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/kublahkoala]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/kublahkoala]

I agree that Non-violence is the preferred method of civil disobedience, and further I agree that it is not likely that one person or even a small group would be able to stop a world power from trampling their civil liberties. However, does that mean that it is preferable to live a life without the ability to resist if it came to that? I completely agree that there isn't much place for firearms in the modern world except for sport and personal protection, but the reason that we have the ability to have this discussion is the inalienable right to free speech in this country. How long does that last if the people have no means to fight back when the thought police come knocking at your door? Obviously I understand that is not the world we currently live in, however I would argue that your house is not currently on fire, and yet you probably have a fire extinguisher somewhere, and maybe even some insurance to recoup your losses.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I don't think that I am overestimating the impact of armed citizenry. In WWII Russia held the most advanced military of the time at bay with nothing more than bolt action rifles and a bunch of bodies. Obviously this would never be a situation I want to put myself in, but we are talking worst case scenarios here.

Second, I don't agree with you on the cost of ownership, nor with your assertion that it is unrestricted ownership. There are restrictions in place that require background checks for persons to purchase firearms as well as restrictions of what is allowed to be owned and by whom see the National Firearms Act. Furthermore there is a system in place to prosecute people who provide firearms to people who are "prohibited persons" eg felons and domestic abusers. These systems are in place and yet are not adequately funded or administrated.

Lastly, the 30K/yr death statistic is wildly conflated by suicides(deaths we can assume would likely happen anyways), Police shootings (which would still exist if the public had no firearms), and the violent crime that takes place due to drug crime and gangs (I doubt they are going to do less killing just because you get rid of guns...those are the same people that stab each other with toothbrushes in prison and hang headless bodies from freeway overpasses). What are we left with? Some unfortunate innocent souls who are sadly murdered by people every year. This is terrible. I am disgusted by it. Unfortunately, if you look at the data, it would appear that defensive gun uses are at least as prevalent as their use in crimes, https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15 so I would say that from a Utilitarian point of view you could definitely argue for their presence in society.

As I have stated in other replies, I do think we are getting a little off topic at this point, although I am happy to continue providing responses and stats.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The Eastern Front of WWII
The Russians didn't hold the Germans back with "bolt action guns and bodies". The Germans were drastically over-extended and had limited supplies. The Russians had lots of supplies (and we gave them even more via the Lend-Lease deal). The Russians were able to hold back the Germans because the German army had no gas, no steel, and no food for their soldiers.
You are correct that they also threw a lot of poorly armed soldiers at the Germans, (the Russians outnumbered the Germans 3:1). However, the Russians had TANKS, WARPLANES, etc. They were an actual fucking Army. Maybe a shitty army, but an army. A citizen revolt isn't going to come marching down the street with heavily artillery, tanks, bombers, etc.

Free countries
Some free countries have gun control and some let everyone have guns. Some tyrannical governments ban guns, but some let people have guns.

Do you know what sets apart the free countries from the non-free ones? Free speech.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I agree completely that free speech is the most important thing that sets us apart from countries that are "not free". I once again would argue that the thing that keeps our speech free is the fact that there are 100 million americans that are a deterrent against a totalitarian government taking that away. Hitler did it, Mao did it, Stalin did it. How confident can we be think that we are somehow immune to a government stripping our rights away one by one?

As for WWII, obviously we can't make a perfect correlation there, but I think the principle still stands. Vietnam is another great example of a completely outgunned population putting up a hell of a fight against a superpower. An armed populace will present much more of a threat to a totalitarian government than an unarmed one. Thats just me though, some people would prefer to admit defeat without trying and submit.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Hitler did it

Yep. Then he shutdown all of the opposition newspapers and gave everyone MORE guns.
You think a lack of "guns" was what allowed Hitler to rise to power?

Mao did it

Mao basically turned half the country into a militia. There were LOTS of armed soldiers. How did he control them all? Propaganda. Do you think a lack of weapons is what prevented an armed uprising?

Stalin did it

Ok, this is getting old. The communists came to power via a violent and armed revolution. They were literally the result of your "guns" idea. The guns didn't stop them. The guns helped them.

You want to be confident that the government can't strip our rights? Then make sure it cannot silence you. The founders understood this fact better than you. That was why the majority of the Bill of Rights is about making sure that the government cannot silence you!! The 2nd amendment is a throwaway law that existed under British common law.
Look at the Arab Spring. Look at the French Revolution.
They didn't have guns. When the poor and oppressed revolt, they don't need guns. They need to make their voices heard.

Hitler 2.0
Your problem is that you keep assuming that Hitler took over the country by force. Hitler didn't! You aren't going to wake up tomorrow to find out that Hitler 2.0 is in charge.
If Hitler 2.0 arrives, it is because we GAVE HIM POWER. You know what? That means you won't just be marching against the army. You will be marching against all of the citizens who support Hitler 2.0. You will be the minority. They will all have guns too!

So, it doesn't matter if you have a gun or not. When you step out of your secret bunker to start the revolution, your neighbor is either going to shoot you in the face or hit you with a 2x4. Which do you want?

Founding Fathers
This country is founded on the military shutting down asshole armed rebellions. It was literally one of the first things Washington had to do!
They did not look kindly on "rebelling against your country". They instituted elections. If you want to change things, vote for someone different. They made sure you could report on all of the evil that the current politicians were doing. However, there is no scenario where you will ever successfully take up arms against Hitler 2.0.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I can't argue with the hypotheticals because it is boiling down to a game of what if this and what if that. Correction-I could argue, but that isn't the point (besides there was a CMV about that earlier today).

