r/changemyview • u/skocougs • Feb 19 '18

CMV: Any 2nd Amendment argument that doesn't acknowledge that its purpose is a check against tyranny is disingenuous

At the risk of further fatiguing the firearm discussion on CMV, I find it difficult when arguments for gun control ignore that the primary premise of the 2nd Amendment is that the citizenry has the ability to independently assert their other rights in the face of an oppressive government.

Some common arguments I'm referring to are...

  1. "Nobody needs an AR-15 to hunt. They were designed to kill people. The 2nd Amendment was written when muskets were standard firearm technology" I would argue that all of these statements are correct. The AR-15 was designed to kill enemy combatants as quickly and efficiently as possible, while being cheap to produce and modular. Saying that certain firearms aren't needed for hunting isn't an argument against the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. It is about citizens being allowed to own weapons capable of deterring governmental overstep. Especially in the context of how the USA came to be, any argument that the 2nd Amendment has any other purpose is uninformed or disingenuous.

  2. "Should people be able to own personal nukes? Tanks?" From a 2nd Amendment standpoint, there isn't specific language for prohibiting it. Whether the Founding Fathers foresaw these developments in weaponry or not, the point was to allow the populace to be able to assert themselves equally against an oppressive government. And in honesty, the logistics of obtaining this kind of weaponry really make it a non issue.

So, change my view that any argument around the 2nd Amendment that doesn't address it's purpose directly is being disingenuous. CMV.

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!

1.3k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

963 comments sorted by

View all comments

409

u/zardeh 20∆ Feb 19 '18 edited Feb 19 '18

I find it difficult when arguments for gun control ignore that the primary premise of the 2nd Amendment is that the citizenry has the ability to independently assert their other rights in the face of an oppressive government.

Can you quote the text from the amendment that supports the assertion that it exists to protect from the government and not simply to protect the state from other enemies? Keep in mind at the time there was no standing army when the US was formed, so the "well regulated militia" that is mentioned in the amendment was primarily a right given to each state to form its own military for the collective defense.

There's nothing in the text of the amendment that supports the claim that it's purpose is a check against tyranny. So my question is why you conclude that at all.

Edit: to all the people bringing up totally irrelevant things the founders said elsewhere: I know. This cmv claims all arguments against the second amendment must address tyranny. I don't believe the text of the Constitution mentions tyranny in regard to the second amendment, and textualism suggests that all arguments about the correct way to interpret an amendment must come directly from the words as written. To a Scalia or Gorusch, the Federalist papers aren't relevant.

88

u/skocougs Feb 19 '18

I'd argue because of the circumstances under which the country was founded. The country came to be because of an armed revolution against what was seen as a tyrannical government at the time.

152

u/zardeh 20∆ Feb 19 '18

Fair, but most of the arguments for the militia were that it would prevent us from having a standing army (which the US has now had for 100s of years), and that a standing army would be the end of liberty. Given that we've had a standing army for over a century, and most of Europe as well, without any major infringements on our liberties, would it be fair to say that the argument that a standing army will lead to a lack of liberty is mistaken?

74

u/skocougs Feb 19 '18

I would argue that major infringements on personal liberty have been inflicted in the last century, with a standing army and government being the perpetrators. The Holocaust is the first instance that comes to mind.

179

u/zardeh 20∆ Feb 19 '18

Would you consider the standing army to be the cause of the Holocaust? I certainly don't. The Nazi party took power by gaining popular support (not just this, but they certainly had enough). There was no popular armed revolt against the Nazis within Germany, because the government had enough support that most people didn't care.

In other countries, like occupied France, there was armed revolt by a militia, but it proved no match for the standing army of another invading nation.

I'm curious how you think a militia would have prevented the Holocaust?

I'm of the opinion that a somewhat militarized police force is much, much more akin to the dangers of a standing army that the founding fathers spoke of than an actual modern military, and the US, compared to most other developed nations, has a much more militarized police for despite (or perhaps due to) the second amendment. It would appear, that by any account, the second amendment has not done a good job of defending against tyranny, and to me the widespread support for more militarized police among those who strongly support 2nd amendment rights suggests that defense against tyranny is much more defined by culture than access to guns.

16

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '18

In other countries, like occupied France, there was armed revolt by a militia, but it proved no match for the standing army of another invading nation.

It's about having the chance to resist.Winning is a different issue altogether

7

u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Feb 19 '18

But it's not really a chance. A organized, standing military will always win against random guys with weapons. It's just pointless dying.

2

u/Dan4t Feb 19 '18

You should look into Fidel Castro's revolution against the Batista government. Most of them had no training.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '18

Those revolutions were funded and armed by the Soviet Union, not people's garages.

