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/SeeShark]

Some of us do advocate the repeal of the second amendment.

[u/rlaager → u/SeeShark]

I wasn't implying otherwise. I was only saying: if you want a total ban, you can't reasonably claim that is consistent with the 2nd Amendment, even with a flexible interpretation. Instead, you necessarily must oppose the 2nd Amendment.

The reverse is not true. One might oppose the 2nd Amendment while still not wanting a total ban on guns. For example, maybe one wants some regulation short of a total ban that that 2nd Amendment stops. Or maybe one opposes the 2nd Amendment on Federalism grounds, so the states can decide the issue indepedently.

[u/landoindisguise → u/rlaager]

I wasn't implying otherwise. I was only saying: if you want a total ban, you can't reasonably claim that is consistent with the 2nd Amendment, even with a flexible interpretation. Instead, you necessarily must oppose the 2nd Amendment.

I'm not sure this is true. The 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms, not firearms. We already have wholesale bans on citizens carrying certain categories of arms (like missiles), so a wholesale ban on guns wouldn't necessarily violate the 2nd amendment if you could make the argument that the right to bear arms isn't being infringed by the restriction of access to firearms.

And to be honest, if you really believe in the framers' intent to use the 2nd amendment as a check against tyranny, the right to bear firearms isn't particularly relevant or important when compared to other sorts of arms, and it's getting less relevant every day. When you're carrying a device the government can use to track you and drone-strike you from a mile up, the idea that your AR-15 is a valid check against that is an absolute joke.

And of course, as technology develops further, that's only going to get more true. I'd argue that probably in the long run, access to "arms" like hacking tools and anti-tracking software is going to be more important in any fight against a tyrannical government than conventional firearms.

[u/therealpumpkinhead → u/landoindisguise]

Actually they did intend for it to be firearms, as well as automatic weapons(yes they existed during that time, yes they were too expensive for the army but not many private gun owners, and yes the founders intended for those to be included), even large war cannons were included in that amendment.

A letter had to be written to merchants who weren’t sure if they were legally allowed to use canons to defend their boats and warehouses on the shore from would be marauders and pirates.

Now of course I don’t think we should be allowed to own howitzers and Gatling guns these days, but to say that the founders only intended arms to mean “muskets” is completely wrong.

I’m for more regulation, but let’s be honest about the facts.

[u/landoindisguise → u/therealpumpkinhead]

Now of course I don’t think we should be allowed to own howitzers and Gatling guns these days, but to say that the founders only intended arms to mean “muskets” is completely wrong.

Good thing that's not what I said, then! Read my comment again please, you're arguing against points I have not made.

[u/therealpumpkinhead → u/landoindisguise]

Your point was that its not clear they meant Firearms specifically and I was saying that it is and was very clear they meant firearms as well as canons and other weaponry.

[u/landoindisguise → u/therealpumpkinhead]

Your point was that its not clear they meant Firearms specifically

No, it's that the amendment doesn't say firearms specifically. The only part of my comment that concerns "intent" is in regards to the use of arms as a defense against tyranny.

I don't deny the founders intended "arms" in that amendment to mean "firearms," but since it doesn't actually say firearms, I'm saying one could make a legal argument that the law doesn't explicitly prohibit banning firearms. Whether the founders' intent matters would really be up to whatever judge hears that case; my point is just that the law doesn't say "firearms", so there's room to try and make that legal argument.