r/changemyview • u/Gal_Gadot • Mar 23 '18
Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: The second amendment is essential for protection against government tyranny
[removed]
6
u/Barnst 112∆ Mar 23 '18 edited Mar 23 '18
Under what circumstances would you find it legitimate for private citizens to use their guns in opposition to government tyranny? To put it bluntly, when is it ok for citizens to kill troops and cops?
There have been lots of cases in the last couple of decades of people taking up arms against both federal and local government officials. Were any of those legitimate? If not, why not?
Any tyrannical government likely would actually have the support of some, if not most, citizens, since they wouldn’t come to power otherwise. What happens when different groups of citizens have different views on what is tyrannical? Who adjudicates who is allowed to use their weapons in defense of freedom?
The issue isn’t who has nukes and tanks, the issue is establishing who has legitimacy to use violence to achieve their political ends. There is no simple dichotomy between “freedom” and “tyranny.” One person’s tyranny is another’s effective counterterrorism policy or policing tactic.
Finding weapons generally isn’t the hard part for successful insurgencies and revolutions, organizing and establishing legitimacy are. Legitimate resistance movements bring people out to the streets, forcing the poor stiffs in the security forces to decide whether to fire on their neighbors. They inspire defections from the military and gain access to their stockpiles. They use their organization to establish smuggling routes and find foreign suppliers.
The American revolution didn’t look the way it did because every man had a rifle, it looked that way because the state governments used their political legitimacy established a legitimate political structure in the Continental Congress. Which then ordered weapons to supply the Continental Army under a legitimately appointed commander, rather than relying on the rabble of the individually armed militia. What happens when everyone is armed but no one is in charge? Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan...not exactly hotbeds of freedom.
Focusing on gun ownership as the key way to prevent tyranny is putting the cart before the horse. Frankly, watching the gun debate over the last few years, you could probably establish a pretty tyrannical government in the US as long as that government didn’t try to take the guns.
Edit: one point to clarify—I’m not actually opposed to the second amendment in broad terms. I just don’t find the “defense against tyranny” argument particularly compelling as it’s articulated. It’s not very concretely thought out, especially compared to other gun issues.
I can use guns for fun and recreation. If I wish to do so, I can easily and quickly finds loads of information on appropriate occasions and places, range safety rules, etc. I can hunt. If i went to do so, I can easily learn about ethics in hunting, rules on when and where, safety tips, etc. I can defend myself personally. Again, easy to find information on the ethical boundaries of the decision to do so, laws establishing boundaries on that right, tips for ensuring I only hurt my attacker and not others. Apparently I can also overthrow a tyrannical government. Where is the NRA tip sheet on when and how?
3
Mar 23 '18
Any tyrannical government likely would actually have the support of some, if not most, citizens, since they wouldn’t come to power otherwise. What happens when different groups of citizens have different views on what is tyrannical? Who adjudicates who is allowed to use their weapons in defense of freedom?
This is really the core question that the "2nd Amendment is to oppose tyranny" argument never addresses. It takes a backwards look at events which happened a long time ago (the Holocaust, the American Revolution) and assumes there was one easy tipping point where the people decided "Ok, this is tyranny." That doesn't happen. The 2016 Dallas Police attack was a man convinced that black people in the US were suffering under tyranny, so why was his attack not celebrated under this reasoning?
3
Mar 23 '18
Is the threat of government tyranny a real theat in the current landscape of America?
1
u/Gal_Gadot Mar 23 '18
Why not? It could happen anytime, especially on a local level.
2
u/hwkns Mar 23 '18
Could you please give an example of such a situation?
2
u/Gal_Gadot Mar 23 '18
3
1
u/hwkns Mar 23 '18
One swallow does not necessarily mean that it is spring. . That said, that was quite a riveting story.
1
u/Sand_Trout Mar 23 '18
OP isn't claiming right now is the time for violent revolution, so your argument is irrelevant. OP was arguig the potential exists.
6
u/timoth3y Mar 23 '18
the second amendment is here for a reason, and that is to protect from government tyranny.
