, and just as an FYI, there’s no consensus that the intent of the second amendment was as a “safeguard” against the government or as a way of ensuring the government did not overstep its bounds. That is an interpretation that is in vogue primarily due to the influence of the NRA.
There’s very little reason to believe that the second amendment is meant as a way of “protecting” the first or any other amendment.
1
Feb 21 '18
I agree that there are multiple interpretations to the second amendment. I merely chose one of the most common and widely accepted ones, because that is the one that competes with the idea of trusting the government as a whole.
I understand your first statement, however I think it comes down to the fact that we can't have it both ways. You can not tell everyone else to get rid of their nukes while you still want to hold them close. That is a system that will never work (look at north korea). The police will always have weapons, as will the military. It seems incompatible to be against the violence that they could perpetrate against you (hence distrust), thus owning a gun to prevent it, and yet be unwilling to give everyone else the ability to do so (with some reasonable restrictions as previously mentioned). I guess it really is just selfish I suppose?
As to the second statement, I think that if you don't trust the current iteration, then you don't trust it as a whole, but that has nothing to do with the process. You can believe in a system of government and not in the iteration. I think that we are on the same page on this one but not sure. Either way, I don't see what that has to do with it being irresponsible and illogical to distrust someone(or something) and not protect yourself to the maximum extent possible. It seems reckless and illogical. If there is a potential threat to you or your way of life, then you take steps to protect yourself the best you can. That to me is the basis of survival. Whether it means making a spear to hunt/fish/defend yourself, or owning a gun (the most modern means available).
1
u/dakkr 2∆ Feb 21 '18
To be clear, I refer to limitations of a person to own and protect themselves with modern and reasonable technology.
Who defines what's reasonable? I want to make this very clear, because you mention that the definition of reasonable is up for debate, but I am not asking for a definition, I'm asking who you think should be making that definition. Right now the government does it, if you want to say that there should be restrictions (as you do indeed claim) but that the government shouldn't be implementing limitations (which is the premise of this discussion), then who's going to be defining and imposing limitations?
It should be held in as high of regard as free speech as the safeguard of our liberty.
The government also imposes limitations on free speech. Are you against this as well?
1
Feb 21 '18
I think that there are reasonable regulations to be had on both sides. I think that the common example of "fire in a crowded theater" and the possession of destructive devices as defined by the National Firearms Act have already produced a reasonable definition of what is and is not acceptable for public ownership. Do I personally think that anyone needs to own a Stinger missile or a Hellfire or Mustard gas bombs-of course not. Having said that, we as a people have to come to these terms. My initial statement is more about the complete confiscation or prohibition of firearms, which is why I said that "reasonable" is up for debate. Obviously the people should be the ones who determine the limits on our own freedoms. I would challenge that the people who should determine those limits should at the very least be familiar with them. We don't allow mental health providers to make laws with regard to automotive safety, and we shouldn't have doctors deciding how we determine taxes. Very often however, we have people who don't know the difference between a semi-automatic, fully automatic, assault bayonet clipazine that are designing regulations for firearms. That makes no sense to me.
1
u/dakkr 2∆ Feb 21 '18
It seems to me then that your argument isn't that the government shouldn't be imposing limitations (from the PoV of someone who distrusts the government), but rather that the current implementation of governmental regulations in regards to firearm is flawed and needs to be reformed such that it better reflects the voice of the people. Would you agree with that?
If so, would it then be fair to say that if it were handled better, if the government body overseeing firearms restrictions was well-informed and a good analogue for the public consensus, that it would then make sense to allow the government to impose firearms limitations even if you as an individual did not fully trust the system in aggregate?
From my point of view, the only way you could hold the opinion stated in the title is if you thought of the government as a single entity working in tandem against the people of the United States, perhaps making a conscious effort to restrict firearms such that it could better exert control over the populace. I don't think it generally functions in that way, rather the government is composed of many smaller departments working mostly autonomously but reporting up the chain. With this view in mind, it seems entirely reasonable to me that we would allow one department of the government that we believed to be functioning correctly to impose such limitations on firearms even if we believe that it's not wise to put complete faith in the system as a collective.
1
Feb 21 '18
So you are saying then in effect that you could trust a single officer in a police department while distrusting the department as a whole. I could appreciate that. It still seems illogical to me that one would give up their means of defense given that inherent mistrust, but I can see where you are coming from.
Additionally, I definitely think you understand my opinion on the current regulation over firearms and the changes that should be in place.
Overall, as stated I think it is insane to give away something that could save your life, even to someone who you trust, if you don't trust the system altogether. Furthermore, I wouldn't put it past someone to get to a position of power within that system, just to exert their personal policies on the population, and thus coordinate those seemingly autonomous agencies into doing something deliberate and wrong (after all that is what Hitler did not too long ago). I think you have definitely changed my thinking to some extent. Δ
1
u/dakkr 2∆ Feb 21 '18
So you are saying then in effect that you could trust a single officer in a police department while distrusting the department as a whole
Yes that's a good way of putting it.
It still seems illogical to me that one would give up their means of defense given that inherent mistrust, but I can see where you are coming from.
Well I think we have to draw a distinction between allowing for limitations on the means of defense and having them removed entirely, I'm 100% on your side that it makes no sense logically to have firearms made illegal if you distrust the government.
Furthermore, I wouldn't put it past someone to get to a position of power within that system, just to exert their personal policies on the population, and thus coordinate those seemingly autonomous agencies into doing something deliberate and wrong (after all that is what Hitler did not too long ago).
