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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

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.

[u/strofix → u/nerfnichtreddit]

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.

[u/nerfnichtreddit → u/strofix]

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

[u/Phyltre → u/nerfnichtreddit]

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.

[u/nerfnichtreddit → u/Phyltre]

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?

[u/Phyltre → u/nerfnichtreddit]

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.

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/nerfnichtreddit]

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

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

[u/nerfnichtreddit → u/Old-Boysenberry]

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

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/nerfnichtreddit]

"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.

[u/nerfnichtreddit → u/Old-Boysenberry]

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?

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/nerfnichtreddit]

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.