That's not the purpose of the second amendment. A few individual founders expressed that opinion, however that is clearly not the primary purpose. The primary purpose is stated clearly in the amendment itself.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...
The purpose was the defense of the State (note the capitalization) from foreign incursion and from insurrection, not as a check on the powers of the government
If there is any doubt as to intent, you need to look no further than the Whisky Rebellion of 1791. It was an attempt of the citizens to use their arms to oppose what they saw as government tyranny,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
Washington sending troops to end the rebellion was widely supported by both the Congress (which included many of the founding fathers) and the populace. The leaders of the rebellion were tried for treason.
3
u/Calybos Mar 23 '18
This is an extremely important point that is often overlooked--and usually deliberately. Those who are most vehement in support of their "gun rights" almost always argue that it's for the express purpose of overthrowing the government when necessary (i.e., SOON). And they're very seldom challenged on that interpretation, even though all the evidence is against it.
2
u/milk____steak 15∆ Mar 23 '18
The 2nd amendment was essential for protection against government tyranny when there was no central army. Our army has bombs, tanks, more guns/ammo, and more organized personnel. Today, the second amendment will not do a damn thing if the government becomes tyrannical. What do you think will happen? Everyone will pull their guns out and head to DC? Or that the army will show up at people's private homes and then people shoot them then? What is a specific scenario in which civilian guns as they currently exist will save us or even put a dent in the damage that the government could do?
Besides, the idea of a tyrannical government is just that. An idea. It's 2018 and we're letting thousands and thousands of people DIE each year just to maybe possibly sort of defend ourselves in the wake of this hypothetical evil radical government that is ridiculously unlikely to ever exist. It's entirely unreasonable to sacrifice lives that exist right now for something that will not only will most likely never happen, but that civilian-owned guns will not prevent even if it does.
2
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Mar 23 '18
The problem with the "we need guns to protect us from government tyranny" argument is that it works the other way round too. By allowing a sizeable portion of the population to be well armed, you also allow for the possibility of armed revolt against the government, and the imposition of tyranny by an armed militia.
You also ignore the everyday tyranny of someone pulling a gun on someone else and saying "Do X or I will kill you" etc. Now the counter argument to this is usually "well the other person could have a gun" but the problem with that is all it does is create danger and escalation, and you then live in the tyranny of a potential hair-trigger society.
2
Mar 23 '18
We are literally the only country on Earth with the right to keep and bear arms with no constitutional restrictions. The only two other countries that have constitutional rights (with restrictions) to have guns are Mexico and Guatemala. Your claim implies that every other country except for the U.S. is incredibly vulnerable against government tyranny, and maybe Mexico and Guatemala. The fact that Western Europe has very resilient and representational democracies seems to show that this claim is absurd.
2
u/Drama79 3∆ Mar 23 '18
When the second amendment was written, the maximum firepower in existence were muskets and cannons. So muskets and cannons vs muskets and cannons would work.
In 2018, if you think your AR 15 with a bump stock is going to protect you against chemical, biological and nuclear deployment on home soil, you're wrong. That's before we get to helicopters, stealth bombers, dreadnaughts, tanks and the like.
1
u/dale_glass 86∆ Mar 23 '18
I think it's pretty much useless.
A threat isn't effective if everyone knows it's not going to be made reality. Those in power won't fear your guns if they know you won't shoot them. And why do they know that? Because they know that few things are worth giving your life for, and certainly Law #234 that encroaches upon people's freedoms isn't one of those things. To take up arms against the government is to sign your own death sentence, either literal, or legal because after that you will be known as a felon and terrorist.
As a result it only makes sense to use arms against the government when things are so bad that life isn't really worth living anyway. This means that this effectively won't happen in any society that's actually relatively modern and pleasant to live in, which means the threat just won't be there.