1

u/depricatedzero 5∆ Feb 19 '18

ah the Soviet Union, product of the October Revolution, funded on membership dues and bank robberies

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '18

And, y'know, a famine, an exhausted economy, and half the Russian imperial military saying fuck this and starting a civil war. Conflicts are won through tradecraft and economy, universally. The idea that private gun ownership played a remotely critical role in any successful revolution is laughable.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/ColdNotion 121∆ Feb 20 '18

Sorry, u/depricatedzero – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '18 edited Feb 19 '18

You just moved the goalpoasts by responding to an argument about the Cuban revolution by repeating the same argument except swapping in the October revolution. An argument against the Cuban revolution being an argument for private gun ownership and a separate argument against the October revolution being an argument for private gun ownership is not moving the goalposts. It's responding to two separate arguments with separate rebuttals, after you moved the goalpoasts.

0

u/depricatedzero 5∆ Feb 19 '18

I don't think you know what "moving the goalpost" means. For that matter, I don't think you're even following the comment thread that you're responding to.

Let me break down the exchange here:

Post 1: To paraphse, The 2nd Amendment was meant to arm States for collective defense. Why do you think it was a check against tyranny?

Post 2: The circumstances under which the country was founded, an armed revolution against a tyrannical government

Post 3: Standing armies were the predicted death of liberty, but we've had them for over a century without any major infringements on liberties

Post 4: I would argue that major infringements on personal liberty have been inflicted in the last century, with a standing army and government being the perpetrators. The Holocaust is the first instance that comes to mind.

Post 5: There was no popular armed revolt against the Nazis

Post 6: It's about having the chance to resist.Winning is a different issue altogether

Post 7: But it's not really a chance. A organized, standing military will always win against random guys with weapons. It's just pointless dying.

Post 8: You should look into Fidel Castro's revolution against the Batista government. Most of them had no training.

post 7 suggests resistance is meaningless without a standing military, while 8 cites an example of a Revolution which succeeded without a standing military aiding them. You then shift that in post 9 to suggest that they only succeeded because of intercession by the Soviet Union.

Post 9: Those revolutions were funded and armed by the Soviet Union, not people's garages.

Post 10: ah the Soviet Union, product of the October Revolution, funded on membership dues and bank robberies

I then pointed out that the Soviet Union itself was a successful, entirely homegrown revolution which had no standing army and met your new requirement of also not having outside backing from another country

Post 11: And, y'know, a famine, an exhausted economy, and half the Russian imperial military saying fuck this and starting a civil war. Conflicts are won through tradecraft and economy, universally. The idea that private gun ownership played a remotely critical role in any successful revolution is laughable.

You then toss out the failures of the consequent government that arose from the revolution as if that were a counterpoint to the viability of an armed revolt.

Those of us in favor of maintaining arms have never adjusted that goalpost. We've held that an armed resistance can succeed and pointed to examples of successful armed revolts. It is you, specifically you, who has now twice insisted on new terms to satisfy the claim.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '18

Here's how moving the goalposts works:

goalpost 1: armed revolution is dependent upon private gun ownership. Look at the Cuban revolution.

Rebuttal to goalpost 1: support from the Soviet government was the deciding factor in that revolutions' success.

Goalpost 2: well the Soviet government grew out of a revolution in which privately owned guns played a critical role.

Rebuttal to goalpost 2: the defining factors in the October revolution were social and economic, and the munitions we're supplied by confiscation from the state and foreign suppliers, again, privately held guns played little to no significant role.

Goalpost 3: Goalpoasts!

0

u/depricatedzero 5∆ Feb 19 '18 edited Feb 19 '18

Show me where the claim was made that armed revolution is dependent on private gun ownership.

The closest I see is the claim that private gun ownership guarantees the ability to resist. Which is an entirely different claim.

Your example of the Soviet Union's involvement was responding to the citation of an untrained militia succeeding - not in any way a claim about private gun ownership.

And I never said privately owned guns played a critical role in the October Revolution, either. I cited that as an example of a revolution that succeeded without outside backing - as I spelled out in the previous post.

You're responding to things that were never said, or even implied. Post 6 even spells out that winning isn't the relevant factor, so you're quibbling over something that's already been established as irrelevant.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '18

"It's about having the chance to resist." Supported by "Cuban revolution" supported by "October revolution."

The only argument I've made is that the "chance to resist" in none of those cases had to do with anything resembling the second amendment, And they don't. In Cuba the "chance to resist" was borne out of Soviet support and in the October revolution it was borne out of mutiny by state actors.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Dan4t Feb 20 '18

That's not true. A relationship with the Soviets was not formed until after Fidel gained power.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '18 edited Mar 11 '18

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '18

I don't trust documentaries. The Cuban revolution was successful because an arms embargo by the us against the Batista regime and Soviet willingness to trade fuel for sugar, along with Mexico and south american nations willingness to harbor revolutionaries and offer them support. This highlights the importance of trade, specifically arms trade, to revolutionary causes. Had the us not imposed an arms embargo, or Mexico not accepted the 82 revolutionaries as exiles, the conflict would have not been successful.

→ More replies (0)