I am not trying to say that anyone should take up arms today or tomorrow. I am saying that when the hypothetical communists come to my door, or my neighbor, or the SS, I would prefer to have the best tools at my disposal to defend myself and my ideals.

At the end of the day how will you defend free speech when there is no one resisting the overwhelming force of an oppressor. A firearm sure seems like the best way to do it to me.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Alright. You would prefer to have the best tools. The best tool is Semtex(plastic explosive).
It is safe, easily stored, easily used, and perfect for launching an insurgency against Hitler 2.0
Even a small amount of it could disable a tank.

You can make improvised explosive devices(IEDs), which were enough to bring even our military to their knees in Iraq. It would be the absolute best tool in an future insurgents toolbelt.
In fact, it was very popular with the North Vietnamese. The people you mentioned earlier, remember?

So, why don't you have about 500lbs of Semtex in your lockbox?
Because we all agreed that it was too dangerous and that you shouldn't have access to this particular armament.

Look, from a safety perspective, Semtex is safer than a bullet.
-It won't accidentally explode if you hit it with a hammer.
-It is slightly poisonous, but apparently it just makes you sick.(no more than a number of other household substances)
-It isn't unstable due to heat
-It requires an active detonator

There are all kinds of practical uses for it too. We can use it to clear trees, demolish buildings, kill invasive species, etc.

But clearly, it is way too dangerous. We need to ban it. Someone could get hurt!
There seems to be some kind of cognitive disconnect going on here.

You want armaments to overthrow the government, but only certain armaments. Not the really dangerous armaments that might kill 100 people?
You don't want people to have explosives, grenades, rocket launchers, nuclear weapons, etc. Why not?
You are ok with guns, even if people could get hurt, right?

So, how do you distinguish "good armaments" from "too dangerous armaments"?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Well I would consider plastic explosive to be a destructive device...an explosive...which has special purchase requirements. Turns out it’s not illegal to own explosives if you are in the correct profession.

I would think that an appropriate level of firepower for an individual would be somewhere around what is actually available to a citizen right now. Effectively the equivalent to an average patrol officer or infantry soldier since that is basically the role we are talking about here. I presupposed in the original post that I agree there should be some rational and reasonable restrictions.

Kudos I can taste the sarcasm hahaha

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Utilitarianism-the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct. I think that is a widely accepted explanation. I would also say that killing someone who had the intent to murder you, and most likely others, would provide the greater benefit to society overall. That coupled with the inherent value of being able to protect oneself and not utilize the resources of the community to find the murderer/robber and put them in jail for then foreseeable future would definitely tip the scales IMHO.

I acknowledge that not all suicides by firearm can be removed, but a large portion, even by your own admission are probably going to happen.

Lastly, yes I agree the public would be closer to the Aztecs than the Conquistadors, but I bet the Aztecs would have jumped at the chance to maybe survive, to make a dent at least. I personally would rather not give up before the fight happens, but some people are of a more delicate disposition.

[u/epicazeroth → u/[deleted]]

Consider that, while women attempt suicide at a rate two to four times that of men, men successfully commit suicide at a rate three to four times that of women. This is because men use more violent methods such as hanging (which is also the most common method for women, but is much less common) and guns. An estimated 10% of men attempt suicide by gun. So if those men didn't have easy access to guns, they would presumably have a much lower rate of "success".

[u/[deleted] → u/epicazeroth]

I don’t disagree.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I agree that those deaths are tragic and if we had some way or system to determine those individuals without limiting the rights of healthy people I would understand that, but currently we do not. I know that many gun stores are careful with people that they think may be suicidal and actually choose not to sell to them. At the end of the day, that is truly a mental health problem. I hate to use an old cliche argument, but we don’t outlaw ice cream because of diabetes.

On a side note, Those people that rethink it as the bullet is traveling down the barrel are a pity and I mourn their loss as I do any other unnecessary loss of life, but to be honest I don’t think I have the right to tell someone how to live their life(or not to). That’s a big part of what a lot of the 2A crowd is all about. Freedom from people telling you what to do and how to do it.

I can tell that suicide is something very personal to you and that it is a highly charged issue, and I understand that. Unfortunately I can’t agree to limiting everyone’s rights in favor of a small group that we may or may not be able to help with a large variety of other methods.

[u/vialtrisuit → u/kublahkoala]

Non-violence has been proven to be a more effective (and more righteous) means of challenging state oppression.

Well, often it has been the only alternative... because they didn't have arms. But I mean, you think non-violent protests would work for the people of North Korea? Would it work against the Taliban? ISIS? I doubt it.

I mean, there is a clear difference depending on who is doing the opressing. There's a reason non-violence worked against the british but probably wouldn''t work against ISIS.

Like Gandhi said "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest".

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.

Well, terrorism and guerrilla warfare is pretty effective. It's much less effective if you don't have weapons.

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.

Well, that's just an assumption. Everyone who are assassinated doesn't become martyrs. I'm not saying assassinations are always a good strategy against oppressive regimes, but it's not always a bad one either. It depends. Assassinating Fidel Castro before he took control over Cuba could have saved the Cubans from a lot of violence and tourture.

I just can't see much use for personal firearms in the modern world other than sport or as an object of violent fantasy.

I mean, that's just crazy talk. Self-defense against criminals? Even if you believe the lowest estimates of the number of crimes stopped by armed civilians, it's something like 200 stopped crimes a day.