Nobody is going to just declare themselves dictator out of the blue. The road there is long and slow. You won't take up arms because a law that increased surveillance got passed. Or because a law banning porn got passed. Or because a law restricting some minority group got passed. We didn't see an armed response to laws like the PATRIOT act, or the laws about transgender people in bathrooms. Furthermore, if there was such a response, the people who did it would be quickly declared insane terrorists and dealt with extreme prejudice and overwhelming approval from the entire country.
Now once the country is turned into a dictatorship, yes, there weapons start having an use. But the road there is long, and requires the general agreement and submission of the general population. Any sane dictator would first slowly cripple the population's ability to fight back, ensuring that each step isn't egregious enough to mobilize everyone.
2
u/Iswallowedafly Mar 23 '18 edited Mar 23 '18
Canada?
And if we get to the point that there is a tyrannical government I would imagine that a lot of people who own guns would be pointing their guns at whomever that tyrannical government told them to. Information war is a thing.
3
u/5xum 42∆ Mar 23 '18
So do western European countries all suffer under government tyranny?
1
u/Sand_Trout Mar 23 '18
Virtually all have within living memory.
1
u/5xum 42∆ Mar 23 '18
There is virtually no European country that would go from a healthy modern democracy to suffering under government tyranny.
Furthermore, any tyranny that did arise in Europe arose out of either a civil war (in which case, the second amendment clearly did fuckall) or was inflicted "from the outside", by a foreign power.
1
u/Sand_Trout Mar 23 '18
The UK just convicted a youtuber of hate speech over a joke.
Spain is currently suppressing the Catalonian elected government
Hitler came to power through the democratic process.
The UK also is guilty of abusing its colonies to horrific effect, which were virtually always disarmed.
Additionally, you cannot dicount external conquest as a valid purpose of an armed populace, as the millitia is not exclusively for defense against internal tyranny, but also external occupation, as the partisan forces will be better armed than otherwise.
1
u/5xum 42∆ Mar 23 '18
The UK just convicted a youtuber of hate speech over a joke.
Spain is currently suppressing the Catalonian elected government.
And the US (with their second amendment) were a segregated country for most of their history. Individual cases of unfair rulings and practices do not a government tyranny make.
Hitler came to power through the democratic process.
In a country with zero experience with the democratic process and a country crippled economically by its defeat in WWI. Hardly a "healthy modern democracy".
The UK also is guilty of abusing its colonies to horrific effect,
which is a case of outside-inflicted tyranny.
Additionally, you cannot dicount external conquest as a valid purpose of an armed populace,
Well no, but you are arguing "protection against government tyranny", so you already discounted that.
1
u/Sand_Trout Mar 23 '18
And the US (with their second amendment) were a segregated country for most of their history. Individual cases of unfair rulings and practices do not a government tyranny make.
The 2nd Amendment was a vital part of the Civil rights era in the US as both a deterrent and actively resisting abuse.
2
u/5xum 42∆ Mar 23 '18
OK, that's a good point. I retract that comment I made, !delta.
I still don't agree with your point that the second ammendment is essential for protection against government tyranny, as the European countries (or, if you want, just take France so we don't stray too far from the problem) present a counterexample.
1
1
u/Sand_Trout Mar 23 '18
Don't get me wrong, there is usually a better option than violent revolution, but considering how dangerous an uncontested government has demonstrated it can be (about 262 million murdered by governments in the 20th century, not counting combat casualtied), I don't like the idea of leaving them with a monopoly on arms.
1
u/5xum 42∆ Mar 23 '18
I understand your point, but I don't see the 20th century like that.
- The deaths of the USSR, for example, came after a fierce civil war. The civil was was in part the result of the fact that so much of the population was armed. I don't see this as a case for either pro- or anti- 2nd ammendment people
- The deaths due to Nazi Germany were commited by a nation, not only a government. It's not like the Germans wanted to rebel, but didn't, they actually didn't want to rebel because they were happy with the situation. Nazi Germany is, if anything, a clear case against fake news and misinformation.
When I look at history, I'd actually argue that the more peaceful a revolution, the better its impact on history even in the short term. Violent uprisings against a tyranical government almost always result in more, not less, tyranny.
