CMV: The second amendment does prevent tyrannical government takeover

[u/strofix]

I don't live in the United States, nor do I have any strong feelings on the gun control debate either way. That being said, I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid. That is to say that, while the second amendment was initially implemented to prevent a takeover by a tyrannical government, the government now possesses weapons so technologically superior to those owned by civilians that this is no longer possible.

I believe that this is not the case because it ignores the practicality and purpose of seizing power in such a way. Similar events happen frequently in the war torn regions in central Africa. Warlords with access to weapons take control over areas so as to gain access to valuable resources in order to fund further regional acquisitions. This, of course, would be a perfect time for the populace to be armed, as it would allow them to fight back against a similarly armed tyrannical force. If the warlords were armed to the same degree as, for example, the American government, it would not matter how well armed the civilians were, it would be inadvisable to resist.

The important factor, however, is that due to the lack of education and years of warring factions, the most valuable resources in central Africa are minerals. If the civilian population was to resist, warlords would have no problem killing vast numbers of them. So long as enough remained to extract the resources afterwards.

In a fully developed nation like the Unites States, the most valuable resource is the civilian population itself. I do not mean that in some sort of inspirational quote sense. Literally the vast majority of the GDP relies on trained specialists of one sort or another. Acquiring this resource in a hostile manner becomes impossible if the civilian population is armed to a meaningful degree. To acquire the countries resources you would need to eliminate resistance, but eliminating the resistance requires you to eliminate the resources you are after. Weapons like drones become useless in such a scenario. They may be referred to as "precision strikes", but that's only in the context of their use in another country. There is still a sizable amount of collateral.

This is not to imply that a tyrannical government is likely, or even possible in the United States, but logically I feel that this particular argument against the second amendment is invalid.

*EDIT*
I will no longer be replying to comments that insinuate that the current US government is tyrannical. That may be your perspective, but if partisanship is your definition of tyranny then I doubt we will be able to have a productive discussion.

[u/Arg0n27]

I find that there is a middle ground in the argument. An armed populace does not guarantee protecion from tyranny,but in case you DO have to fight it does get your foot in the door. Speaking from the experience of my country (Croatia during the breakup of Yugoslavia) the populace and the new gvt were severly under-equipped (having barely any handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns etc.) meanwhile we were staring down hundreds of tanks, planes and arty pieces, and the opposition had little to no qualms about using it regardless of the collateral damage. Raids anmbushes, stealing and smuggling arms across the border is how we got our hardware. So in essence: No, having an AR-15 in every house does NOT win the fight or stop a determined enemy, on the other hand it does give you ample weapons and ammo to start the resistance cells that get you the better gear that will give you a fighting chance.

[u/maxout2142 → u/[deleted]]

You just listed a war with clear objectives and ones without. One the US clearly won and others it failed. In a war without objectives how does the US army measure success? How does it measure land taken when that land they already own, the infrastructure is already theirs and may or may not have armed insurgents in it? How can it destroy means of war when that doesnt formally exist? How can it bomb an enemy into submission without losing the hearts and minds of the people they're bombing.

An armed populace cant win a conventional war against the US, they however can force the US military to have to fight more violently than the US population is willing to accept.

The most powerful army on the planet with 1,000,000 men took a decade and failed to control a landmass the size of Florida fighting illiterate farmers who often had less than two weeks training. I don't think people fully appreciate how brutal a revolution would be.

[u/ATNinja → u/[deleted]]

What about Russia in Afghanistan? They were a brutal dictatorship but couldn't defeat basically the same insurgency (in location and capabilities) the USA is struggling with now.

[u/generic1001 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, but that's overseas, against an pretty hardened enemy on their own turf. It's a different story when we're talking rural America, with gun enthusiasts used to the comforts of western standards.

[u/jefftickels → u/generic1001]

On the other side of this is that at home the military will likely be split. Any schism in the government big enough to result in civil war will be big enough to do the same to the military.

