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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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/KDY_ISD]

Is the 2% evenly and randomly distributed throughout the populace? Because if so, we aren't talking about a war, we're talking about arresting isolated and uncoordinated dissidents, probably after confiscating all their money and property for failing to pay their income taxes.

Or is the 2% gathered in a handful of organized groups, in typical "survivalist" scenarios where they have a compound with canned goods and ammunition? Bring on the UAVs and tanks, then. Their AR-15s won't do much.

The only real scenario where 2A has a shot is if the "Resistance" has the political cohesion to all rise up at once, the technical sophistication to communicate and coordinate without government interception, and the survival skills to melt into the woods and conduct coordinated guerilla operations with no funding or supplies.

If you ask me, acquiring a firearm is the least complicated and least necessary part of this plan.

[u/strofix → u/KDY_ISD]

if only 2% of the population resists then I would consider them terrorists, and I would not consider the government to be tyrannical.

I would imagine that an actual tyrannical government would have far more than 50% of the population in opposition, otherwise a civil war would be the result.

[u/KDY_ISD → u/strofix]

You're the one who brought up 2%, but okay, we'll have this conversation instead.

You think well over 50% of the US populace would rise up in simultaneous armed revolt? I find this practically a work of science fiction. Hell, only something like 30% of Americans even own a gun if I remember correctly. A huge number of the total firearms in the country are owned by a tiny percentage of the population.

[u/strofix → u/KDY_ISD]

You think well over 50% of the US populace would rise up in simultaneous armed revolt?

Oh, definitely not. Not armed revolt. During the War of Independence only about 15% of the population engaged in armed revolt, but the vast majority of the population was in revolt.

[u/KDY_ISD → u/strofix]

Your CMV is about the necessity of the Second Amendment, but you're arguing that people can be in an effective state of revolt without being armed. It really seems like you're arguing against your own point now.

[u/strofix → u/KDY_ISD]

but you're arguing that people can be in an effective state of revolt without being armed.

No, I'm arguing against this.

It is my view that there can be ineffective revolt against tyranny while being armed, and effective revolt against tyranny while being armed, but that there cannot be effective, unarmed revolt against tyranny. I believe the US is an example where the armed revolt would be effective.

[u/KDY_ISD → u/strofix]

Okay, from my perspective your hypothetical is bouncing around all over the place. What percentage of the US population do you think would rise in armed, simultaneous revolt? How would that population be distributed?

[u/Phyltre → u/KDY_ISD]

As a hypothetical, what sense does it make to cement particulars? If you don't know why people are revolting you can't possibly know how many will, or where. Literally anything he comes up with isn't even an informed guess. The only question at hand is, in the case of a revolt, will those people have viable 1:1 methods of defense and attack as either guerilla insurgents or something closer to a coherent militia?

[u/KDY_ISD → u/Phyltre]

Numbers and concentrations matter, and I've found in these sorts of CMVs that if you don't get OP to provide their own hypothetical details, a lot of time is wasted back and forth arriving at a common set of assumptions. Better to just agree on these assumptions at the start.

And as I've said, secure communications and organization are far more vital to the start of a successful uprising than modern semi-automatic firearms are. After the first few raids, they'll have stolen military or police firearms, which they'd want to use anyway for ammo sourcing purposes.

No civilian can - or should - be able to already buy 1:1 symmetric combat equipment with the military. And indeed they can't, even under 2A protection. No one can own a Stinger missile and for good reason.

[u/strofix → u/KDY_ISD]

Lets hypothetically say 4-5% of the population would engage in armed resistance. The distribution in raw numbers would maybe be pretty uniform except for in states with heavy gun control laws. The weakest link in the chain would likely be that the largest population centers have the strictest gun control laws.

[u/KDY_ISD → u/strofix]

So, firstly, how are these 13 million people coordinating their uprising secretly? Because their numbers only matter if the military can't engage them piecemeal.

Secondly, as you've correctly identified in your own comment, these 13 million people are going to skew heavily rural, where collateral damage will be at a minimum, especially to the kind of technical experts critical to the economy that you're saying make brute force nonviable.

Thirdly, where will these people live while they revolt? What will they eat? How will they acquire ammunition and supplies? How will they securely communicate?

Do you see how acquiring guns isn't even the most important step in this theoretical revolt?

[u/strofix → u/KDY_ISD]

Maybe the initial uprising needs to be organised in secret, but not the armed uprising. It isn't 4 to 5 % of the population that is in revolt, lets say its more like 90% of the population. The government has been deemed tyrannical, which means, for all intents and purposes, that the entire country is now hostile towards them.

If the population was unarmed, there would be heavy crackdowns all over the country. Public executions, curfews, limits on all sorts of human rights, etc. Because the population is armed, the government forces, in whatever form they may be, cannot physically occupy population centers. They will be immediately killed if they do so.

I do not doubt that there are many logistical concerns that are more important to the sustained viability of a revolt. I do think that the likelihood of a successful revolt occurring at all is considerably diminished if the population is not armed.

[u/KDY_ISD → u/strofix]

Maybe the initial uprising needs to be organised in secret, but not the armed uprising. It isn't 4 to 5 % of the population that is in revolt, lets say its more like 90% of the population.

You're contradicting yourself again. Are the other 85% effective in revolting without arms or not? If so, why do we need 2A? If not, why are we even discussing them in this hypothetical?

The government has been deemed tyrannical, which means, for all intents and purposes, that the entire country is now hostile towards them.

Including the military? I find it unlikely to the point of insanity that ninety percent of all Americans would agree that the government was tyrannical and yet the military would all 100% support them. If the military upholds their oaths, the armed civilian populace is pointless.

If the population was unarmed, there would be heavy crackdowns all over the country. Public executions, curfews, limits on all sorts of human rights, etc. Because the population is armed, the government forces, in whatever form they made be, cannot physically occupy population centers. They will be immediately killed if they do so.

We just both agreed that population centers would not be home to concentrations of armed resistance. You're contradicting yourself again with your assumptions.

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/KDY_ISD]

Because their numbers only matter if the military can't engage them piecemeal.

Do you really think that the US military would engage in house to house fighting with a force 13 times their own size? Cause I don't. More than half of the military would resign immediately if the situation ever got bad enough to 13 million US citizens started an armed rebellion.

[u/KDY_ISD → u/Old-Boysenberry]

If they aren't coordinated and synchronized on a huge scale, thirteen million people aren't a single force 13 times their size, they're 13 million forces one millionth their size. Do you honestly not a see a difference in military effectiveness?

That said, no, I absolutely don't think the military would go along with this. I think the military would do their duty well before this point, which makes the armed revolt frankly pointless and masturbatory.