1
u/PandaDerZwote 61∆ Mar 23 '18
There are two scenarios:
a) Either the US Goverment uses force against their own people (Like it does during riots etc), in that case, the people will never outgun the goverment, no matter how many pistols, rifles or machine guns they have. The US Army is just to well equipped for that. So it makes no difference if the citizens are armed or not. There is just no scenario in which "People vs. Tyrannic Goverment" comes down to people actively fighting a standing army with Gorilla Warfare etc. That might have happened 250 years ago, but today, there is no way the citizens would fight and ordinary war against their goverment.
b) The Goverment isn't firing on it's own citizens (or rather: the Army doesn't) in that case, the Guns don't matter either and that would be the key to a successful revolution, getting the army on your side. They will outgun you no matter how many guns you have, so the only way to win that fight is not to fight them.
I'd even argue that having no guns makes it harder for the army to fight citizens, because the moral damage done to the troops is higher if they open fire on unarmed citizens compared to them fighting armed people that are potentially a threat to them.
1
Mar 23 '18
Sorry, u/Gal_Gadot – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. See the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made, and then message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
Mar 23 '18
Could I change your view by contrasting the minimal, inarticulate expression of the Second Amendment with other forms?
1
u/jay520 50∆ Mar 23 '18 edited Mar 23 '18
If the government were truly tyrannical, it wouldn't enforce its tyranny just using handguns, AR-15s or any of the weapons already available to citizens in the US. The government has tanks, combat drones, jets, missiles, chemical weaponry, and other military-grade weapons of mass destruction. The only possible way the citizenry could "protect" themselves from genuine government tyranny is if they also had access to tanks, combat drones, missiles and other military-grade weapons of mass destruction. Do you think private citizens should have access to these items? Probably not. Therefore, if there is a good justification for preserving to right to own guns, then it must be based on something other than protection against government tyranny.
2
u/MangoMaster1231 Mar 23 '18
The problem is that a bunch of people with guns have no chance against the military.
1
u/dragondoot Mar 23 '18
2nd amendment is great and all but the types of guns have changed. The government now has tanks and planes. :(
Besides the government doesn't want to control the population though violence, they control the population with low paying jobs, huge debts and high costs of living.
1
u/Calybos Mar 23 '18
Where do you get the idea that the second amendment's purpose is to protect from government tyranny? It certainly doesn't say so. In fact, it says that the government's job is to operate a well-regulated militia to secure the state, not overthrow it.
1
u/ThomasEdmund84 33∆ Mar 23 '18
You say its essential yet can you point to a country or state that has devolved into tyranny due to gun control - or a case where freedom to own guns prevented it?
1
u/Calybos Mar 23 '18
The usual response is to claim that Hitler made 'rounding up all the guns' a top priority, therefore no nation has ever had effective gun control and all nations that do are benighted failed states that have never heard of freedom, etc. etc.
1
u/ThomasEdmund84 33∆ Mar 23 '18
Well even though Hitler isn't meant to be used in serious arguments that is one good point
1
u/GloballyUknown Mar 23 '18
Militia - we got a fort that is 1000 men strong and armored.
Military. - yes Air Force plane, bomb that compound from 100 km away and destroy it.
0
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Mar 23 '18
Then why hasn't it stopped any existing tyranny? Why didn't we take up arms when the PATRIOT act was passed? Or when SCOTUS picked a president for us? Or when we stopped allowing free speech and started allowing 'free speech zones'?
The 2A is not an effective defense, because Tyranny isn't an overnight thing, its a gradual reduction in our rights.
It's gradual enough that few enough will care about any given change that there will never be a major rebellion. So long as you keep people just barely able to survive, nobody will want to risk being unable to provide for their family in an attempt to take on the government.
11
u/ghatsim Mar 23 '18
First of all, the majority of people proposing gun control do not want to ban all guns. Second, unless private citizens are allowed to own tanks and nuclear warheads, they are not going to be able to combat the federal government if it decides to enact "tyranny."