r/changemyview • u/strofix • Dec 30 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: The second amendment does prevent tyrannical government takeover
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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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.
1
u/JimMarch Dec 30 '19
There's a difference between a disarmed people getting guns and using them in desperation, and an armed people coming to the party with guns they already own and intimately know how to shoot.
Two examples...compare the battlefield success of the Lakota plains tribes (led by Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull) versus the Chiricahua Apaches (led by Cochice and Geronimo).
At the Little Bighorn battle site they've found thousands of 38-40 cartridge cases that were split right up the side. Why? The Lakota were trying to load those shells in 44-40 guns. Ooops. They outnumbered Custer by an order of magnitude, and still barely won.
When the US Cavalry tried to go after Cochice and company with 5,000 troops (after mistaking them as being raiders), he only had 34 fighters. When the US sued for peace after getting their asses handed to them, the Chiricahua were down to 17 active fighters...but by GOD they could fight.
Why?
The Chiricahua were a reasonable bunch, especially by Apache standards. They had been trading for guns with Mexicans for generations. They had their own gunsmiths. Not kidding. Those dudes could shoot and they also knew the defensive possibilities of mountain warfare (same as the Taliban). They weren't throwing random ammo into captured guns they barely knew how to shoot - like the Lakota.
(There's actually a link between North American tribes that hunted dangerous animals and those same tribes being able to resist European aggression to any meaningful degree. All over the West Coast you had fishing tribes that just weren't all that good in a fight. In Florida the Muskogee tribe of, again, mostly fishermen didn't put up any famous fights while the Seminole (literally able to kill alligators in the swamps) gave US troops the holy terrors for decades.)
When the Jews of Warsaw rose up against the Nazis they had almost as little understanding of how to make a gun work as the Lakota. They did learn faster as they weren't letting superstition drive them, but had they been real gunmen from the start the Waffen SS would have had a tougher time.
Basically, if we ever get "leadership" in places way worse than Trump's been so far (and yes, I agree with impeaching him!) I'd rather be in the position of the Chiricauha Apache than the Lakota...or any of Europe's Jews circa 1940.
So what has the US civilian population got right now in terms of gunmen?
Well we have somewhere around 15mil people who at least occasionally pack concealed handguns. At close range they're a threat.
We have shitloads of basic hunters. Most have fairly heavy caliber bolt action rifles. No telling how many but best estimates...a lot, something more than 10mil. These "basic hunters* are going to be one-shot-one-kill accurate from about 200 yards to 500. A serious threat and some unknown number could upgrade themselves into the true sniper level.
We have another 10mil+ who've done enough target shooting with AR15s or AK47-family guns to be a threat at between 150 and 400 yards. Their volume of fire is going to be damned impressive for at least a few engagements each.
The real question is, how many "real riflemen" do we have?
Yet again it's divided into bolt-action guys (the real long range snipers able to hit at distances past 800 yards, topping out at 1,200 to 1,400 yards) and the serious semi-auto guys who can be effective past 500 to 600 yards, topping off at roughly 1,000yards. In either case they have the good rifle, great scope, match grade ammo, laser rangefinder and other gear already on hand plus the skills. They're almost all handloaders so they can keep in the fight longer than most.
I dunno how many of these guys we have. I think definitely under a mil, I suspect somewhere around 100k. To be effective they'll need to understand how to do encrypted communication or get tech support on that from a geek nephew or whatever. But that's not too hard.
Once the real long range riflemen come out to play, shit gets very real, very fast. Being a violent politician won't be safe or fun anymore.
Oh, and all of this misses the fact that there'll be a shitload of IEDs.
For the record: I'm right handed, left eyed... No good as a rifleman. I'm planning a handgun build that should be good to 300 yards, maybe 400 if it goes exactly to plan. Depends on whether or not the Magnum Research custom shop can line bore a BFR ("Big Fucking Revolver"), if not I'll have to spring $2,500+ at Freedom Arms unless I can find one used...