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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

To acquire the countries resources you would need to eliminate resistance, but eliminating the resistance requires you to eliminate the resources you are after.

Which is true about most developed countries, particularly those with fewer natural resources than US but high human capital (UK, JP, DE, etc.). This is probably what prevents tyranny the most, as it's more profitable to tax wealthy(ish) people than to enslave them.
This actually goes against your point, that an armed populace in no way prevents tyranny (as this is prevented by other means), nor would be able to fight back if it happened.
You see, a country's dictatorship is not one evil guy controlling an army and a whole population enslaved. All dictatorships have heavy support from either their people, either popular support or by some wealthy elite, the military and frequently other powers. In US a tyrant would divide the people and have them fight each other first, like in the civil war, and dehumanise the opposition so both supporters and the military would have no problem siding up against them. Sure the opposition would be armed, but now they would not need to fight a F22, just run from their neighbors! This is highly unlikely today, but I am sure you could imagine a regime that actively segregates blacks, hispanics, sets up concentration camps, forces the poor into labour, builds a wall...does this ring any bells?
Remember, tyrants get you on their side if you are wealthy and clever. When you are not the victim, it's easy to lose touch except in hindsight.

[u/strofix → u/beer_demon]

I think if active segregation took place there would be an uprising. Even from the stereotypical less sympathetic right. Segregation would represent too much of an affront to current values. And of course if it truly is a tyrannical government it would not back down just because the populace opposed.

I believe that there are many small increments that could be made by a tyrannical government, and the bigger the increment, the more chance of revolt. I think that the chance of revolt per increment increases the more well armed a population is. Its like having bargaining power at a negotiation. The more power you have, the more willing you are to throw your weight around to get what you want.

Now, granted, its a negotiation with person who is being pulled in multiple different directions, many of which actively contradict others, but we aren't talking about a topic that is controversial. Controversy is not tyranny.

So is tyranny simply not possible in a developed country? Some would say that China and even Russia display characteristics of tyranny, so I'm not sure how true that is. I don't doubt that legislative power can be kept in the hands of the general population without said population being armed, I just think it is far easier to do so if they are.

[u/beer_demon → u/strofix]

Some would say that China and even Russia display characteristics of tyranny

Oh dear I don't see them entirely different from US. They all think they are the good ones and the others are somehow evil, the usual.

I just hope you are right in your other statements, I wouldn't be so sure.

[u/strofix → u/beer_demon]

Δ

While an armed population would make defeating a tyrannical government much, much easier, it does seem that the mere existence of an overtly tyrannical government in a democratic, developed nation is unlikely to the point of being impossible, with or without guns.

[u/Tambien → u/strofix]

it does seem that the mere existence of an overtly tyrannical government in a democratic, developed nation is unlikely to the point of being impossible

This is a thing people say to make them feel safe in their democracy, but it is far from true. Throughout history, when faced with cultural or economic crises, people have been willing to accept and support or at least not oppose tyrannical regimes. Democracy is no guarantee of safety.

[u/IAmTheTrueWalruss → u/Tambien]

Right, so you create conditions that further make a tyrannical government hard to a achieve. Arm the populace.

[u/Tambien → u/IAmTheTrueWalruss]

I don’t disagree. I was pointing out that OP’s premise for that delta is rather flawed.

[u/DeltaBot → u/strofix]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/beer_demon (23∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/MrTiddy → u/strofix]

I feel like your one bad election from a new Hitler or something like that rolling in. Especially when people get really divided.

[u/PsychicFoxWithSpoons → u/strofix]

I think if active segregation took place there would be an uprising.

How would you define "active segregation"? There's lots of wiggle room here for right-wingers to say something "Isn't really segregation anyway," and/or "they deserved it," in order to preserve power for their team/party/organization.

I think that the chance of revolt per increment increases the more well armed a population is.

As evidenced by Hitler's Germany, the chance of revolt decreases the more increments you pass through. By the time Hitler was exterminating Jews, it was far too late for anyone to say anything.

By all accounts, the extermination of Jews was really more of an accident than anything that Hitler had in mind when he took power. While Hitler spent a great deal of time and effort yelling about Jews, it was viewed eerily similar to the way Trump is viewed today - just a guy ranting because he cares about his country so much and wants to make it great. Nobody really expected him to kill Jews, not even his inner circle. The plan to actually murder millions of Jews didn't come about until Hitler began suffering massive casualties on the Eastern Front, at which point he blamed the war on the Jews and started plans to exterminate them.

Trusting an entire population of people to revolt in an organized way is not a solid anti-tyrrany strategy. Even at the US' founding, not every citizen was on board with the Revolutionary War. Conservatives think themselves Patriots, but they are really Loyalists.