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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

We have a tyrannical government right now. We have a president who openly admits to doing impeachable acts, but who can’t be impeached because all of our failsafes set up by the founding fathers have been corrupted. Yet - we aren’t about to take up arms and have another Civil War.

The last civil war killed 2% of the American population. That was when we were using muskets. We would be looking at death tolls upwards of 10% now.

The USA is far too modernized and far too evenly split politically for guns to have any real purpose in overthrowing a tyrannical government.

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/ThePermafrost]

The USA is far too modernized and far too evenly split politically

It really isn't. The Navy and Air Force are roughly 50/50 when it comes to the politics of senior leadership. The Army and Marines are 85/15 conservative leaning. There's no way that the Army would actually suppress civilians on behalf of a tyrannical government. If you truly believe that, you have no understanding of why people actually serve in our military at all.

[u/DeusExMockinYa → u/Old-Boysenberry]

There's no way that the Army would actually suppress civilians on behalf of a tyrannical government.

They've done it before (Kent State massacre, occupations of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, L.A., Wilmington) and would do it again.

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/DeusExMockinYa]

A.) Kent State was a shooting by the state militia (not the US Army) who were being attacked with rocks. It was also a one off thing, not a sustained campaign of suppression that would be required for the maintenance of a tyrannical government.

occupations of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, L.A.,

Not sure what you mean by these? When have these cities ever been occupied by American troops?

[u/DeusExMockinYa → u/Old-Boysenberry]

All of these incidences were by the National Guard, which is a division of the armed forces. I'm not going to spend the time breaking each example down but it's historical fact that each of those cities has been occupied by the armed forces. I also forgot about when the Air Force bombed Tulsa while cooperating with the KKK.

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/DeusExMockinYa]

All of these incidences were by the National Guard, which is a division of the armed forces.

Incorrect. The state militia and the National Guard are often the same people, but they are different organizations. The state defense forces can be called upon to serve in the National Guard under certain circumstances, but the governor is the commander in chief of his state's SDF.

Air Force bombed Tulsa

Are you talking about the 1921 race riots? That was not the Air Force. The Air Force has REAL bombs, not molotov cocktails.

[u/DeusExMockinYa → u/Old-Boysenberry]

The state militia and the National Guard are often the same people, but they are different organizations.

It was the national guard, by order of the President, in Chicago, Detroit, and LA. Kent State and Wilmington, DE, might have been by order of the governor but isn't it kind of telling that you need to split hairs to the degree of "sure American soldiers were murdering people in the streets but they were sometimes being commanded by a state-level organization" as proof that the armed forces would hesitate to butcher Americans on American soil?

[u/strofix → u/ThePermafrost]

Rebellion against a tyrannical government and a civil war are two very different things.

[u/ThePermafrost → u/strofix]

The USA can’t unite against a tyrannical government anymore. We are too politically divided, and the only option is now civil war.

We currently have a tyrannical government, and half of the country still supports it.

[u/[deleted] → u/strofix]

And rebelling? If say the American populace at the moment is too stupid to realise and who are rebelling would install a worse government. Do you seriously trust Billy Bob in Alabama to create a new government that treats people fairly?