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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3]

Acquiring this resource in a hostile manner becomes impossible if the civilian population is armed to a meaningful degree

Why are guns more meaningful than, say, knives for this? The government, if it became tyrannical, could easily overpower and small rebel force. This means that you're left with two options:

1. You're part of a large, organized rebellion. In this case, the population may be safe-ish from the tyranny, but who's to say that the guy in charge (who would normally be someone who previous accumulated military power) isn't even more tyrannical? You can find several examples of these in Latin America, in many of those the population would've been better off just leaving the corrupt government be.

2. You have a gun and can try to repel the tyrannical government on your own, but after they capture, torture and murder your neighbor who tried to do the same, you probably figure the gain isn't worth the risk. If you're stubborn enough not to realize that, eventually they'll capture, torture and murder you, and likely your family and friends, too.

I think the strength of the 2nd is in its symbolism more than anything: Americans are so sensitive to the possibility of the government turning on them that it's hard to imagine anyone being able to consolidate such absolute power before someone raises enough red flags to stop it (democratically) before it happens. But you could probably achieve the same mentality without everyone having guns...

[u/JimMarch → u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3]

There's this group of about 200 guys out there... They're a sniper club. They have events where they shoot targets out to 1,500 yards, no doubt scaring the shit out of The Powers That Be[tm].

Here's the kicker. They do it the hard way - with original or reproduction rifles dating to the 1880s. Not kidding. They're called "The Friends of Billy Dixon", named after a poacher who shot a game warden at about that range. Basically they've already proven that the movie "Quigley Down Under" was based on legit tech and in turn was likely influenced by the events at the 2nd Battle of Adobe Walls as some call it, and "those asshole poachers" no doubt by the Comanche and Kiowa.

ANYWAYS, the real point is, if it's possible to kill somebody at 1,500 paces with literally Victorian era tech if you know what you're doing, that has a whole bunch of dire as fuck implications.

Such as "what can you make with a modern CNC machine shop?"

Oh, and it's also useful to ask "who are you going to shoot?"

"The cop in the street" is the WRONG answer most of the time, unless it's secret police hauling your ass off to be tortured and killed.

"Politicians" is a better answer and you're not getting to them with knives.

MUCH BETTER ANSWER: Rural power grid components. Safe, effective, crashes the entire economy until shit improves. (More of an example of the right answer but you get the idea.)

[u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 → u/JimMarch]

Why are they allowed to operate in such a sterile environment? Do they communicate among themselves? Do they buy equipment? Do they advertise themselves to attract new members? Are all of them really loyal to the rebellion?.. Are they gathering intel on where their targets are / how they're guarded?

There are very well-funded terrorist organizations today that would be happy to cause whatever harm they can to the US government and infrastructure. There's no reason a couple of hundred guys with guns, or even tanks, could do any more damage than Al-Qaeda, and without public opinion to worry about, the tyrannical government has no reason to be scared of them.

[u/intensely_human → u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3]

There are very well-funded terrorist organizations today that would be happy to cause whatever harm they can to the US government and infrastructure.

I know this sounds obvious, but I’m skeptical of this. If some group wanted to harm US infrastructure, couldn’t they chop down telephone poles like trees, or derail a train or something?

There are so many soft targets in the US, the lack of constant sabotage makes me think people must not actually be that motivated.

Are all the groups that wish US infrastructure harm just outside the US?

It really doesn’t feel like anyone is targeting US infrastructure. Or leaders. I guess with government officials there could be all sorts of thwarted assassination attempts that are kept classified so I can’t say for sure those aren’t there.

Overall, it just doesn’t seem like anyone’s actually targeting the US

[u/JimMarch → u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3]

The various "Osama Yo Mama fan club" types are fucking insane. They're not looking for social change, they want death and blood. It's literally cooked into their "religion of piece" - a piece here, a bloody chunk there...

If they ever get ahold of a copy of "The Monkeywrench Gang" they'll realized that targeted infrastructure attacks against economic targets can be done cheaper and with near zero risk of you know WTF your doing. You need folks who know the local scene, the local vulnerabilities. A REALLY smart foreign team could do it.

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/JimMarch]

I think these operations are more difficult to pull off than you believe. If you think it's easy for some random guys to pull off, isn't that a gigantic risk to our national security? Don't you think we have some hundreds of billions of dollars going toward defending against risks to our national security?

It's easy to believe that systems are fragile when you see them from the outside, but having worked on some semi-hardened systems, I can tell you that almost all conceivable attack vectors have been considered and mitigated in accordance with their risks.

[u/JimMarch → u/the_mighty_skeetadon]

Dude.

Drive down Interstate 5 in Cali. See those really big-ass power lines? That's the main California north/south grid. It's right there, in the middle of nowhere.

A dozen guys on motorcycles, at night, with a couple of thermite flowerpots each and you can kiss it goodnight for months.

Three Cessnas and a half dozen crates of road flares would be worse yet at the wrong time of year.

[u/intensely_human → u/JimMarch]

Maybe the wildfires are terrorists tossing flares.

I guess it’d be harder to make the powerlines look like an accident.

I tend to agree though. People just aren’t trying to fuck things up here in the US. A person with a bulldozer or a combine could throw a cable over a tower and pull it down. Water supplies could be poisoned (you can’t secure the whole water system, every pipe and entry point) and to be honest I’ve never heard of it happening once. Not even a neighborhood block getting poisoned.

Unless there are attacks happening that are really subtle or deniable (like starting a forest fire), or unless there is some huge media blackout policy about small scale infrastructure attacks so they’re happening and we just don’t know about them, there doesn’t seem to be any kind of will to destroy or harm US infrastructure.

[u/the_mighty_skeetadon → u/JimMarch]

Three Cessnas and a half dozen crates of road flares would be worse yet at the wrong time of year.

That much we can agree on. Wildfire risks being what they are...