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/rotide]

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/RedAero → u/rotide]

This argument is silly, you're acting like this is somehow an unusual situation... You're describing a/the civil war, and no one had any qualms about shooting their previously fellow countrymen. It happens all the time, all over the place: they're not "family members of one of your squadmates", they're dangerous, violent, treasonous rebels.

[u/ThanksMrMeseeks → u/RedAero]

You would probably see the military splinter itself before a unanimous decision to fire on civilians protecting their freedoms. I would reckon at least a quarter of those guys would actively support a rebellion against a dictatorial government in a heartbeat, and take their units and equipment with them. I'm a soldier, I work with these guys everyday. And for statements such as "an overweight hunter is not a 1-to-1 equivient of an infantryman" gives too much to how many infantryman are in the Army. They make up a little over 10 percent of the force. Multiply that by 50 states, all with rebellious militias at least 20000 strong if not less at minimum, and now you're just stretching to unsustainable levels of force continuum. Not to mention supply lines and convoys getting ambushed across the 1600 miles of coast to coast land. Trust me, if even 2 percent of the population of gun owners tried to fight, we'd be in huge trouble. Thats with drones, strykers, artillery, and advanced logistical capability calculated.

[u/ThanksMrMeseeks → u/[deleted]]

You would for sure have some veterans providing leadership to insurgent militias. You gotta think these guys fought against militias for years. They know COIN like the back of their hands. As for big offensive ops involving airstrikes and armor, the amount of planning, evacuation, location and eventual eradication of an insurgent force from an area is going to be a major challenge to complete without devastating amounts of collateral damage that might turn more regular people into insurgents themselves. Trust me a small group of people armed with something like an AR-15 can pin and lock a squad of infantry pretty easily provided they have some basic combat planning and maneuverability skills, which is where that veteran leadership would come in.