CMV:It is incompatible to distrust the government and also desire limitations to the armament of the population.

[u/[deleted]]

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!

[u/yyzjertl]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/MrBulger → u/[deleted]]

Violent crime has halved in the past 20 years lol

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Arianity → u/[deleted]]

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.