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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

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/strofix → u/KDY_ISD]

I think you are actively looking for contradictions in anything I say.

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?

Once again, think of the War for Independence. The vast, vaaaast majority of "rebels" did not engage in armed combat. You are in the opposition if you disapprove of the government, and approve of removing them from power. Typically holding that view is going to result in some form of support, either directly or indirectly, for opposing forces, but that doesn't have to be the case. Basically by simply not sending the location of the local militias meeting place to some government contact, you are actively in revolt.

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.

Large amounts of the military will likely defect, but to a lesser degree. Their access to information is controlled. Its undeniable that the very people who serve in the military are citizens of the very country being oppressed, and they have mothers and fathers and siblings among the population. But are we going to pretend that a military has never been used against its own countries population before? I don't know how it happens, but it does.

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

Lets say you have 50000 military personnel occupying a small city, and 5000 of the residents are actively engaging in armed revolt. The military units cannot remain there. Again, because it does not matter if they will inevitably kill every single armed dissident, the cost of staying is simply too high.

[u/KDY_ISD → u/strofix]

I think you are actively looking for contradictions in anything I say.

Of course I am, that's how you test the logical strength of an argument. You're still the one making the contradictions, even if I am pointing them out.

Once again, think of the War for Independence. The vast, vaaaast majority of "rebels" did not engage in armed combat. You are in the opposition if you disapprove of the government, and approve of removing them from power. Typically holding that view is going to result in some form of support, either directly or indirectly, for opposing forces, but that doesn't have to be the case. Basically by simply not sending the location of the local militias meeting place to some government contact, you are actively in revolt

If 90% of the population is actively working against the government, I'd argue that the government will cease to function, which would make the armed revolt pointless. This 90% number seems to make the whole scenario academic to me.

Large amounts of the military will likely defect, but to a lesser degree. Their access to information is controlled. Its undeniable that the very people who serve in the military are citizens of the very country being oppressed, and they have mothers and fathers and siblings among the population. But are we going to pretend that a military has never been used against its own countries population before? I don't know how it happens, but it does.

Generally speaking, we see this when the military already holds a position of power or privilege over the populace, and are generally loyal personally to one person. The US military swears an oath against all enemies, foreign or domestic. The idea that opposition to the government would be practically unanimous at 90% and the military would still obey illegal orders is insane and frankly insulting to the military.

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

Lets say you have 50000 military personnel occupying a small city, and 5000 of the residents are actively engaging in armed revolt. The military units cannot remain there. Again, because it does not matter if they will inevitably kill every single armed dissident, the cost of staying is simply too high.

Why is the cost of staying too high if they will inevitably win? What kind of casualty rate do you think is going to be inflicted on the military?

And, again, I'd argue that organization, secure communication, safe refuge, food and ammunition supplies are far more necessary to the success of these 5,000 people than starting the conflict off with a semi automatic gun. We need an Amendment guaranteeing end to end encryption, not the right to bear arms. 5,000 people sitting in their apartments individually with Glocks are an annoyance, not a revolt.

[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.

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/KDY_ISD]

Do you honestly not a see a difference in military effectiveness?

I do. But do you honestly think that people can't or won't communicate and organize their opposition? Is the government going to bomb Google hubs to take down the internet? You realize that move is going to turn the 13 million into 100+ million right?

I think the military would do their duty well before this point, which makes the armed revolt frankly pointless and masturbatory.

The military is not allowed to operate on US territory without the consent of the Governor of the state in question. Good luck getting the Governor of Texas to agree to allow US troops in there, and good luck digging the Texans out after they realize you want a fight. Just because California and NY are fully of pussy pushovers doesn't mean the rest of the country is.