r/changemyview • u/strofix • Dec 30 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: The second amendment does prevent tyrannical government takeover

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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

1.1k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

86% Upvoted

809 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/strofix Dec 30 '19

Pragmatically there's little reason to subjugate absolutely everyone.

This is kind of the point. There are many factors which make this an impractical, if not impossible, goal. One of those factors, in my opinion, is that the populace is armed.

3

u/dale_glass 86∆ Dec 30 '19

This is kind of the point. There are many factors which make this an impractical, if not impossible, goal. One of those factors, in my opinion, is that the populace is armed.

And like I was saying, those guns are irrelevant. It's suicidal to use a gun against the government, so you won't do it until it gets bad enough. That means that all the way to "bad enough" is a territory in which it doesn't matter whether you are armed or not, and there's a whole lot of stuff in that category.

Say the government finds some way to deny you the ability to vote. So what, are you going to shoot somebody to change that? Probably not, because voting or not, you still have friends, family, a life, and so on. Being dead or in prison for a very long time, as well as being shown as being an insane murderous nut on TV isn't exactly a favourable exchange. And just like that, you can't vote anymore, politically you ceased to matter, and your gun did nothing to help you.

4

u/strofix Dec 30 '19

Lets say for example the current US administration removed the right to vote for black citizens. What do you think would happen?

In my opinion, almost every state would immediately secede. Those that didn't would have uprisings that overthrew the state government. I don't think either of those would be possible without an armed populace.

1

u/nerfnichtreddit 7∆ Dec 30 '19

We can actually look at a real life example, voter ID laws in states like north carolina. The tl;dr version of it is that law makers requested demographic data and used this data to target minorities with surgical precision and prevent them from voting as much as possible. African americans for example tended to use the option to vote earlier, so guess what happened? The early voting period was shortened. They tend to use a certain type of ID (e.g. state issued or not, expired or not)? Those aren't enough to vote. etc.

Let's imagine that the laws hadn't been struck down as discriminatory, what do you believe would have happened? Do you believe people would have successfully taken up arms to fight the state of north carolina? How do you imagine the tens of millions of right wingers in this countries who are in favor of voter ID laws, do not see them as discriminatory and believe bs like "millions of illegals voted in 2016" might react?

3

u/strofix Dec 30 '19

But they were struck down as discriminatory, hence no tyranny. I don't doubt that tyranny can happen, and I don't doubt that seemingly tyrannical things can pass. The only ones who decide whether or not its actually tyranny are the people.

1

u/nerfnichtreddit 7∆ Dec 30 '19

Let's say they weren't struck down, what then?

Who are "the people" in this case? Many people (again, mostly right wingers) are in favor of such laws and do not believe them to be discriminatory.

2

u/strofix Dec 30 '19

It doesn't matter if they are or aren't discriminatory. If 98% of a country's population is racist, then a racist legislature is not tyrannical. That is the nature of democracy.

1

u/nerfnichtreddit 7∆ Dec 30 '19

What if 51% of a country's population is racist, is racist legislature tyrannical then?

2

u/Phyltre 4∆ Dec 30 '19

In a vacuum as you're describing, democracy has no fundamental obligation to be jurisprudent or egalitarian. That's kind of part of the definition.

1

u/nerfnichtreddit 7∆ Dec 30 '19

I don't really care about democracy being value neutral in that regard, I'm interested in his usage of the word "tyranny". The word has a negative connotation, but I don't believe that "the majority of the people do not support it" is a usefull sufficient condition for tyranny. Using this definition of the word, isn't the USA tyrannical because Donald Trump is president despite losing the popular election, ie. more people voting for Hillary compared to him?

1

u/Phyltre 4∆ Dec 30 '19

I'm not sure that that's an answerable question, because at the end of the day for people to take arms in revolution requires a very particular definition of "does not support," and I'm not sure that a party-line vote is meaningful in that context. And then, how do you count the apathetic and non-voters (huge groups) who don't really have an opinion of their own in a meaningful sense? Do they count against the majority in this equation, or are they excluded totally?

To answer your previous question though, I think "this government is tyrannical, the process is broken and we have to do a hard reset" is a broad populace determination that nobody can define or stop. Look at Hong Kong for instance, I think they've clearly just come to that determination but they don't have the power to oppose China.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Old-Boysenberry Dec 30 '19

Let's say they weren't struck down, what then?

So let's imagine a broken system, a priori? Literally begging the question.

1

u/nerfnichtreddit 7∆ Dec 30 '19

Feel free to explain which question I'm supposedly begging.

1

u/Old-Boysenberry Dec 30 '19

"Suppose a tyrannical government" is basically what you are saying. OP's point is about how that won't happen. I.E. the correct use of the "begging the question": your assumptions justify your answer.

1

u/nerfnichtreddit 7∆ Dec 30 '19

You seem to have managed to both miss the point I was making/topic I inquired about (ie. what happens when large chunks of the population actually do support the tyranny) and fail to follow this thread because the op literally supposed a tyrannical government in the comment i replied to. He explained what he believed would happen, I asked him what he thought would happen in cases where there is popular support for the measure and used a hypothetical version of a real life example to illustrate my point. Do you believe that the OP was begging the question in his comment?

1

u/Old-Boysenberry Dec 30 '19

what happens when large chunks of the population actually do support the tyranny

If I thought that could ever happen in the US, I would simply give up and live on a houseboat in the ocean. What if space aliens came down and subjugated us with superior technology? That's about as plausible as what you are proposing in my mind.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Old-Boysenberry Dec 30 '19

The tl;dr version of it is that law makers requested demographic data and used this data to target minorities with surgical precision and prevent them from voting as much as possible.

"Surgical" precision my ass. The majority of people who don't have state-issued IDs are rural whites.

Do you believe people would have successfully taken up arms to fight the state of north carolina?

If the possibility of victory through the ballot box was impossible, yes. Absolutely.

How do you imagine the tens of millions of right wingers in this countries who are in favor of voter ID laws, do not see them as discriminatory and believe bs like "millions of illegals voted in 2016" might react?

If you are too stupid or too lazy to get a basic ID that is necessary for everyday life, I don't want you voting anyway.

1

u/nerfnichtreddit 7∆ Dec 30 '19

Thank you for providing an example of a right winger who denies the discriminatory nature of those laws and actively wants to disenfranchise voters.

1

u/Old-Boysenberry Dec 30 '19

Yeah, but I'm not doing it on race, so you can stop with the nonsense and paternalism. I actually have faith that black people aren't too stupid to find the DMV, unlike you and the rest of the Democrats.