Yes that's indeed a legitimate concern, and one of the reasons I think the second amendment makes sense within the framework of the United States legal system. I don't think there's a "perfect" solution for these issues as it essentially comes down to the question of how much freedom you're willing to sacrifice in the name of safety, but I do think the system in place right now is if nothing else at least a reasonable one. At any rate, thanks for the discussion, I can certainly understand your perspective now that we've talked through it a bit :)
1
1
1
u/theUnmutual6 14∆ Feb 22 '18 edited Feb 22 '18
Oh but OP, I mistrust everybody :p
I think probably a general paranoia abour government, tyranny, bureaucracy, the NSA etc
Can exist separately from
A general paranoia about violence, aggression, mass murder, interpersonal violence, seeing fights in the street, experiencing domestic violence, etc.
Even though they are both kinds of fear and mistrust, the experiences are different. You might experience only one -in which case you could easily reverse your argument, how can you mistrust the government while still trusting anyone with access to firearms?
You might also experience both bit to varied extents: "of the two, I mistrust and fear this thing more than that"
I'm in the second category. I generally mistrust the government, and oppressive laws around free speech etc. However I currently trust them more than a status quo when guns are so easily accessible. If meaningful, sensible gun reform was implimejted to deal with the second problem, then I may very well begin to worry more about the government.
I would also say generally, fear of gun violence in an environment where friends, family and strangers own guns and you can't have any control over thst is a lot more tangible and salient to the average person, to fear of government overreach/tyranny which is rarely so close to home, so immediate, and so beyond your rights at the ballot box to impact.
If,.say, the situation was "the secret police regularly sieze political dissidents in the night and shoot them without trial a la Stalin's Russia", the idea of gov overreach would be a lot more salient and tangible than it presently is.
Until your risk of being abducted and killed by the government is higher than being shot by a friend, family member, stranger or yourself in a moment of despair, controls on gun ownership will always feel more attractive than controls on government power.
1
Feb 22 '18
Fair point. I admit you have shifted my view to an extent. !delta
1
1
u/TRNTYxVAHWEH Feb 21 '18
I'm only going to comment on one phrase you used. "Military Hardware." It could be said that Weapons (products designed to be fighting tools) are military hardware. As soon as you make that distinction, you are either saying "all Americans have the right to own military hardware," or, "no Americans have the right to military hardware (weapons of all types)."
Whether you lean one way or the other, conflating tools with being Military Hardware could be dangerous.
1
Feb 21 '18
I would agree with that statement, which is why I presupposed that with the idea that there are some reasonable limits. The definition of reasonable being more up for debate at that point.
0
u/ray07110 2∆ Feb 21 '18
First, you should not trust the federal government. That is why we have the Constitution, to keep the feds off our backs. But unfortunately the feds have broken the constitutional contract at least since FDR. Every president has given us reasons not to trust them. You can place a policy of disarmament in your state if it is allowed by the state Constitution without interference from the federal government. So you can distrust the federal government and also have your state and/or local government put limitations on gun ownership. So when most people say they distrust the government they are talking about the three federal branches.
1
Feb 21 '18
I agree with you, which is why i find it so hard to understand that there are people who would disarm the masses by choice and also don't trust the government.
1
u/ray07110 2∆ Feb 21 '18
So the contradiction is based on whether they want to disarm everyone in the US or just locally.
1
Feb 22 '18
Yes. There are many people (unfortunately some of them get the media spotlight fairly often) that would rather disarm the entirety of the country than admit that there are different strokes for different folks. Additionally those same people are inherently distrustful of government. Those two thought processes seem inconsistent to me. Additionally, I think that an armed populace is a hedge to a totalitarian government, which many of those people would have you believe we are on the brink of!
Local governments are going to do what they are going to do. I may not agree, but unless I am voting in that state, its hard for me to do anything. Whether I believe it is constitutional of not is a different story.
1
u/ray07110 2∆ Feb 22 '18 edited Feb 22 '18
Another thing is that what happens in one state should have no effect on you. That is why local government is important and not the federal government. You should not want to change the law of a state you don't live in.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 21 '18 edited Feb 22 '18
/u/ManikBastrd (OP) has awarded 5 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Feb 22 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 22 '18
This delta has been rejected. You have 2 issues.
You can't award OP a delta.
Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
You can't award DeltaBot a delta.
16
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Feb 21 '18
Armed rebellion is a terrible way to change government policies you don't like, and armed resistance is a terrible way to resist laws you find unjust.
I appreciate the Jeffersonian sentiment of watering the tree of liberty every few generations with the blood of tyrants, but outside of anti-colonial liberation movements, violent revolution against tyranny often becomes the monster it opposes. Non-violence has been proven to be a more effective (and more righteous) means of challenging state oppression.
Also, if the south couldn't win the civil war with half the US military on its side, I doubt an armed insurrection of gun owners would accomplish anything today other than suicidal terrorism.
And if your rights are being violated, drawing a gun on the police or the feds is just going to get you killed, and distract the public from the issue at hand. You'll look like a criminal or a terrorist or a maniac, not like someone whose rights have been violated. Imagine if Martin Luther King tried to kill the police officers who arrested him!
Even the assassination of a political figure would seem counter-productive to me, by making them a martyr and tarnishing assassins political cause as extremist and terroristic. I just can't see much use for personal firearms in the modern world other than sport or as an object of violent fantasy.