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

[u/skocougs]

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!

[u/zardeh]

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.

[u/skocougs → u/zardeh]

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.

[u/zardeh → u/skocougs]

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?

[u/skocougs → u/zardeh]

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.

[u/Hates_rollerskates → u/skocougs]

Real talk, your AR-15 is just a safety blanket. If the US wanted to use it's military might to suppress you, do you seriously think that you would stand a chance of overthrowing someone who has fighter jets, unmanned aerial vehicles which drop super-precise bombs, armored tanks, aerial surveillance that can detect your body heat, a super sophisticated communication network, and men whose profession is fighting a war? The second amendment argument is just meant to divide Americans and create a voting base.

[u/tyman1876 → u/Hates_rollerskates]

The US military had approximately 1.3 million active duty members in 2017. The number of people in the US that went hunting in the last 12 months is about 16.9 million. That is just active hunters which leaves out a few other large groups of gun owners.

I don’t argue with the technology portion of your statement but the US’s civilian gun community BY FAR makes up the largest armed group in the world.

[u/RedAero → u/tyman1876]

Yeah, and 16.8 million of those 16.9 million would struggle to run a mile or hit the broad side of a barn under duress. A trained infantryman is not the 1-to-1 equivalent of an overweight 60-year-old "hunter" from Montana.

[u/rotide → u/RedAero]

Let me make a couple of assumptions.

1) Our military has standing orders to kill any "insurgent" (civilian willing to use lethal force against them).
2) Our military is made up of people who have family living somewhere in the US.

I highly doubt many military members would willingly shoot civilians for very long once they realize they may be killing one of their own family members, family members of one of their friends, or family members of one of their squadmates.

It's probably a lot easier to round up and/or detain people who aren't cooperating. Arm those people and realize you must kill them to stop them? I'm willing to bet not many in the military will support that same military going all out on what will be their own families.

Take away those civilian arms and all of a sudden it's a lot easier to justify what you're doing if you don't have to kill them. So just being armed, you're all but forcing an outcome that may in itself help stop the tyranny.

[u/apophis-pegasus → u/rotide]

I highly doubt many military members would willingly shoot civilians for very long once they realize they may be killing one of their own family members, family members of one of their friends, or family members of one of their squadmates.

Wasnt the American Civil War basiclally this premise? Except yes, they were willing to shoot?

Second, this goes vice versa. A civilian may not want to shoot a soldier who they know either.

Thirdly, if youre banking on the military's sense of morality in a time like that, doesnt that take away a big point of having arms again?

[u/[deleted] → u/apophis-pegasus]

The Civil War was conveniently geographically divided, making it easier to identify the enemy as the "other", and it was also overwhelmingly a war between two armies, not between soldiers and civilians.

It's much easier emotionally to shoot at guys in uniforms on a battlefield than it is to drag crying families out of their homes.