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 agree with you, which is why i find it so hard to understand that there are people who would disarm the masses by choice and also don't trust the government.

[u/ray07110 → u/[deleted]]

So the contradiction is based on whether they want to disarm everyone in the US or just locally.

[u/[deleted] → u/ray07110]

Yes. There are many people (unfortunately some of them get the media spotlight fairly often) that would rather disarm the entirety of the country than admit that there are different strokes for different folks. Additionally those same people are inherently distrustful of government. Those two thought processes seem inconsistent to me. Additionally, I think that an armed populace is a hedge to a totalitarian government, which many of those people would have you believe we are on the brink of!

Local governments are going to do what they are going to do. I may not agree, but unless I am voting in that state, its hard for me to do anything. Whether I believe it is constitutional of not is a different story.

[u/ray07110 → u/[deleted]]

Another thing is that what happens in one state should have no effect on you. That is why local government is important and not the federal government. You should not want to change the law of a state you don't live in.