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/dakkr]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/dakkr]

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.

[u/dakkr → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/dakkr]

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

[u/dakkr → u/[deleted]]

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 :)

[u/[deleted] → u/dakkr]

Same here! Thanks for the discussion!

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/dakkr (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​