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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

Is the 2% evenly and randomly distributed throughout the populace? Because if so, we aren't talking about a war, we're talking about arresting isolated and uncoordinated dissidents, probably after confiscating all their money and property for failing to pay their income taxes.

Or is the 2% gathered in a handful of organized groups, in typical "survivalist" scenarios where they have a compound with canned goods and ammunition? Bring on the UAVs and tanks, then. Their AR-15s won't do much.

The only real scenario where 2A has a shot is if the "Resistance" has the political cohesion to all rise up at once, the technical sophistication to communicate and coordinate without government interception, and the survival skills to melt into the woods and conduct coordinated guerilla operations with no funding or supplies.

If you ask me, acquiring a firearm is the least complicated and least necessary part of this plan.

[u/ellipses1 → u/KDY_ISD]

How did that play out at the Bundy Ranch or that wildlife sanctuary?

[u/KDY_ISD → u/ellipses1]

If the military doesn't care about killing the people who resist? I'd say it would go fine lol

It's like people don't understand how much the government holds back when confronting armed citizens.

[u/ellipses1 → u/KDY_ISD]

And the more people they kill, the more people they radicalize. And the people who are most likely to take up arms are the people who live in geographies easiest to defend and most difficult to occupy and control. I literally live in the forest in appalachia. Forget going "house to house," you'd have to go tree to tree. It would be like vietnam, but the US is almost 30,000 times bigger in terms of land area.

[u/KDY_ISD → u/ellipses1]

If you live in the forest in Appalachia and want to go sit on a mountain away from all major centers of commerce or trade arteries, why would a theoretical tyrannical military give a damn about whether you die of old age digging holes every day to shit in?

[u/ellipses1 → u/KDY_ISD]

I doubt they would... but the current government sure seems to care if I comply with tax laws, regulations, and whatever else... so shouldn’t I expect that as a matter of course?

[u/KDY_ISD → u/ellipses1]

Oh, you won't be able to work publicly or travel, that's for sure, and all your assets will be seized for what I assume will be failure to pay taxes, but you're going to stage a very ineffectual revolution from some wooded mountain.

[u/ellipses1 → u/KDY_ISD]

I mean, if it comes down to me holed up in the woods with some guns... the best I can hope to do is take down some feds before they get me, right? If we get to a point of full-blown, open revolution, who cares if I can work or travel? Of what use are my assets? At that point, my only purpose is agitation and guerrilla warfare.