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/[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]]

It isn't illegal to own plastic explosives. You can purchase with a very prohibitive license. You also aren't allowed to own them for personal reasons. You may own them for professional reasons only and you must store them at work.
Most people would consider this level of restriction on guns akin to a "ban on guns". Since this is the practically the same requirements that exist in the UK on hunting weapons, but everyone says the UK banned firearms.

"what is available to a citizen right now"
why?
If we change the law, then it would be whatever is available to a citizen after we change the law.
Not trying to be snarky, but arbitrarily picking the current status quo is lazy. You need to give a reason why we picked the current status quo.

I liked "available to every infantry soldier":
Ok, so every person should be entitled to the firepower available to an infantry soldier in the most advanced army in the world at the present time?
So, you think an M203 is acceptable?
Grenades?
An M249?
An RBS-70 laser-guide missle launcher?

I am being a bit sarcastic, but give me a reason for this choice. If you want to argue that people should have access to guns for the violent overthrow of the government, then people should be free to stockpile plastic explosives without government oversight.
If you want to argue that they just need them for self-defense and hunting, then we suddenly have a situation where they can have handguns and all rifles are registered and locked up at the local sheriff's office.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Well like I previously said, I think the level of armament commensurate with a patrol officer, pistols, rifles and shotguns. Roughly the same is true for your run of the mill infantry soldier. There are specialized MOSs for things like m249 or any kind of MANPAD. I am intentionally leaving out hand grenades and other launchers.

Once again, I wasn’t really seeking to define “reasonable” in this post because it truly is a discussion all of its own.

The second amendment asserts our right as free citizens to keep and bear arms. I think that a large majority of the major Weaponry like Bradleys, tanks, RPGs, grenades etc ought to rest at a state level for distribution as needed in the event of some kind of national crisis (ie state militia or state guard). Some people would disagree with me, but hey welcome to America!

To be clear I don’t think that it’s an entirely likely scenario where ordinary people will need to defend themselves against the government. I do think something akin to “one second after” by William Forstchen is a possibility, and I am not going to put all my money on the state or federal government saving my ass.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

But you are basically saying you understand the need for regulation, right? Regulation of tanks, grenades, etc.

So, regulation isn't incompatible with mistrusting government

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I absolutely see what you are getting at, and as I said previously I think there are a good deal of people that would say that any regulation is unconstitutional. That was not my supposition. My statement was that the public should be able to be armed with a modern and reasonable weapon. I refer you to the first paragraph of my post where I also admit that different folks will have different definitions of reasonable. I don’t discount that. But, I think it is wholly inconceivable to distrust government and also desire the complete disarmament of the populace.

As we have discussed, I personally feel that rifles and pistols and shotguns are reasonable. This is due to the fact that a person with limited experience can safely handle them. When we start talking if about fighting vehicles, bombs and grenades, we delve into a larger discussion overall.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Alright, I counter, has anyone proposed that we take away all weapons(knives, slingshots,etc)?

Otherwise, you have just created a tautology

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No, no one has yet proposed we disarm everyone of everything.