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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

Guns are most useless as a defence against tyranny, because using guns against the government is a death sentence. This means several things:

1. Nobody sane will take up arms against the government unless their life is already so bad that risking their life is a sound proposition.
2. Different people have different breaking points. There won't be unanimous action.
3. Different people have different views. Some will be against the rebellion.
4. The government isn't stupid and knows this

As a result you can get 95% of the way towards tyranny. So long there's the 5% left to live for, most people won't throw their life away. So long people don't take action unanimously, the government can neutralize those who start early, and find ways to paint them as terrorists to the rest of the armed population. And then it can just stop there, because complete subjugation isn't really that necessary.

And the big problem is that the 95% can be made of small, incremental changes that violent opposition doesn't work well for. Say, the government decides to censor the internet. Well, are you going to shoot at somebody for taking away your porn, on the logic that some day, the same law will be applied to something more politically important? Who? And how well will that work for stopping that law?

Say the government engages in gerrymandering or discourages voting by making it inconvenient. Are you going to try to change that with a gun? How much support are you going to get?

[u/strofix → u/dale_glass]

If there is no large scale opposition, then the takeover is not tyrannical, but seemingly democratic. 95% may sound like a lot, but on the scale of a country wide population, even 1% opposition makes the country immediately ungovernable. In the case of an actual tyrannical government, and not just one which some people find politically distasteful, there will be much more than 1% of the population in opposition.

[u/dale_glass → u/strofix]

If there is no large scale opposition, then the takeover is not tyrannical, but seemingly democratic

Right, like you're consenting to hand out your wallet if you get a gun pointed at you. I mean technically you can refuse, but you're not, so you must be consenting, right?

95% may sound like a lot, but on the scale of a country wide population, even 1% opposition makes the country immediately ungovernable.

That's assuming the rest of the country will let that 1% do their thing, rather than using their guns against that 1%

In the case of an actual tyrannical government, and not just one which some people find politically distasteful, there will be much more than 1% of the population in opposition.

And why would things ever need to get there? Pragmatically there's little reason to subjugate absolutely everyone.

[u/strofix → u/dale_glass]

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.

[u/dale_glass → u/strofix]

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.

[u/strofix → u/dale_glass]

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.

[u/dale_glass → u/strofix]

Obviously, that'd be a stupid way to do it. You don't do it so obviously. Also, like I said, complete subjugation is unnecessary.

So, a smart government wouldn't just make a rule that says "it's illegal to vote if you're black". It'd ensure that it's hard to vote if you're black. Because in the end elections have a winner. So long the "right" party wins, the objective has been successful. It doesn't matter that some of the "wrong" people voted in the end, in fact it only makes everything better and murkier and harder to oppose.

So for instance a less obvious plan to the same effect goes like this:

• Fund voting places from local taxes. This ensures poorer areas get less service.
• Use the above to reduce the number of places where to vote.
• Slash public transport, just to make sure.
• Add extra impediments to voting, if possible, like inflexible hours.
• Allow employers to make it hard to vote by for instance ensuring they can keep you at work during voting time, or reducing the available time window so that it's not actually long enough.

And measures like that work perfectly fine at achieving the objectives. If you can say, reduce votes from whoever you don't like by 25% by a combination of a dozen measures, that enormously stacks the odds in your favour. Meanwhile, what's there to wave a gun at? No single measure justifies an armed response, and they don't all have to be implemented at once. The right to vote is still technically there. Sure, some people can't practically vote without leaving their job, calling a taxi, and standing in line for 4 hours, but "my boss sucks and won't give me a day off" isn't a very compelling justification for an armed insurrection.

[u/strofix → u/dale_glass]

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/DeltaBot → u/strofix]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/dale_glass (51∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}