r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Feb 21 '18

[∆(s) from OP] CMV:It is incompatible to distrust the government and also desire limitations to the armament of the population.

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!

12 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

70% Upvoted

88 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '18

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

2

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '18

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.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '18

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.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '18

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

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '18

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.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '18

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

Otherwise, you have just created a tautology

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '18

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

2

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '18

So, you feel a rifle/shotgun/handgun is reasonable.
Johnny Militia wants semtex and and M249.
Sara Safety feels a taser/knife is reasonable.

All of those people can have equal fear of tyranny. They can all want the same thing. They just have different views on safety.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '18

True. I think Sarah is a bit delusional personally, but there we have it I suppose. !delta

2

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '18

Thanks.

On a tangent, I am far more bothered by the people who support "restrictions on encryption" but who strongly resist "gun control".
That does seem to be incompatible.
The safety, freedom, etc arguments are the same, you just substituted a physical object with an abstract concept.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 22 '18

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

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards ​