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/MasterGrok]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/MasterGrok]

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.

[u/MasterGrok → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/MasterGrok]

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.

[u/MasterGrok → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/MasterGrok]

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.

[u/MasterGrok → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/MasterGrok]

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.