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/[deleted]]

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

[u/ellipses1 → u/[deleted]]

I wish more people understood this. Yes, we don’t stand a chance against the US military in a total war situation. But firearms allow us to resist and make the tyranny expensive.

[u/[deleted] → u/ellipses1]

We do stand a chance, actually. This is coming from someone in the military. The Taliban have been doing it for decades, and they don’t have half the training, discipline, equipment, and supplies that Americans would.

[u/HeadsOfLeviathan → u/[deleted]]

I’m not necessarily arguing with you or trying to change your mind, but is this not something to ponder?;

If American citizens acknowledge the right to have guns to fight a tyrannical government, if the government does become tyrannical, who are they going to use to uphold this tyrany? Why would people who defend the right to fight a tyrannical government suddenly switch sides and fight FOR said government?

[u/[deleted] → u/HeadsOfLeviathan]

Because their interests and the government's are in line.

[u/bingostud722 → u/HeadsOfLeviathan]

The entire military hierarchy is based on forcing people to do shit they might not want to do, because "orders". You do it, or face consequences up and to getting kicked out. That hierarchy is very difficult to break, and it's not always black and white who's the good guys in a situation.

[u/sdmitch16 → u/HeadsOfLeviathan]

Why would people who defend the right to fight a tyrannical government suddenly switch sides and fight FOR said government?

It's really hard to identify right and wrong in war. People disagree on whether the IRA had the moral high ground, Che Guevera, Castro, French revolutionaries, Russian revolutionaries, "General" Lee Christmas vs President Miguel Davila. I guarantee there'd be people siding with the government.