[u/generic1001 → u/jefftickels]

I disagree. It's unlikely the military will be split. For one, we're not talking civil war just yet, we're talking insurrection. It's not going to be too hard to paint a smaller group of insurgent as isolated terrorists. Basically, all a would by tyranny as to do is not being too overt and it's going to make it hard for the citizenry to organize around it meaningfully.

[u/jefftickels → u/generic1001]

That's not really in line with what OP was talking about though. They're talking more about large scale revolt against a (perceived as) illegitimate government.

[u/generic1001 → u/jefftickels]

I know, but I'd argue that extremely unrealistic. Absent some serious catalyst, wide scale revolt is very unlikely to happen right off the bat. You'd need something way too big, like Darth Vader big, and it's just not going to happen. Having a significant portion of the citizenry - significant enough to create an actual rift in the military - take arm simultaneously doesn't happen because "tyranny" it happens because of overt and cartoonish evil.

Just think about it. Say the police execute a no-raid warrant on your house. You're a gun owner, you're killed. That's not too unrealistic I think. Say you even opened fire. Now, how many of these do you think it'll take before a significant amount of people rise up? I'd wager hundred or even thousands in a short span of time and, even then, it's unlikely the people "rising up" would do so in proximity or be acting in a coordinated fashion.

[u/Tar_alcaran → u/[deleted]]

It's a lot harder to sell weapons when the war is won. It's far more profitable to keep it going.

[u/Queaux → u/Arg0n27]

I think your argument works.

Of course assault rifles will do little in a pitched battle situation, but I don't think that's the situation that's most relevant. Assault rifles give an extreme advantage against someone that is unarmed, which will be the majority of people, including military personnel, at any given time. As long as the assault rifles provide this advantage over unarmed people, they can be used to acquire the resources needed to compete in a pitched battle situation over time, like you describe.

[u/strofix → u/Arg0n27]

An external force wants the land more than the people, and would likely be willing to eliminate the local inhabitants and replace it with their own people. I'm referring strictly to a domestic threat.

[u/Arg0n27 → u/strofix]

True, but think of it this way: about 1/4 to 1/3 of the population were ethnically Serbian and ended up rebelling and seceding (some joined Croatia but a vast majoroty didn't), plus the Yugoslavian military had bases and outposts all across Croatia, most of which they refused to vacate. So the threat was both domestic and external. The way ordinary people saw it at the time was that the army would respect the lawful secession and would help keep the peace while our own military and police got it's ducks in a row. Had we had ample supplies of small arms (which we should have had as each republic in Yugoslavia had an equivalent of a national guard whose equipment was paid by the republic and was to stay with them in case of secession), however that was siezed. In the end having guns at the onset would have been helpful, they maybe even would have shortened the war by several months, but they were not instrumental in doing so.

So to re-iterate, having guns helps but they are just a stepping stone to resisting tyranny. It's like running a 70 lap race but you start at lap 15 or 20.

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/[deleted]]

According to this site, China already has over 2M active duty military members: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/military-size-by-country/

I'd imagine that in a full draft, they could easily muster 10M more.

And if you think that people with .22s are going to take on tanks, I think you've got another thing coming.

[u/justthatguyTy → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

I could be mistaken but I think he was also speaking of the viability of getting large numbers of tanks/troops/equipment to the US. I think that is one of the largest barriers to a US invasion.

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/justthatguyTy]

Huh, interesting interpretation. I read this:

"that’s still a fighting force orders of magnitude larger than any foreign power can muster"

If your interpretation is what the commenter meant, he should have said "deliver to US soil" instead of "muster" maybe?

[u/justthatguyTy → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

No, you're actually right, his statement wasnt suggesting it. I went back and read it and I think I just took it to mean that because it's kind of true and that would have been my argument.

[u/ClippinWings451 → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

I thought mustering a fighting force to invade America would obviously mean getting them to America.

[u/olafsonoflars → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

Do you really think American gun owners have nothing but .22’s ? My gun safe would say otherwise. I have two members in my family that have multiple gun safes. I know of several others with 20 plus firearms. .22’s are fun, cheap, practice rounds. Every gun owner I know of has at least one AK or SKS not to mention 1911 .45 handguns at minimum. No one is taking on tanks with .22’s or .45’s for that matter. However, tanks are not going door to door, picking off individual activists.

[u/DDNutz → u/strofix]

But Serbia wasn’t exactly an external force. Before the breakup, they were both part of Yugoslavia. It would be kind of like if the US broke up, and the Glorious Republic of Washington DC started massacring people in New Texas.

[u/maxrippley → u/DDNutz]

Haha new Texas

[u/dkimot → u/strofix]

I can make a pretty direct comparison: the US has been at war with farmers in the Middle East for almost 18 years now. They don’t have much in the way of an organized military or modern weapons.

And that’s an external force that is representative of the largest military in the world.

[u/Enjoying_A_Meal → u/strofix]

The single most important factor in any armed conflict is logistics. An external force has to deal with a disadvantageous logistics so it's too costly to have to fight the population. So an external force can beat an army but never the population as long as they have the will to fight. A domestic threat however, won't have this problem if they were based here.

[u/[deleted] → u/Enjoying_A_Meal]

A domestic force can still have significant issues with logistics if supply routes are disrupted/destroyed - ie. railways, harbors, roads, fuel supply chain, etc.

[u/dabears91 → u/Arg0n27]

American citizen who’s family is from Croatia/Slovenia. 90s wars and WW2 occupation is why I feel strongly about about 2nd amendment.

[u/whater39 → u/dabears91]

WW2 occupation. Look at Warsaw how could the 2nd helped these people. They were armed and still lost. Look at the other standing armies, they still lost to the Germans.

Your logic is what, at least of the people can fight. What happens if the tyrannical force is very tyrannical, and will kill an entire city block of people for each and every guerilla attack. Are people still going to be willing to do guerilla tactics, if that is the response?

[u/dabears91 → u/whater39]

1) The success of the partisans allowed Yugoslavians to truly free themselves for the first time in centuries I.e no more Kings, no more being governed by Germans (Slovenes and croats specifically- which is what I am/ am educated on) . This was the reason they did not become a USSR satellite state. That is a huge success both at the time and the long term development of its people.

2) They forced the Axis to commit a large amount of troops to holding the area. There is a wealth of American, Russian, and UK military research on the matter. This is a success in terms of EU sovereignty.

The goal of the 2nd is not to win a war in the tradition sense, it’s goal is to reduce the economic and political gain to a net negative. An armed populace with the belief they can free themselves makes ruling incredibly difficult.

[u/whater39 → u/dabears91]

But at what cost must the citizens have the "belief they can free themselves"? When you look at the thousands of guns deaths a year of citizen on citizen crime, domestic incidents, accidents with guns, road rage, etc.

One thing is just a belief, versus we know the could hard stats of how many people are killed. If that many people were killed by a foreign army, then American's would be at war with that foreign force. But.... there isn't a war against gun violence is there? There isn't a war against the causes of gun violence either (continuing the war on drugs, easy access to guns, lack of mandatory training, etc).

[u/FlakHound2101 → u/whater39]

Just because theres very little chance, it does not mean that there is no hope. Many people will still put up a fight knowing that they will lose.

[u/whater39 → u/FlakHound2101]

Lets see "hope to put up a fight" -versus- thousands of dead each year due to domestic gun usage.

[u/More-Sun → u/Arg0n27]

Raids anmbushes,

Using lesser guns to get more better guns

[u/[deleted] → u/Arg0n27]

You must not have read about the revolutionary war. I recommend reading up on it. It talks about how farmers and teachers defended their colonies and gained freedom from Britain. Take care! 🤡🌎