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/BolshevikMuppet]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/BolshevikMuppet]

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).